This is topic Separation of Church and State, part whatever in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/1228.html

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
Thou Shalt not worship Godly objects....
 

---

Posted by djewell (Member # 1111) on :
 
Don't get me started. They are hypocrites! Their religous views are none, and they are imposing that view upon the state of Alabama. Also, if it were a picture of the Koran, do you think it would be ordered to be removed? If it were a line from the Book of Mormon do you think it would be ordered to be removed?
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
The ten commandments have historical as well as religious significance. They are, or at least can be, a symbol of law in general. Frankly, I wouldn't have a problem with a fitting quote from the book of Mormon either.

However, this particular judge's reasons for putting the monument there are a violation of the seperation of church and state as it has been interpreted. Of course, the first ammendment doesn't say anything about what state governments can do in that area of things, so it's really not a federal matter to handle it.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I totally agree with that Judge!
I say alienate all non-christians!
How dare they expect to arrive at a federal building expecting us not to rub our pompass, self-rightous religion in their faces?
I mean, what the hell were they thinking, that they were equal regardless of their religous background?
Nonsense!
I say they should be forced to wear a cross if they want to enter a federal courthouse!
The nerve of some people.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
If you think Christianity is either pompass or self-righteous, you don't know much about Christianity.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Tell it to all those it's harrased, intimidated, forcibly converted and generally fucked with.
"Christianity" includes all it's kooky derivitives: baptists, catholics, prodastants, mormons and assorted nutjobs and pedophiles.
"Pompass and self rightous" describes the church to a tee....pass the collection plate, brother.
You're thinking of the ideal of christianity wherein people judge not and turn the other cheek....but that sure never happens.
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Here we go again...
 

---

Posted by djewell (Member # 1111) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Tell it to all those it's harrased, intimidated, forcibly converted and generally fucked with.
"Christianity" includes all it's kooky derivitives: baptists, catholics, prodastants, mormons and assorted nutjobs and pedophiles.
"Pompass and self rightous" describes the church to a tee....pass the collection plate, brother.
You're thinking of the ideal of christianity wherein people judge not and turn the other cheek....but that sure never happens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by djewell:
I don't think you've made enough of an effort to understand the Christian Church.

---

Heh, which one?
 

---

Posted by djewell (Member # 1111) on :
 
The universal one, mucus.

Cartmaniac, you should have read the whole sentence: Individuals in history who have claimed to be christians while not following Christian beliefs.

Never extrapolate meaning without first knowing the whole statement.
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
Pompous.
 

---

Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
 
Anyone can claim to be a True Christian. Omega does. He also claims to follow True Christian beliefs. But you know what? People don't believe him. Because the beliefs that he holds are, shall we say, aberrant. Whenever Omega raises the True vs. False Christians issue, he is told this. It doesn't register with him. Thus here we are.

So before you throw your self-righteous tantrum about not extrapolating meaning without first knowing the whole statement, you'd do good to take your own advice and maybe, just maybe, read the whole sentence.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Anyone can claim to be a True Christian. Omega does.

Why is this about me, suddenly?
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
You're thinking of the ideal of christianity wherein people judge not and turn the other cheek....but that sure never happens.

No, I'm thinking of Christianity, which is a religious belief, a way to live one's life. You're thinking of individual people in history who have claimed to be Christians without actually following Christian beliefs. Those people are NOT Christianity, nor is any group of people. Christianity is a way of life, and it's no more accurate to call it a religion of harrasment and self-righteousness than it is to call Islam a religion of terrorism and slaughter of innocents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by djewell:
The universal one, mucus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by djewell:
The universal one, mucus.

---

What, did we just step into a weird parallel universe where the Reformation didn't happen?

---

We are united as one universal church because some of us are faithful enough to see beyond denominational differences that divide us. I came here to post in a Trek Forum. I'm not getting into this again.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
I fail to see the logic in making religion a foundation of any country.

Depends on how you go about it. I'd say that if you were gonna make Christianity the foundation of any country, since Christianity is based on love you'd have to do whatever you could to accomidate everyone's religion, except where it harms someone else. Making people hate you by making them go through irrelevant motions would just be stupid if you're trying to change their mind, now wouldn't it? But, *shrug*.

So, legally, he should have to take it down whether Washington tells him to, or not.

See, this is one reason the court system is kinda screwy. Given the stance that the Supreme Court of whatever state (including the US) is the ultimate arbiter of the laws of that state, you can get into situations where that court does illegal things, and nobody can override them. The Florida Supreme Court rewriting election laws three years ago, for a more dangerous example. In that case their new laws violated the US Constitution, and the US Supreme Court was right to intervene, but such situations are still very dangerous. I suppose you just have to hope that all judges are, in fact, wise and enlightened. What we REALLY need is a system where no humans are involved at all.

I think you could (generously) stretch that statement to mean that every religion doesn't hav an eqivelent, such as "I am the (insert appicable deity), you shall have no other (non-applicable deities) before me/us".

Polytheistic religions?

I do believe that the Bible has a verse that says somehting to the idea of not letting a witch suffer to live.

Okay, no offense, but I'm REALLY tired of this kind of argument. The Bible is NOT one frelling huge list of rules, cover to cover, talking directly to the reader. It's a record of what people have said and done at various points in history. Just because there's a record of someone, even if it's God, saying the words "Kill all the witches" doesn't mean WE, NOW are supposed to kill all witches. Context is everything. That verse, for example, is in the Old Testament, it's God talking to the Jews IIRC. Since I'm NOT a Jew, I'm not required to follow that rule, any more than I'm required to go celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem every year. He wasn't talking to me.

