|
|
| Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas (7522) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 10 of 14 |
||
|
| (8795) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:05:07 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Dec 23 12:31:19 2004. The Covenant Theology school of thought opines that the Old Covenant has been subsumed in the New. This is at the very root of the claims of Christianity. Some Christian theologians go further and view modern Judaism as blasphemy, but I don't see it as reasonable to go down that road. The fact of the matter is that both Christianity and Judaism claim the Mosaic/Abrahamic heritage for themselves. They both consider eachother defective in this regard. My predilection to one faith or the other is irrelevant. |
|
|
| (8796) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:06:35 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by vengence on Fri Dec 24 16:49:35 2004. It makes perfect sense from a quasi-Platonic notion of physis. |
|
|
| (8797) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:08:57 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Dec 23 15:56:17 2004. No. I say these things about Moses. You say others. Yet there are not two Moseses but one Moses. Likewise we believe in the same God (we would agree that it was he who spoke to Moses on Mt Sinai for instance), but claim radically different things about him. |
|
|
| (8798) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:12:13 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Wed Dec 22 15:35:00 2004. It's not the same God, because God cannot be one and indivisible, and a holy trinity at the same timeQuicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternam peribit. Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam seperantes. Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti: Sed Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coeterna maiestas. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis Spiritus Sanctus. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus Spiritus Sanctus. Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus Spiritus Sanctus. Aeternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus. Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus, et unus immensus. Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens. Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanctus. Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus est Dominus. Quia, sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana veritate compelimur: ita tres Deos aut Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur. Pater a nullo est factus: nec creatus, nec genitus. Filius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens. Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Filius, non tres Filii: unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus: sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales. Ita ut per omnia, sicut iam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat. Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Iesu Christi fideliter credat. Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus et homo est. Deus est ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus: et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus. Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens. Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem. Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus. Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum. Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo: ita Deus et homo unus est Christus. Qui passus est pro salute nostra: descendit ad inferos: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis. Ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis: inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos. Ad cuius adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis: et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem. Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum. Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit. Amen. |
|
|
| (8799) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:14:22 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Dec 23 16:33:05 2004. Futhermore, Trinitarian claims are not based solely upon Paul. Unitarians have HUGE problems with the Gospel according to John. |
|
|
| (8800) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 28 22:16:52 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:08:57 2004. That's exactly what I was trying to say. The two religions claim radically things about the same God. One of the two is wrong about Him (perhaps, if not both). Maybe one of the religions are worshiping on totally deaf "ears", maybe neither are, maybe both are.Are Jews correct? Perhaps, perhaps not. Are Catholics correct in the path they chose? Perhaps, perhaps not. Are they both correct? Probably not, but no one can know for sure. Are they both wrong? Perhaps, the "truth" may be totally different than any human ever imagined. None of us will know until we die, and even then we may not know. There may be more after that, or we may be put in the ground to rot, and that's it. |
|
|
| (8801) | |
Correction in second sentence Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 28 22:18:09 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 28 22:16:52 2004. That's exactly what I was trying to say. The two religions claim radically different things about the same God. One of the two is wrong about Him (perhaps, if not both). Maybe one of the religions are worshiping on totally deaf "ears", maybe neither are, maybe both are.Are Jews correct? Perhaps, perhaps not. Are Catholics correct in the path they chose? Perhaps, perhaps not. Are they both correct? Probably not, but no one can know for sure. Are they both wrong? Perhaps, the "truth" may be totally different than any human ever imagined. None of us will know until we die, and even then we may not know. There may be more after that, or we may be put in the ground to rot, and that's it. |
|
|
| (8802) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:19:36 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Dec 26 18:38:28 2004. My father has always voted Liberal. My mother usually votes Labour. I've always voted Conservative (except once in a by-election where I voted Labour to try and stop the Liberal from winning). |
|
|
| (8803) | |
Sex Pistols Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:31:06 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Dec 24 22:34:49 2004. The Sex Pistols ROCK! Only thy could wreck "My Way" so masterfully... |
|
|
| (8804) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:32:33 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by monorail on Thu Dec 23 19:29:27 2004. Maybe you should ask King Hezekiah. |
|
|
| (8808) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 28 22:40:55 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:05:07 2004. Whether it is explicitly declared as such or not, Judaism and Christianity are each blasphemous to the other. The text of the Jewish Bible as understood by Christianity (any denomination) is not the Jewish Bible as defined by Judaism. |
|
|
| (8809) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:45:36 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 28 10:01:21 2004. What's wrong with learning about one's heritage, even if one does eventually decide it's all bunk? |
