Life After Death

April 15, 2004

Hi Simon

I'm not sure Jesus was a pacifist. He seemed to be pretty passionate about his beliefs and was known to get cross and confrontational. He sometimes behaved as a pacifist - much like the rest of us.

BBJo

It seems from the little info I have on Jesus he was a fine example of pacifism in his actions and his teachings.It also seems he was confronted more than he was confronting.

April 15, 2004

peter,

I have avoided getting into this conversation till nowbut your comment that

>>>

The Bible doesn't say that we should be vegans - that is a very modern interpretation of the English translation of the Bible. The Bible says that we should eat plants - it doesn't say that we *shouldn't* eat animals. That is an inference you have drawn from what is said, and comes purely from a 21st century ethical standpoint which simply didn't exist at the time the Genesis stories were written... perhaps you could come up with some examples of vegetarians anywhere in the world prior to 600 BCE?

the bible quite clearly says we shouldn't eat certain Animals

and in India their whole culture going back to 3000 bce or more is based on Veganism

the story of Manu (their Noah) collected all the seeds of all the plants prior to the flood

I have all my source material locked away at the moment but I would like to further this conversation with you at a later date

I think that prior to the great flood man was mostly vegetarian

it was the ravaged world that force him to eat the animals he use to love and care for

anyway give me a week or to to unpack then I will expand on these points with some reading references

all the best

Craig

Peter [metalscarab]Friday, April 16, 2004 6:17 AM Subject: Re: Re: Life After Death

Hi Simon

> It seems from the little info I have on Jesus he was a fine example of pacifism in his actions and his teachings.It also seems he was confronted more than he

> was confronting.

What, like the incident in the Temple where he upturned tables?

> I think the claim that Jesus was an Essene is very dodgy. If he was an Essene, though, fish would have been a major part of his diet.

> I think the claim that he was a meat-eater is more dodgier. Compassion like that just doesn't come from meat-eaters.

I think, since we're discussing an historical character, if you're going to make claims that he was a vegetarian and an Essene, you really need to provide some serious evidence rather than coming up with generalisations - considering the time and society he lived in, the scriptural evidence (partaking of the passover lamb, sharing out loaves and fishes, etc.), the evidence is very much stacked up against him being either Essene or vegetarian.

> I've been putting myself in the mind set of the writer/writers of the sixth day in the " Sixth Day Creation" for some time now. God/Good, He/She/ they whoever....saw it

> important that humans and animals should be vegans. Does that not say anything to you about the mind set of those times?

The Bible doesn't say that we should be vegans - that is a very modern interpretation of the English translation of the Bible. The Bible says that we should eat plants - it doesn't say that we *shouldn't* eat animals. That is an inference you have drawn from what is said, and comes purely from a 21st century ethical standpoint which simply didn't exist at the time the Genesis stories were written... perhaps you could come up with some examples of vegetarians anywhere in the world prior to 600 BCE?

BB

PeterTo send an email to -

April 16, 2004

Simon,

the term

sacrifice a lamb

could also mean that we are starving to death the crops aren't ready to harvest yet

we need food now

the world was ravaged by flood we saved our flocks we saved our seeds

but we didn't save enough food

but once you start down the road of flesh eating where do you stop?

only a thought

Craig

simonpjones [simonpjones]Friday, April 16, 2004 5:00 AM Subject: Re: Re: Life After Death

-

Peter

Thursday, April 15, 2004 7:32 PM

Re: Re: Life After Death

Hi Peter

> Yes but it seems they didn't go and challenge the false teachings of the religious leaders around them in such a way as Jesus did>>>>>>>>

No - they were pacifists who believed that the way to enlightenment was not through confrontation.>

It seems from the little info I have on Jesus he was a fine example of pacifism in his actions and his teachings.It also seems he was confronted more than he was confronting.

> Jesus is reputed to have been from the "Essene Jews" which would have had no part in passover lamb.

I think the claim that Jesus was an Essene is very dodgy. If he was an Essene, though, fish would have been a major part of his diet.

I think the claim that he was a meat-eater is more dodgier. Compassion like that just doesn't come from meat-eaters.

> Anyhow....there had to be Knowledge and practicing veggie Jews around for a long time before Jesus's arrival..as the " Vegan Diet" is the essence of the "Six Day

> Creation".>

I think it's necessary to put ourselves in the mind-set of people living 2000+ years ago if we are going to try to understand how they lived. There were a few, very rare, examples of vegetarians, but looking at the development of the Jewish religion, there is no reason to suspect that they interpreted the scriptures in that way - before the exile, they regularly practiced animal sacrifice - the only reason that stopped was because it was forbidden to perform sacrifice anywhere other than at the Temple. I don't really think people who sacrifice animals (and, according to Deutoronomy, this is a required practice) would be too worried about eating a lamb chop.>

I've been putting myself in the mind set of the writer/writers of the sixth day in the " Sixth Day Creation" for some time now. God/Good, He/She/ they whoever....saw it important that humans and animals should be vegans. Does that not say anything to you about the mind set of those times?