We are united as one universal church because some of us are faithful enough to see beyond denominational differences that divide us.

Oh, yay, it's not just me!

I think the confusion may be stemming from the fact that Catholic means "Universal", which it was until the Reformation. Saying the "universal church" can thus be vague.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
The Bible is NOT one frelling huge list of rules, cover to cover

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Just because there's a record of someone, even if it's God, saying the words "Kill all the witches" doesn't mean WE, NOW are supposed to kill all witches. Context is everything. That verse, for example, is in the Old Testament, it's God talking to the Jews IIRC. Since I'm NOT a Jew, I'm not required to follow that rule, any more than I'm required to go celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem every year. He wasn't talking to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Just because there's a record of someone, even if it's God, saying the words "Kill all the witches" doesn't mean WE, NOW are supposed to kill all witches. Context is everything. That verse, for example, is in the Old Testament, it's God talking to the Jews IIRC. Since I'm NOT a Jew, I'm not required to follow that rule, any more than I'm required to go celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem every year. He wasn't talking to me.

---

So Christians are ready to drop all that nonsense about homosexuals, too? Cause the OT's where THAT'S from, too. JC said diddly-squat about it.

---

quote:

---

You're thinking of individual people in history who have claimed to be Christians without actually following Christian beliefs. Those people are NOT Christianity, nor is any group of people.

---

quote:

---

We are united as one universal church...

---

*ploink*
 

---

Posted by djewell (Member # 1111) on :
 
Point taken. I now make argument 1.1: Some of us still believe in the idea of a universal church. Others of us like to be narrow minded. But we are not united.

I'm not going to post in this thread anymore, it makes my blood pressure go up.
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
Heartbroken.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Well that's the last of the zealotry for this thread then.

Now back to the post's topic (already in progress).

So who else thinks this is only a publicity gimmic to garner support and make this judge a household name for when he runs for higher office?

I'd love to see him disbarred for judicial misconduct ad have to step down.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"I have a right to my beliefs and you have no right to tell me that its wrong."

The hell I don't. Your religion is wrong. Now, I'll sit back and wait to see if I get arrested for that. You can hold your breath if you like, but I don't recommend it.

As for the "god hates fags, but Jesus doesn't" arguement... I'm afraid Omega's gay-bashing religion-mates can get past you on that one. Even if they chuck the OT, the letters of Paul still say the man-train is no good. Of course, they also say women can't talk in church, so go figure.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
It's a religion what worships a guy that never scored, had no job and was best pals with a hooker.
I think Jesus was gay.
Paul was a jilted suitor and wrote all that gay bashing stuff in revenge.
It's all written in some of those non-canon books of the bible.
The New Testament? One long tale of cock-rockin' in the holy land.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
EDGY!
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
Oh good. Religion.

quote:

---

Some of us still believe in the idea of a universal church.

---

Oh, come on; even individuals and groups within the same deniminations disagree and argue with each other!! Just all convert to Anglicanism; no convictions, no hassle!!

Seriously though, the Ten Commandments are not appropriate outside an American courthouse. Why? Because their display may be interpreted by some as support for Christianity by the state. It may not have been intended that way but it could certainly be interpreted that way.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
It's a religion what worships a guy that never scored, had no job and was best pals with a hooker.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
It's a religion what worships a guy that never scored, had no job and was best pals with a hooker.

---

First, super English use to the max. Second, where'd you get the idea that he never scored. The bible makes a big deal out of Mary's virginicity (which sounds like a funky mineral water, if you ask me), but nowhere does it say that Jesus never did the penis thrust with woman creature. I always thought he was doing it with Mary Magdeline.

---

That would have been a BIIIG sin by Jewish standards of the time (and yes, he was jewish: all his followers were too, just a radical sect of Judism).
So, while it's certainly possible Jesus was hookin' up with MM, it's never mentioned or even alluded to.
So the modern version of Jesus (the one worshipped on a pedastal) is still a virgin.

It's a creepy religon any way you look at it: many fertiliy icons and statues of naked preagnant dieties were destroyed by the church as pagan and replaced with crucifix's depicting the horrible tortured death of their man/god.
Not exactly life-affirming is it?
Should'nt they have come up with some other icon depicting his rebirth or something?
 

---

Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 
Since he was the way and the light, I wonder if he ever offered MM the Photon Torpedo?
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
A disruptor cannon of salvation?
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Omega, I just remembered seeing such a verse, and, I thought, who would be better qualifies than you to place said verse in to it's time frame and placement in the Bible.

None else than you of course.

And thank you for filling in the blanks for me.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Just for the record, the bible doesn't say anywhere that Jesus was never married.

And, come to think of it, if Jesus hadn't been married, then, when Paul wrote his little "the world is ending soon, so you single people should stay single like I am" rant, shouldn't he have used Jesus as an example, rather than himself?
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Yeah, after his wife totally fucked him over in the divorce settlement, he was reduced to working in his pseudo-dad's carpentry shop.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Well, he would've gotten lots of practice with nails then...
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Either that, or he could have unionised the crucifixion business. Might have saved himself some problems down the line. . .

"Uh-uh. No way, pal. Ain't nobody nailin' up a member of Jerusalem Local 249!"
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
Y'know, it's probably a good thing that blasphemy laws don't apply to the internet.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
*L*

Sorry if I got a little agitated, Ritten. I can never quite tell around here when people are asking questions to gain information and when they're asking questions to be asses.