|
|
| (8810) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 28 22:49:16 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:08:57 2004. The God of my religion does not have a physical form or anything remotely resembling one. That is one of His primary characteristics -- practically his definition. If you are thinking of somebody who has a physical form, then you are thinking of somebody else.What my God said to Moses at Sinai and what yours said are quite different. No surprise there, or else Christianity and Judaism would be identical. (What my God said to Moses excludes any possibility of what eventually became Christian theology.) I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong. |
|
|
| (8812) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:53:06 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Dec 28 12:31:15 2004. Compare:Deuteronomy 5:21 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife: nor his house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his. Indeed, all these things can be thought of in terms of "argyria" and coveting them in terms of "philargyria". |
|
|
| (8813) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:55:11 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Dec 26 20:42:41 2004. Whereas I'd say you failed to acknowledge the Christ and set up your religion in opposition. Wonderful what spin does, isn't it? |
|
|
| (8814) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:56:51 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Dec 26 20:47:31 2004. The Jews threw out the real Old Testament at Jamnia. |
|
|
| (8816) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 28 22:58:48 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:12:13 2004. Google doesn't do Latin. |
|
|
| (8819) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 23:02:08 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Fri Dec 24 19:35:08 2004. Oh just stick it in March and add 753 to every date! |
|
|
| (8820) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 28 23:02:26 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:55:11 2004. No. My religion set standards in advance that Jesus did not pass. Your religion came later and denied those standards. |
|
|
| (8822) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 28 23:03:42 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:56:51 2004. Are you disagreeing with my point? |
|
|
| (8823) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 23:06:18 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 28 01:10:15 2004. Ah, so "logoi"! |
|
|
| (8824) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 23:07:10 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Dec 26 20:48:18 2004. I'm sure the one about not stealing was applied in Christianity... |
|
|
| (8825) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 23:08:16 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 25 16:24:31 2004. And the Solemnity of Mary is only a Holyday of Obligation in some countries. IIRC it is one in England, but isn't in Scotland. |
|
|
| (8826) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 23:19:43 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Tue Dec 21 15:27:09 2004. I don't understand why people just can't call it the New Year and say Happy New Year like they did in communist states.The Russian Orthodox Church's use of the Julian Calendar has a lot to do with the success of that measure. 25th December OS (the Church's date) is 7th January NS (the Pope of Rome and Lenin's date), so, with everyone getting blotto the week beforehand, Christmas Day is not as big a deal. |
|
|
| (8828) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 28 23:20:35 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 23:06:18 2004. I'll take your word for it, if you'll pardon the pun. |
|
|
| (8829) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 28 23:22:01 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 23:07:10 2004. Which one would that be? The one in the Ten so-called Commandments refers to kidnapping (i.e., theft of people) according to most Jewish commentaries. |
|
|
| (8830) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 23:24:10 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Dec 23 16:40:24 2004. "X" is only the letter chi in certain dialects of Greek. In others, chi is written Ψ (and psi is written ΦΣ). I have horrendous memories of translating a nonsensical inscription about Psalpsis before realising it was Chalchis. |
|
|
| (8831) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 23:28:27 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Wed Dec 22 00:18:00 2004. Piss? You're taking the piss, right? I mean, if that word's banned, I couldn't record a tape of such scandalous works as, errrr, the Bible:1 Samuel 25:22 So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that [pertain] to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. 1 Samuel 25:34 For in very deed, [as] the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. 1 Kings 14:10 Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, [and] him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone. 1 Kings 16:11 And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, [that] he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends. 1 Kings 21:21 Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, 2 Kings 9:8 For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel: 2 Kings 18:27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? [hath he] not [sent me] to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? Isaiah 36:12 But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? [hath he] not [sent me] to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? |
|
|
| (8832) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 23:33:05 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by American Pig on Fri Dec 24 18:32:49 2004. Religious governments are great, they include such great nations as Spain during the Inquisition, the Papal States, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Talibanic Afghanistan.And in the civilised world, modern Britain, Spain, effectively Greece... |
|
|
| (8834) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 29 00:03:52 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Dec 26 19:17:56 2004. I don't see it as offensive (apart from being forced to listen to "Stop the Cavalry" twenty times a day), but I don't see any real relationship between the commercial Christmas and the Christian Christmas. |
|
|
| (8835) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 29 00:06:15 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 21:51:29 2004. The seculiberalists would eliminate any mention in the history books and literature of anything that had to do with religion.That would make teaching the French Wars of Religion a little difficult. |
|
|
| (8836) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Dec 29 00:10:00 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 29 00:03:52 2004. Thank you, that's exactly my point - it's two two seperate Christmases.(and no, I'm not offended either). |
|
|
| (8839) | |
Re: Crusades |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 29 00:14:21 2004, in response to Re: Crusades, posted by daDouce Man on Fri Dec 24 22:22:02 2004. What is clear is that Richard I didn't give a feck about England. |