Simon

BB

PeterTo send an email to - To send an email to -

April 16, 2004

Your claim that faith is a science, is terribly erronious. The point

of SCIENCE is to make NO assumption to learn by observation and to

prove by testing the observation. You make NO observation you ASSUME

a thing to be and build a circumstantial arguement to support it.

THAT is NOT SCIENCE its FAITH which is the beliefe in the unprovable.

See when scientist realize that something they used to believe is

most likely not they stop believing it and tell other what they

found. Tell the Faithful that something is false and you, at the

very least get, ignored.

What you fail to realize is that no one here doubts the possibaility

that what you are saying MIGHT hold some truth, what you also fail to

see is that what we might believe is equally possibly true.

David

, ioannis Tsoucas <itsoucas>

wrote:

> 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 -

>

April 16, 2004

Take heart, Work ;-D

I wouldn't consider it preaching it just that they believe these

quotations from the bible to be undisputable fact in the same way

that we belive absolute zero to be the point at which all motion

stops it just that they haven't approaced they're claimed fact

scientifically and held them to the crusible of experementation.

Consider thier quoting scripture thier version of recieting physical

equasions such as E=MC2, short sweet and every on educated in physics

knows that it's the root of the moder phylosophy on the nature of the

universe. It kinda like say " God said let there be light and thier

was and he saw that it was good and he seperated the light from the

darkness and called the light day and the darkness night... Hey I

didn't know God spoke english that Moses must have been a pretty

smart cananite to right everything in a language that wouldn't be

intellegable for another 5 thousand years.

They take the bible handed to the by the Roman catholic church

possibly by way of King jmaes of England to be the " Gosple " .

Undisputable, and it' my estimation that the NIV is just a re-write

of the KJV in modern AMERICAN english not very international if ya

ask me and certainly nothing new. Most modern non-christians

arhaologist, as I've said before question Jesus, existance as an

individual, the histroical theory most favorable to he's existance

only has him as the leader of an up-start band of religious

reactionaries fromally know as the Macabees, trying to wrestle

control of the kingdom away from the Roman-loving progressives. In

essence they were the anti-globalists of thier day, and rome was the

EU or UN of its day the diff is that EU atleast uses economic presure

to bring ajacent " kingdom " under control bacause military conquest

has become unfashionable to the western world, with the exception of

the US of coure <I'm an American>, who's current leader longs for the

good ol' days when you could shoot first and ask questions only if

some one griped. But anyway.

, " Heartwork " <Heartwork@o...> wrote:

> I wish they didn't preach.

>

> Jo

>

> , formerly disciples, have received the Holy Spirit and at the

same day have started to preach to the public in Jerusalem. They were

able to preach in all the various languages

April 16, 2004

Sorry bud don't agree flying machines were a matter of slow

methodical trial and error as was the moon, that is Sciece. Faith

would have been some guy strapping himself to a ten sorry fire

cracker and lighting the fuse knowing for sure he was going to make

to the moon even thoug he had no previous gounds on which to base his

accertian. See the astronots had no faith that's why most systems in

space craft are double and triple redundances because they don't even

trust good science completely. Grant the guy on the ten story rocket

might be right by share dumb luck and in fact some of human

advacement is made that way be they allway s back track and figure

out why they were so luck because they don't even trust luck.

Science say, " Beware of greeks baring gifts. " Faith say " Don't look

a gift horse in the mouth. "

, " 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 -

>

> --

----------

>

April 16, 2004

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....

, " 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 -

>

> --

----------

>

April 16, 2004

Medical science measure everything against the placibo effect and a

treatment must show a significant benefit factor over the palcibo

effect to be cleard as a proceedure. First protion of the

hippocratic oath " Do no harm " , if you doing worse than sugre pills

you doing damage...

Also there is the power of positive thinking there is even an opposit

to this its called the self fulfilling profecy, patients who are

given grim prognosis tend to fair worse reguardless of there

condition than those given a positive one. If you know that people

are " wishing you well " you have more motivation to recove than if no

one give if you croack tomorrow.

, " Peter " <metalscarab@o...> wrote:

> HI Simon

>

> I have read several accounts of research into the power of prayer.

In one, a group of people was asked to pray for one group of hospital

patients. All factors taken into account, there was a success rate

25% higher in the prayed for group. The same applies to other forms

of 'intent', not just praying. It's very interesting.

>

> Jo

>

> 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.

April 16, 2004

> I think the claim that he was a meat-eater is more dodgier.

Compassion like that just doesn't come from meat-eaters.

Gonna have to call ya on the Dogma. Compassion can be compartmental

a person can be a completely humanistic compassion and eat-meat.