Oh, and to answer Liam from a few posts back (which I TRIED to do yesterday, dumb school network...), I'm saying that the Old Testament law does not apply to Christians, in that we are't obligated to stone witches or homosexuals or adulterers or what have you. But we can still learn from the fact that God doesn't seem to like those actions very much, and we can assume THAT hasn't changed. We shouldn't stone adulterers, because that command wasn't given to us, but adultery is still a Bad Thing.

Just for the record, the bible doesn't say anywhere that Jesus was never married.

True enough. In fact, given Jewish society of the time I suppose it might be odd if he wasn't, though being odd relative to society didn't seem to be a problem for Christ.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
OK, now I'm a bit confused. . . I saw a report on TV about that statue being removed, and of course I got to see the statue itself. . . and now I'm not sure what the problem is. It's a depiction of a couple of stone tablets inscribed with laws. In front of a courthouse. Now, I divide my work between two buildings: one is right next door to the Central Criminal Courts on Old Bailey, London; the other is down the road and from the higher floors has many amazing views, but most significantly has a view of the top of the Old Bailey itself, with its golden statue of blind Lady Justice, with the scales and, er, the other thing. In other words, an abstract image of law.

Now, I'm not religious, but if I was to sit down and try to come up with some other abstract concepts of law, those two stone tablets would come up pretty quickly. Sure, they're of a religious origin, but then so are many things. So what's the big deal?
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
The big deal is that justice should not be based on a group's personal religous beliefs and thus can not be said to discriminate against those not of that belief.

Erect a statue of the open Koran and watch all the supporters of the Ten Commandments statue foam at the mouth to tear it down (as it's not their religion).
I doubt it'd lat a whole day before someone ripped it down.

What if I sculpted a nice inverted pentagram in front of the courthouse?
It's really the same thing, just not as popular.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
You're missing the point. The Ten Commandments aren't just a symbol of religion, they're a symbol of LAW. The real question is whether you can use a symbol of law that's also a religious symbol.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
You can't have a religous symbol as the syblol for law in a society with many religions: it's exculsive.

The law has outgrown the religous pretext it was established on.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Really, Lee, this sort of thing isn't, and perhaps shouldn't be, a major issue. There are three kinds of groups that get involved in this sort of thing, to varying degrees, and in most cases they're the only ones who notice. I haven't followed this case, so I don't know who's doing what, beyond what one inevitably picks up, but in general, what I'm about to describe is how it goes. (That was very pretentious-sounding.)

Anyway, on one side you have a small but politically powerful group of Christian fundamentalists. On their own the beliefs of these people would bar them from any serious engagement in the affairs of state. (This says nothing of the validity of said beliefs, just their minority status.) But they vote a lot, and anyone interested in broad right-wing appeal needs to at least acknowledge their existence. (One can take the centrist approach, ala Schwarzenegger, and try to shut out the minority extremist groups on both sides, but this is historically a much harder row to hoe, since almost by definition a movement designed to appeal to people from lots of different movements is going to have a much harder time organizing itself politically and getting the message out. That's what the whole party apparatus is for, after all.) On another (note, not the other) side, you've got an even smaller bunch of hardcore athesists with a specific agenda of purging religious iconography, ala Madeline Murray O'Hare, but there are so few of these and they wield so little influence that they aren't real players, despite being the favorite punching bag of the fundamentalists.

On the third side you have a bunch of people who are unified under a sometimes vague dedication to certain political principles, namely, in this case, a seperation between religious and governmental matters, and in the name of which they often pursue goals whose ideological importance far outweighs their practical impact. While one might wonder how visibly non-Christians fair in this judge's courtroom, but I'm not aware of anyone making claims about that. It isn't even on the table.

So, I suppose what I am getting at is that, in the United States, this kind of conflict is rarely about what it seems to be about on the surface. On the one hand you have people who firmly believe that the United States is, or at least ought to be, a Christian polity in the classical mode, and putting the Ten Commandments up in courtrooms is only the symbol of a wide-ranging set of reforms. On the other, you have people who firmly believe that the United States was organized along explicitly multicultural, and thus multi-religious, lines, and who tend to see apparently minor seepage between church and state as warning signs of far more serious structural problems.

Having said of all that (and surely having said too much), the mention of Lady Justice calls to mind Ashcroft's infamous decision to have the bare breasts of that particular icon covered up in a Department of Justice briefing room. One could argue that that was simply a matter of wanting firmer control of the press briefing environment. But lots of people didn't take it that simply. Symbology is where we spent a lot of our mental time, I think, and not without reason.

Anyway, uh, there you go. (This sort of transatlantic bewilderment is surely also a result of official state churches, and thus official religous icons, being just a normal piece of history on one side.)
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
The Onion sums it up nicely:
http://www.theonion.com/current_wdyt.html
 

---

Posted by djewell (Member # 1111) on :
 
These people are none too bright.

quote:

---

"Let them have their statue. It's Alabama. No one there can read it, anyway."

---

quote:

---

"Alabama was just using that monument as a cheap, easy way to score some God points anyway.

---

Just plain stupid.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Or mabye you're none too bright.
"The Onion" is a parody newspaper and website.
I thought you opted out of this thread.
Would'nt want you to have blood pressure problems or anything.
 