|
|
| (8840) | |
Re: Crusades |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 29 00:15:18 2004, in response to Re: Crusades, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:06:02 2004. and "crusading" is something that Christ never commanded, in the writings.But his Vicar did, if you believe that sort of thing. |
|
|
| (8841) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 29 00:17:08 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 26 13:13:53 2004. Better still, could I stage a parade for whites? |
|
|
| (8842) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 29 00:18:15 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Dec 26 13:48:24 2004. That's offensive to all all other cultures, and Italians that are not Catholic!When was the last time you met an Italian who wasn't (at least nominally) Catholic? |
|
|
| (8843) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 29 00:19:54 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Sun Dec 26 14:03:55 2004. not only because it's impossible to go crosstown.42nd St shittle? |
|
|
| (8846) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Dec 29 00:33:05 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:32:33 2004. what's his number? |
|
|
| (8847) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Dec 29 00:38:00 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 29 00:17:08 2004. if the city issues you a permit. |
|
|
| (8851) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Wed Dec 29 02:00:12 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 29 00:19:54 2004. So now I have to pay $2 to do something I could otherwise do for free?If people want to have parades in Manhattan, let them have them inside Central Park, on the Park Drives, or on Riverside Drive. |
|
|
| (8860) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Wed Dec 29 06:13:41 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 29 00:03:52 2004. They occur on the same date, for one thing. |
|
|
| (8861) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Wed Dec 29 06:16:08 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 29 00:19:54 2004. I once got stuck behind a 5th Avenue parade on an M14 bus on a weekend when the L wasn't running between Union Square and 8th Avenue due to a planned GO.Poor planning. |
|
|
| (8862) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Dec 29 08:00:43 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Dec 29 00:18:15 2004. Of course I was being sarcastic, but heh, it is a pretty accurate description of "Italian". |
|
|
| (8863) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Dec 29 08:06:28 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Dec 29 06:13:41 2004. Well that is certainly correct, but that's about where it ends. |
|
|
| (8882) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 29 10:33:10 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by David of Broadway on Tue Dec 28 22:49:16 2004.  The God of my religion does not have a physical form or anything remotely resembling one. As far as I know, only the Hindus have images of their God. And those are rather fantastic. If God is all Powerful, then It seems within his realm of power to appear to the faithful in whatever mode or body he chose. Catholics believe that God is present in the Eucharist under the form of Bread and Wine. We also believe that God is present in the Word. Have you seen an Angel? Yet Judiasim does believe that Angels have appeared to men. Have you heard a Prophet? Do Prophets still exist on Earth. Islam says the Mohammad was the last Prophet. Have you heard of the five blind men who touched and elephant, and then tried to describe that elephant to the ohters. Each one of them possessed a piece of the truth, but none had seen the whole elephant, or could describe him correctly. You, We, Us are blind, and God has not stood before us. We each have touched God, felt his warmth, his strenght, his love, his wisdom, but none of us can posess the whole of God or describe him correctly. Be content with that which God has given to you. If you want to know more, it does not hurt to study the other great religions of the world, for they too own a peice of the truth. Christianity understands itself as a branch from Judiasm: A Shoot from the Stump of Jessie. Islam understands itself as an extension of both Judiasm and Christianity. Buddhism agrees with you: "If you see God walking down the street, take a bat and kill him." For that was not God. Like human DNA, we are far more alike than we are different. Indeed, Hemoglobin is only 5 atoms off from Chlorophyll. On the other hand, I must say that I am mighitly impressed with the Hebrew and Jewish scholarship shown in these threads, and that I do want to study some of this more seriously. Elias |
|
|
| (8883) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Anon_e_mouse on Wed Dec 29 10:36:24 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 23:33:05 2004. And in the civilised world, modern Britain, Spain, effectively Greece...And pray tell exactly what is civilized about those countries? The British monarchy is the laughingstock of Western Europe, Spain isn't much better, and the Greeks... don't get me started. Until next time... Anon_e_mouse |
|
|
| (8884) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Wed Dec 29 10:36:30 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 29 10:33:10 2004. Elias:I must say that I am mightily impressed with the level of scientific scholarship shown in your posts, and that I do want to study some of your points more seriously. |
|
|
| (8885) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 29 10:40:12 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Dec 28 22:12:13 2004. It's not the same God, because God cannot be one and indivisible, and a holy trinity at the same time But that is *exactly* what we believe. |
|
|
| (8886) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 29 10:51:07 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Dec 26 18:46:29 2004. That is a conflict, and where the path diverged after Jesus, just as Muslims followed a different path after Mohammad a few centuries later. And by the way, Early Chrisendom split east and west over a few issues, and later Protestants made other diversions. We do not dissown other Christians or even Protestants. We have differences, some small, others great. The essentials are fairly universal, but even that is not always so. |
|
|
| (8887) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 29 10:57:32 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Dec 26 20:47:31 2004. Christianity threw out Judaism and started over again, with a Bible that is only superficially similar to the Jewish Bible. It is not taken from Judaism. Biblical studies and especially the preservation of documents was a high science in those days. Early Christian writers have tried to get the best possible translations of the Old Testament into Latin that they could. The result was the Septuagint, which is remarkably similar to the Qumran Scrolls. Obviously they were cut off from later developments and understandings of Hebrew Scripture. While early apostles and followers of Christ were Jews, and already understood the Old Testament later followers were not as well versed, and when they went back to look for these things the primary texts were no longer available to them. |
|
|
|
Page 10 of 14 |
||