With no regard for non-human life matter of fact thats what informs

most modern laws and religions for that matter.

> I've been putting myself in the mind set of the writer/writers of

the sixth day in the " Sixth Day Creation " for some time now.

God/Good, He/She/ they whoever....saw it important that humans and

animals should be vegans. Does that not say anything to you about the

mind set of those times?

The " writer(s) " of the sixth day creation were mosaic jews who

followed mosaic laws which required them to sacrifice lambs to GOD

for atonment. You mind set informed with as Peter put it 21 century

ethics. And we've already establish that with current theories man

was in no wise created on the 6th day of the Universes existance.

Unless you write of modern laws of physics and the very

solid " theory " of evolution.

April 16, 2004

Hi Craig

> the bible quite clearly says we shouldn't eat certain Animals

Indeed - hence the Jewish term Kosher. But Jews aren't vegetarian because the Bible doesn't proscribe the eating of all animals, just certain species.

> and in India their whole culture going back to 3000 bce or more is based on Veganism

That's dubious, as we don't know the culture of India that far back. 3000 BCE, we only know the cultures of Sumer and (arguably) Egypt, although even details of Egyptian daily life don't go back that far.

> I think that prior to the great flood man was mostly vegetarian

Certainly the earliest known human bodies indicate traces of a vegetarian diet, so no argument there.

BB

Peter

April 16, 2004

Hi David

> Medical science measure everything against the placibo effect and a

> treatment must show a significant benefit factor over the palcibo

> effect to be cleard as a proceedure. First protion of the

> hippocratic oath " Do no harm " , if you doing worse than sugre pills

> you doing damage...

Of course, that particular method has proved to be a bit of a problem...

because people taking placebos *believe* they are being given medicine, and

therefore their mind power in fact helps to improve their condition, despite

the fact that what they are taking is useless, so the " control " isn't a true

control.

BB

Peter

April 16, 2004

Is science a faith. it seems so sometimes when theories that are treated as fact

the concept behind science is to be so formulaic and certain as to refer to everything not absolutely able to be proven (even if it's so supported by evidence and logic as to be called to question by no one) a "theory." to advance our knowledge, those theories must be used because they're the best we have (by the time a supposition reaches "theory" status, though, it's all but undeniable) until they can be disproven. for example, the theory of evolution-- if science weren't using this as fact, it would entirely thwart our classification system and everything we know (factually) about organisms and their environments. where would medicine be without the implementation of theory? when all known facts point to one single, strong "guess," as is the case with scientific theory, it's more than faith, it's deduction. ~~brii

>"simonpjones" <simonpjones > > >Re: Re: Life After Death >Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:55:55 +0100 > > > - > 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> > > . > Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security.

April 17, 2004

Of course, that particular method has proved to be a bit of a problem...

>because people taking placebos *believe* they are being given medicine, and

>therefore their mind power in fact helps to improve their condition, despite

>the fact that what they are taking is useless, so the "control" isn't a true

>control.

that's how they're able to test the effects of the drug; that mind power is present in both groups(those with sugar pills and with actual drugs), thus allowing testers to see if their drug provides any benefit which excels just a somatoform recovery. ~~brii

>"Peter" <metalscarab > > >Re: Re: Life After Death >Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:33:21 +0100 > >Hi David > > > Medical science measure everything against the placibo effect and a > > treatment must show a significant benefit factor over the palcibo > > effect to be cleard as a proceedure. First protion of the > > hippocratic oath "Do no harm", if you doing worse than sugre pills > > you doing damage... > >Of course, that particular method has proved to be a bit of a problem... >because people taking placebos *believe* they are being given medicine, and >therefore their mind power in fact helps to improve their condition, despite >the fact that what they are taking is useless, so the "control" isn't a true >control. > >BB >Peter > FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!

April 17, 2004

I think it's unlikely that Jesus would have been vegetarian - it would have been very unusual in the culture in which he lived, particularly for a Jew who would have indulged in Jewish feasts at which meat (the passover lamb for instance) is an integral part. I think you're trying to ascribe a 21st century morality to someone living in a time and place where morality was completely different.

it's a pity that, between then and now, that lamb wouldn't feel any differently about being eaten.

>"Peter" <metalscarab > > >Re: Re: Life After Death >Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:15:49 +0100 > >Hi Simon > > > 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. > >Pythagoras, Buddha... > > > 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. > >I think it's unlikely that Jesus would have been vegetarian - it would have been very unusual in the culture in which he lived, particularly for a Jew who would have indulged in Jewish feasts at which meat (the passover lamb for instance) is an integral part. I think you're trying to ascribe a 21st century morality to someone living in a time and place where morality was completely different. > >BB >Peter Check out MSN PC Safety Security to help ensure your PC is protected and safe.