---

Posted by djewell (Member # 1111) on :
 
I figured it's a parody news. I did some Zen meditation It helps.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
OK, I understand it a bit better now. My supplementary questions - which might already have been answered, I may just not have seen them anywhere in this rapidly-elongating thread - are: Who first commissioned/approved the statue for design, construction, and installment? And what were their motives based on, religious statement or abstract law? And what do we know about the actual opinions of the Chief Justice? Did he approve it because of his own religious beliefs, or does he just view it as a bit of abstract legal iconography, or just freedom of expression? And what about the associate justices, are any of them anti-religion or just very pro-church/state separation?
 

---

Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
 
From perusing the articles about the case in the current issues of Time and Newsweek, it seems that Justice Moore, with some helpers, installed the sculpture in the Alabama Judicial Building's rotunda after business hours sometime in 2001.

After becoming a circuit court judge in 1992, he held prayers in his courtroom and hung a hand-carved plaque with the Commandments on its wall. According to one district attorney who used to practice in his court, Moore made scrapbooks with laminated newspaper clippings dealing with his Ten Commandments battles. During his campaign for the chief justice's seat, he touted himself as the "Ten Commandments judge." Time quotes him as saying, "I will never, never deny the God upon whom our laws and country depend." Given all this, I don't think his actions are merely part of some technical exercise in legal theory.

Neither article has anything to say about the associate justices' personal religious views or their take on the separation of church and state.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
It's also very suspect that he had the statue installed at election time for the Chief Justice's seat (witch he won in, suprise, a very religous state).
He's not dumb and erecting the statue then is not coincidence: nor is it suprising he's called about half the press conferences on the subject both to gain support for his POV and to be on TV as much as humanly possible.
I see a govoner's or possbly senator's election with his name on it in the future...
 

---

Posted by djewell (Member # 1111) on :
 
Its unfortunate that people will use religion to gain popularity in Politics.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Yes it is.
Moreso that most don't know the reasoning behind the statue's placment so they'll laud this judge as a champion of their beliefs.
They'll vote for him.
 

---

Posted by djewell (Member # 1111) on :
 
My beliefs too. I'm not Alabamian, but I saw some footage of the protestors. There was a guy dressed up as JESUS! WTF? That's just extreme.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
*blink*
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Unless he was Jesus, I suppose.

Anyway, isn't that, like, blasphemous? Dude?
 

---

Posted by djewell (Member # 1111) on :
 
I think so. There are other more "liberal" Christians who don't share my view.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
All the guy did is dress like an Armenian, yes, I probably didn't spell it right, which, Christ was, so that shouldn't be a problem....

I checked Jesus in to the hotel I work at tonight, and you know, he was so soft spoken he seemed to be either very mellow, or.... Well, I don't want to get in to stereotyping......

If my wife and I ever have another kid I may name him Jesus, since the spanish speaking people do....
 

---

Posted by djewell (Member # 1111) on :
 
The spelling of the name of Jesus is the engligh adaptation of a Greek derivation of the name Yeshua, or Joshua. I get tired of the whole Jesus(hay-zus)/jesus thing.
 

---

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
I knew Mohammed was Estonian, but I had no idea Jesus was Armenian.
 

---

Posted by djewell (Member # 1111) on :
 
He spoke Aramaic. That's all I can come up with.
 

---

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
For all practical purposes, Jesus in today's terms was a Palestinian... These people were probably just as multi-ethnic back then as they are today. At least his father wasn't a local, apparently. And while it's likely he spoke Arameic, there are several other possibilities in that area as well. Depends a lot on his real family background and upbringing - the Gospels are highly suspect in this respect.

But basically, anybody dressing up like a guy from an altar painting should be automatically free of charges of blasphemy or impersonation. Whatever Jesus looked like, long- and straight-haired, tastefully bearded 180 cm Scandinavian type in a white robe *wasn't* it. (Somebody is clearly confusing him with Gandalf the Grey in his youth, before he lost the discount coupon to the cleaner. Although I'd rather have copyright trouble with the church than with Peter Jackson...)

Timo Saloniemi
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timo:
For all practical purposes, Jesus in today's terms was a Palestinian... These people were probably just as multi-ethnic back then as they are today.

---

Culturally yeah.
Geneticly, no way.
Finf the oldest families in the most isolated parts of the middle-east and you'll see men that might have looked like Jesus.

If Jesus came back today, he's be on a governmental watch list and nobody'd want to sit next on him on a plane.
 

---

Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
 
Come on, who wouldn't want to sit next to a guy like this? B)


 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ritten:
If my wife and I ever have another kid I may name him Jesus, since the spanish speaking people do....

---

Your child will hate you.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 


Nobody fucks with the Jesus!
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
There really are people in the world whose last name is "Christ". You know one of them had to have given in to the temptation at some point.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I've never met anyone named Christ.
...or Hitler for some reason.
Go figure.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
That's because you live in the land of unimaginative names, where children are named after their parents, who are named after their parents, who are named after their parents, and so forth.

There are only 7 actual different first names used by American citizens. FACT.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
...and there's a fabulous prize for anyone who gets all seven in order of their popularity!! That's right, a 2 minute tour of the holy land in the company of Jesus Muhammed Christ Budda W. Hank Bush III!!!

quote:

---

It's also very suspect that he had the statue installed at election time for the Chief Justice's seat (witch he won in, suprise, a very religous state).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:


There are only 7 actual different first names used by American citizens. FACT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Harry:
In related news:
http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/030827194209.5iajvuy2

Okay, the current EU is a bureaucratic nightmare and completely undemocratic (European Parliament? Who the hell are those people?), and now the church is trying to get involved. Apparently, they want christianity to be somehow different from the other religions, by including it in the new EU constitution. I'm sure all those newbie Eastern European states are only too happy about that. Let's just hope the big three can hold it off.

---

I agree with you completely. However, as I understand it there is a bit in the new Constitution (which is by no means a just a tidying up exercise) which basically summarises the history of Europe (no, I don't know why it's in there) and which makes no mention of Christianity. Now, whatever your views on the church you have to agree that is just a tiny little ommission .

Incidentally economic ties are good (although not necessarily a single currency), political ties are unnecessary! The EU is disturbingly undemocratic and it is worrying how much power it (especially the Commission) have and how little people realise it. For example the recent change to directory inquiries numbers in the UK was the result of a directive from Brussels.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
And the directory numbers change is the worst thing that's ever happened! Why, the price has come down and everthing! How dare we stand for this?
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
I wasn't actually complaining about it, just giving it as an example of something most people don't know is Brussels ordered. And some of them are actually more expensive (118 888 is the best- or just use the online one).
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
"Cartman posted a frankly rude message for people who are religious..."

I am truly sorry, darling, but I find the very idea of elevating ANY religion above the secular status of the constitution repulsive and, frankly, a lot more insulting to people who aren't religious than my message was to people who are.
 

---

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
Besides, Hell is your own creation. You can't blame us for that
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Personaly I'm not all that keen on religion.I do my best to look at things as a christian but I fall a bit short even in my own eyes. The thing that I was trying to get at was using a little common sense in realising that religion is not going to just go away.Also if it did whats to replace it? As far as the organized religions go they are corrupt,no doubt about that.Jesus was a great man in anyones book.The evil done in his name by fanatics doesn't change that.Carry on with the disscussion.Maybe some good will come of it.P.S.Not good at quoting scripture but Christ did say his kingdom was not of this world.Government should not be a reigion,and vice versa.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
The Vatican isn't even part of the EU. Maybe the pope should sit down and shut his stupid, beanie-wearing face.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Cartman: No, but what you posted wasn't too far from childish name calling. Come on, you can come up with intellgent arguments. There's no need to drop down to "their" level and start insulting people.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
To clear up the language thing.Aramaic was a trade language with greek roots.It was a common tongue for merchants and scholars at the time and I believe most of the writting of the apostles was in Aramaic.Jesus was from Nazereth.A contemporary description by a Roman Merchant said he had light brown hair,And if I remember correctly grey or blue-grey eyes.The stereotypical Jewish appearance did not exist in the Gene pool at the time.In fact few of the racial characteristics of the modern middle east are the same as they were then.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Can you, like, put spaces between your sentences? Please? You're a good newbie and all, not intended as an insult or anything, but it'd help readibility.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
The pope can go to hell.

---

You're totally out of line!
What did the pope ever do to you?!?

At least say "Fuck that fucking Pope bastard!"
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
...and Jesus would have smelled. Bad.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
No Liam, no full stops, but, like this thread, it will wonder aimlessly about, looking for a topic to attach it's parasitic self to.

We need a brass serpent to gaze upon.....
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Omega friend,I'm still very new to typing on this sort of keyboard. I never was much for typing and haven't writen much outside of signing checks or making short notes for many years. Know of any online tutorials that might help? Even when I get the paragraphs looking right on the pad when I post,it all just runs together. Using a regular typewriter seems to be different, got no real problem there. P.S. contary to popular belief most ancient cultures practised personal hygene. After a few days in the wilderness anyone is going to smell,but as long as there was water around bathing was even more frequent than it is for modern city dwellers. Also perfumes and the like were common in the Middle east at the time. That was one of their best exports.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
The middle East version of "personal hygene" is a far cry from our western one.
Living in that region and walking from town to town with few belongings and no right guard meant they were SUPA FUNKY!
As anyone non french can tell you, hosing yourself with perfume when you reek will NOT make you smell good.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Bathing was as common to the people of that time as it is is most countries today. Look up the Archaeology of the region sometime, bath houses, hot springs, spas.The Funkyness of modern city dwellers in Europe is not indicative of how people lived back then either. Even the ancient Celts were known to have been very clean people. They invented soap BTW. A man of Jesus' stature in the local society would have made a point of being clean.Perfume was far too expesive to slather on in the manner you have discribed any way. The Romans,the greeks, and others lived there as well. They are well known to have been fanatical about personal hygene,and never missed the opportunity to mention any lack of it in those they met. Any way if you have doubts about it just study the known historical facts.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I have.
Romans used oils to cover their bodies and act as a kind of antipersperant (sweat jusy kinda oozed off: uk.).
The adverage Middle Eastern person living in the sticks today has better hygene than those of waaay back then but sure are'nt up to western standards.
I'm not talking about European standards, just middle eastern.
There's no mention of their sench because it was everywhere and universal. I'd be like mentioning fashon trends in te bible.

Ever seen the Discovery Channel's show "The face of Jesus"?
They do a good job of forensically reproducing a plausable representation of a man of Jesus' region and era.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
Well, that's your problem right there, we never let a little thing like facts stand in the way of our threads here....