April 17, 2004

The most important ( in my opinion) statement/advice/realisation for humans is written in the 6th day of the "Sixth Day Creation " in that little old book. It's clearly stating that veganism/raw-foodism for humans/ animals species is the way to live. The writer's/writers intention was and still is ahead of it's time for the most part, as try telling most people these days carnivores and omnnivore should be on a plant based diet.

I believe there was a strong vegetarian/vegan movement around then..but suffered the persecutions of the day, Buddism,Hindism, Essenes and other Vegetarians were around. Diet is an important part of Morality, and vice versa.

fartybriivismeisteranushead ta-da!

Saturday, April 17, 2004 8:45 AM

Re: Re: Life After Death

I think it's unlikely that Jesus would have been vegetarian - it would have been very unusual in the culture in which he lived, particularly for a Jew who would have indulged in Jewish feasts at which meat (the passover lamb for instance) is an integral part. I think you're trying to ascribe a 21st century morality to someone living in a time and place where morality was completely different.

it's a pity that, between then and now, that lamb wouldn't feel any differently about being eaten.

>"Peter" <metalscarab > > >Re: Re: Life After Death >Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:15:49 +0100 > >Hi Simon > > > 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. > >Pythagoras, Buddha... > > > 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. > >I think it's unlikely that Jesus would have been vegetarian - it would have been very unusual in the culture in which he lived, particularly for a Jew who would have indulged in Jewish feasts at which meat (the passover lamb for instance) is an integral part. I think you're trying to ascribe a 21st century morality to someone living in a time and place where morality was completely different. > >BB >Peter

Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and safe. To send an email to -

April 17, 2004

-

" David Brown " <quickformgreen

Friday, April 16, 2004 1:29 PM

Re: Life After Death

> Take heart, Work ;-D

>

> I wouldn't consider it preaching it just that they believe these

> quotations from the bible to be undisputable fact in the same way

> that we belive absolute zero to be the point at which all motion

> stops it just that they haven't approaced they're claimed fact

> scientifically and held them to the crusible of experementation

>

> Consider thier quoting scripture thier version of recieting physical

> equasions such as E=MC2, short sweet and every on educated in physics

> knows that it's the root of the moder phylosophy on the nature of the

> universe.

God = Good = Life.

No God = Subjected Good = Death ie argument for Mass murdering being a good

thing.

Any Good that you can think of has already been attibuted to a God..and

recorded in books.

I think it would me naive of me to start believing I was of the highest

wisest intelligence in the universe...wiser than that that brought about my

being. I find it hard to believe we came from unintelligent matter.

It kinda like say " God said let there be light and thier

> was and he saw that it was good and he seperated the light from the

> darkness and called the light day and the darkness night... Hey I

> didn't know God spoke english that Moses must have been a pretty

> smart cananite to right everything in a language that wouldn't be

> intellegable for another 5 thousand years.

>

> They take the bible handed to the by the Roman catholic church

> possibly by way of King jmaes of England to be the " Gosple " .

> Undisputable, and it' my estimation that the NIV is just a re-write

> of the KJV in modern AMERICAN english not very international if ya

> ask me and certainly nothing new. Most modern non-christians

> arhaologist, as I've said before question Jesus, existance as an

> individual, the histroical theory most favorable to he's existance

> only has him as the leader of an up-start band of religious

> reactionaries fromally know as the Macabees, trying to wrestle

> control of the kingdom away from the Roman-loving progressives. In

> essence they were the anti-globalists of thier day, and rome was the

> EU or UN of its day the diff is that EU atleast uses economic presure

> to bring ajacent " kingdom " under control bacause military conquest

> has become unfashionable to the western world, with the exception of

> the US of coure <I'm an American>, who's current leader longs for the

> good ol' days when you could shoot first and ask questions only if

> some one griped. But anyway.

>

> , " Heartwork " <Heartwork@o...> wrote:

> > I wish they didn't preach.

> >

> > Jo

> >

> > , formerly disciples, have received the Holy Spirit and at the

> same day have started to preach to the public in Jerusalem. They were

> able to preach in all the various languages

>

> To send an email to -

>

April 17, 2004

HI David

> Take heart, Work ;-D

:-)

I have no argument with anybody believing the Bible to be undisputable, I

just think that they should be happy with that faith. There should be no

need for them to preach unless asked by someone.

Jo

>

> I wouldn't consider it preaching it just that they believe these

> quotations from the bible to be undisputable fact in the same way

> that we belive absolute zero to be the point at which all motion

> stops it just that they haven't approaced they're claimed fact

> scientifically and held them to the crusible of experementation.

>

> Consider thier quoting scripture thier version of recieting physical

> equasions such as E=MC2, short sweet and every on educated in physics

> knows that it's the root of the moder phylosophy on the nature of the

> universe. It kinda like say " God said let there be light and thier