 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
As far as the Romans go the oils that they used in the baths were scraped from the body with dull bronze blades,this was to remove dirt and dead skin. They did not have soap until the Celts showed them how to make it. Then they soaked in hot stand up baths fed by hot springs where possible and by running streams that flowed into baths heated by furnaces that were under the stone floors. They built these baths every where they settled,even army bases. This has been known for many years. The Bath houses in England from which the city of Bath gets its name are a prime example. As far as Jesus' appearance goes I believe that a first hand eye witness account by an uninvolved observer is a little bit more likely to hold water than a reconstruction even if based on good evidence of the general type of people that lived in the area. A Nazarene of the house of David was not likely to share many characteristics with those who had interbred with the earlier tribes that the Israelites had displaced,or the Greek and Minoan people such as the Philistines. Semitic people came in several varities back then. Herod Was of the dessert people and had no real family ties among those he ruled,thats why the romans put him in power.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Surely you don't believe Jesus looks like the european version as represented by the Jyro crucifix and Miceangelo's paintings do you?
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Things are taking a creepy racial turn here, it seems.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Not at all.The stereotype of Jewish appearance is what I'm getting at. And the other Racial types as well. Take the modern Iraqi as an example. They are not Semetic at all. Their ancestors were Scythian same as the ancient Goths and their decendents the Modern Spaniard. Compare them to the Saudi Arabians who are Semites. Now look at the Tuarag and the Berber. All these people have been lumped together as if they were one race when all they really have in common is their religion and the general area in which they live. The palistinian of today has no real genetic tie to the Cananites that Israel drove out when they settled there. Cultures last much longer than bloodlines. Jesus did not look like the stereo type jew. As a Nazarian he would have had different characteristics to most other Hebrews as well. Light brown hair grey-blue eyes, why not. No reason to disbelieve a Roman merchant reporting having met a jewish priest by chance at the home of another Roman. Some African Americans insist he was Black, based soley on an ebony figure of him on a crucifix.BTW red hair is as common among the desert Berber as it is among the Scots. Hitler was from a group Known as the Black Dutch Also decended from Scythian stock, in that case mercenaries that garrisoned Roman outpost near the time that Rome fell.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
He was Chinese.
Just like Santa Claus and all the other fictional holiday characters.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"Some African Americans insist he was Black, based soley on an ebony figure of him on a crucifix."

That, and the words of Rufus, the thirteenth apostle.

Are you going to explain where you got this "Roman merchant first-hand eyewitness account" stuff, by the way?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
I can try to dig it up for you. This is not some new theory that I found on some rant page. It is a historical fact. In the mean time look up some of the other things I have mentioned. I find it hard to believe that the basic day to day things that were part of Roman and Greek history could have slipped past most of the people here. There has certainly been enough of it mentioned on the history channel and other educational programs lately. Thinking that all ancient people lived like pigs is kind of lame.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Nobody ever said they lived like pigs, just that they smelled (by today's standards).
Add to that the fact that Jesus did not come from a wealthy family or from a wealthy region.
They were hicks by the standards of Rome.

And yes, Jesus was Chinese. Tellin' you, he went back to China as a teen, learned Buddahism and based his cult on that.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 

quote:

---

I find it hard to believe that the basic day to day things that were part of Roman and Greek history could have slipped past most of the people here.

---

quote:

---

Lee anyone with an honors degree in history who never heard of a roman bath should sue whatever school they went to.

---

Did I say I've never heard of a Roman bath? I've been to Roman baths - their ruins, that is. Have you?

quote:

---

Personaly history and anthopology were not my majors but I did not fall asleep in class so I learned a bit more than most. My senior thesis was on Roman armour and weapons.

---

Interesting. Hardly rocket science, but still it must have been fun. I did structural changes during the history of the Hadrianic and Antonine walls in Southern Scotland.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I like pie.

...and girls. (no Shik jokes, please)
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Jason Biggs jokes, then?
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
By stereotypical Jewish appearance, does that mean hooked noses and furtive glances? Because, if it does, well.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
I was thinking more of pie-shagging, in fact.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
We must compare notes sometime. As far as backpedaling goes, when people make remarks that try to denigrate others, they leave themselves wide open. If your view of how people lived in ancient times comes from your schooling then not much can change that now. My viewpoint remains the same. We agree to disagree. Certainly not my place to point out any shortcomings in your education. Jesus smelled no worse and probably a great deal better than the average person today. Thats not so difficult to understand, if you know anything about the way people lived back then. Misconceptions about this sort of thing are common. They come from lack of interest in the study of the details of history.P.S. don't get all bent out of shape, and be carefull on your little vacation. While you are in Tuscany ask the first person you meet if Jesus stank. You may learn the true meaning of the term going Medieval.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
Actually, I don't think that Lee has said anything at all regarding Jesus' personal hygiene. Although I'm too busy imagining him coming over all DT to concentrate fully.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
More a misunderstanding, Brought on in part by my lack of typing skills and poor grammar. Writing was never my strong suit,and a medical condition makes it hard to do well now. I watch the history channel, but that is not where I got my education. If anyone has something to say on a subject, I am more than happy to hear their point of view. Unfortunatly far too many people let the details of a subject slip past them, and this leads to the sort of misunderstandings that make any rational disscussion dificult.
 

---

Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee:
So, sit back, deep breaths, lighten up. You don't turn up at a bulletin board that's been around in one form or another for seven years, dive right in to the section devoted to controversial debates, and expect to get away unscathed.

---

Unless he's been at this board for years, had a falling out with a few of the peoole here, and just recently came back cleverly diguised as a newbie.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
No hard feelings on my part. And I for one feel unscathed. Never been on this board before. Very new to the whole idea of forums. The other forums I belong to are abit different than the Sci fi forums. Religion is seldom mentioned and so far there have been no sniping at anyones religious beliefs. Not strong on religion myself just hate to see profanity and silly little jokes used in this manner. If thats the norm here I'll simply ignore it from now on.BTW when I made the"show a little respect for the man if not the uniform" crack that was an attempt to inject a little humour into the mix. I'm Very surpized that no one seemed to catch that. Perhaps the saying is not one you are familiar with.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
More that I don't think anyone gets how it was a joke.

And I've been to other (American) forums. A scarily large number of them seem to consist of 60% Omega, 40% Rob, and 20% Tim/Tom/Simon hybrid, who desperatly tries to inject some level of sanity to things. Scary places.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Yep sanity can be a scary thing sometimes. Liam you seem to have a good head on your shoulders. People don't have to agree on things, if every body did the world would be a boring place. As long as a persons arguments hold water, they are worth listening to. Even if they are wrong it gives a good Idea of why they think the way they do. Stuff that has no logic behind it doesn't even make good fiction. My own long winded entries are an attempt to give information as a background. Short answers and quips only waste time. As my skills return it will be easier to understand what I say.P.S. have you never heard the Man-uniform quote? just a culture gap thing I suppose.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:
... 20% Tim/Tom/Simon hybrid...

---

Now that is scary there.....
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
The 120% part is kind of disturbing. Well no ones perfect. At least I've noticed that I'm not the only one that miss spells a word now and then. Seems like some of those with fairly good typing skill have very little knowledge of the subjects at hand. Well at least My mind still works even if the rest is ready for the boneyard.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
This composite person would have really weird tastes and probably be full of self-loathing. I mean, what do you do with an indie rock fan who secretly loves prog and musical theater? Lock them away, if you have any sense.

quote:

---

Did I say I've never heard of a Roman bath? I've been to Roman baths - their ruins, that is. Have you?

---

If only you lived in Bath. Then it would be perfect.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsyLiam:
More that I don't think anyone gets how it was a joke.

And I've been to other (American) forums. A scarily large number of them seem to consist of 60% Omega, 40% Rob, and 20% Tim/Tom/Simon hybrid, who desperatly tries to inject some level of sanity to things. Scary places.

---

I don't get even ONE percent!?!
Why hast thou forsaken me, Jebus?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Still no one recognizes the "Man if not the uniform" joke. Guess there are no Americans here. Unless, na that would be impossible. Well maybe if everyone here is a kid except me. That might explain a lot. Too bad really. Not much to be done about that. Still, some show promise.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Or it was a "Piscapo" level joke and not worth commenting on.
Besides, you were busy getting your newbie hazing from Lee.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
I've been to the Roman baths in Bath. . .
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/sepphoris.html Heres a bit of new information for you. Read it or not. since it shoots down the stereotype of unwashed hick I'm betting not.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

We have houses, each with its own private ritual bath. That's an extravagance, considering where the water had to be brought from and the kind of technical [manueverings] it took to get pure water mixed with standing water. But it was very much in the mainstream.

---

As pointed out, it's the desert and just getting water was a bitch.
"Ritual Baths" does not imply "everyday bathing" by any stretch.
I'm not knockin' them: it's the same story today in the middle east (where water's a scarcity and better used for keeping yourself alive and hydrated).

You're awfully bitter for a newbie.
Soon your journey to the darkside will be complete...
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
None of the cities in the ancient world could have existed without access to water. The problems with water there today are because of the much greater size of the cities. Jesus was a holyman and teacher. Read the bible sometime. Every where he went the ritual of bathing the feet was performed. This is only one of many mentions of such rituals. People back then were as clean as they got the chance to be. If the Anti christians, and Anti semites want to think otherwise, then thats one more strike against their theories. BTW Where did you get the Idea that the holy land is a desert.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Anti-Christian?
Anti-Semite?
Man, you really are nuts.
Where are you getting that shit from?

Look at the "Holy Land" and you'll see the entire region is dry and freshwater (as stated in your linked article)is scarce.
And "as clean as they got the chance to be" is still not clean by our western standards, as I pointed out.

Climb off your religous high-horse for five minutes are read what others are writing before getting insane and defensive, okay?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Look at the maps a little more closely. Then take into account the change in clmate over the last two thousand years.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
Jason: Careful, you don't want to be denounced as anti-American too

---

 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
All this really comes down to is the lack of understanding of how people lived in ancient times. While I am sure that most of the people here don't bear any hatred for Christ, some of the illconsidered remarks lead one to think so. Such minor things like Abreviations, and terms that no one seems to know the meaning of, can start off a chain of reasoning that leads nowhere.
 

---

Posted by Obi Juan (Member # 90) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Man:
While I am sure that most of the people here don't bear any hatred for Christ,

---

I do. Bastard stole my girlfriend.
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
God is pressure. God is pressure more or less.

Do-do-doo-doo-doo-doo-do.

It's a great big lie.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
"The 120% part is kind of disturbing. Well no ones perfect. At least I've noticed that I'm not the only one that miss spells a word now and then. "

That was intentional. Taking into account ratios and comparative sizes, Tim makes up the extra 20% outside of the 20% he is a component of.

And there's something brilliantly ironic about mispelling the word "mispells".
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
Jason: Careful, you don't want to be denounced as anti-American too

---

---

I'm waiting to be denounced a satan and for him to start the Rite of Excorsism....
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Well nice to see that I've managed to stir things up a bit. All this PC bull gets so boring. Feathers ruffled a bit?
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Somebody talkin' religion here, and I missed it?

*SNIKT*

Where were we?
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
Mountain Man was being a silly cunt.
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultra Magnus:
Mountain Man was being a silly cunt.

---

And this differentiates him from the majority of Flare posters how, exactly?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Fortunatly ah keeps mah feathers individualy numbered fo just such an emergency. Cool as a Christian with aces wired.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
The is as exciting as the WMD thread....
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Why yes, "the" sure is!
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
To The, or not to the????

'Tis not the question....

This is as exciting as the WMD thread...

Happy now!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
The Bart, The?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
To late some other scholar has already corrected his mistake to bad it would require a lobotomy to correct yours. Go read a book about Tuscany and dream about being a historian.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
*L* Amazing. I didn't even say a word about him, and he still attacks me. I think we can just write him off as another soon-to-be-banned troll.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Can't take constructive criticizm eh matey. Really should learn some self control. It might help in your creative writing.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Still trolling, Mountain Moron?
 

---

Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
 
The BS ends before I decide to start yanking posting permissions.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
B. S. stopped. carry on. Not one to be a problem. Just figured from the way things looked that it was the Norm. The label made it out to be a free fire zone.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
http://www.crutchercpa.com/jesusdescription.htm The descriptions here are based on translations in 'The Archko Volume' (Archaeological writings of the Sanheidrim & the Talmuds of the Judeans). These are court documents of the Judeans at the time of Christ. The letter writen by Publis Lentilus to Tiberius is also mentioned here. They are the only documents that describe Jesus.

[ September 15, 2003, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"There lives at this time in Judea a man of singular virtue whose name is Jesus Christ..."

This could be a translation error, but I greatly doubt that any (especially Roman) contemporaries of Jesus who are relating the story of "this guy who does a lot of preaching around here" would refer to him as "Christ". That last letter basically reads like "Dear Caesar: The messiah has been hanging out around here lately. He's pretty sexy, too.".
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
"Dear diary: Last night I dreamt about him again."
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
"I am afraid John will hurt me if I try anything."
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
The letter atributed to Publius has been the subject of much controversy. Its use as a guide to artist and printers led to debate as to whether it came from a reliable source. The atypical appearance of Jesus was one of the things that drew the attention of so many. The sterotype that most people accept of how a Jew should look is based on the appearance of the average person of that faith and region today. The Discovery channel recreation fails on that account. The Discovery Channel has pulled so many boners lately that its credability is in question. It all comes down to the fact that people see what they want to see. Those with no real interest accept whatever seems to be the consensus of opinion.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
I greatly doubt that any (especially Roman) contemporaries of Jesus who are relating the story of "this guy who does a lot of preaching around here" would refer to him as "Christ".

Unless, of course, that's what he heard someone else call him...
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Except that they'd refer to him by another word in another language that isn't likely to translate as "Christ." MAYBE "The anointed one," in latin, if you're LUCKY. 'Christ' isn't a proper name like 'Smith' or 'Jones.' In fact, back then it was rare for anybody but royalty to have a "last" name.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
The percentage of people in the ancient world who could speak and understand more than one and often many different tongues was greater than that of todays world. Christ would have been a title rather than a name. Since the hebrews did not allow portaits(graven Images) the written discriptions were a very important way of indentification. Romans recognized that a persons appearance went a long way towards his effectivness as a leader. They were always looking for clues about any one who might gain popular support for or against Roman rule. The Letter was much like an intelligence report. Later exagerations like the story that it was carved in stone found in ruins hurt the credibility of the text of the original letter. Since the original was either lost or no longer exist the only records that remain(those of a saint)dating from the 11 century are all anyone has to judge its worth as a historical document.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Uh, you got a cite for that?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
The greater percentage of those who were able to understand and speak more than one and sometimes several tongues, is backed up by the same thing holding true in the third world today. Africa is especialy noted for this. Trade languages were common in many different lands. The migrations and conquest that occurred in those days, as well as the wide spread trade between nations, made it a part of daily life. The average person had to learn at an early age to understand those people of different countries and tribes,that he would have to deal with. This applies to a working knowledge of other languages.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
That hardly constitutes an authoritative source.
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
I am convinced.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Look to today's Europe as an example on a larger scale to se what he means:
Many europeans speak more than one language.
Why?
Because there are several cultures with their own language crammed into that (relativly) small area of land.
I'd imagine that there were several dialects of Hebrew alone and that pronounciations and meanings of certain words changed from village o village as well.

Now look at America and Canada: there's very little need for most people to learn more than mabye one language other than English (spanish being second) because while we're as diverse as the aincent world, the flow of ideas and law is far more universal.
Rome ruled but allowed indivdual villages their own sub-laws (like our states have).


If jesus traveled far, he probably picked up a smattering of several tongues....but that does'nt mean he's ready for a job at the UN or anything.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
If Sol would like to know more about the subject, he can start with web searches. My own knowledge comes from real world conversations with professional translators. The less sophisticated a society is by western standards, the higher the percentage of the population that must learn other languages or dialects to do business. Recent movement here to make the USA bilingual (Spanish-English)show how things are begining to change. Other countries like Canada (French-English) have dealt with the situation for many years. In ancient times the whole thing was so common place it became second nature to learn other tongues. Try Encarta first They mention some of the same things.

[ September 17, 2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]
 

---

Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
Yeah, Simon, it's not like you to not research something so thoroughly as MtnMn has. You'll find that if you just do a Google search for "Language" you'll get A LOT of different sites. Therefore...

No but we all know the real reason everyone speaks different languages is that they were infected with the Asherah virus by the great en Enki in Summerian times to prevent mass mind-washing through the use of the mother tongue. I mean, don't we?
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
I was finding these sites for you to study. First, Christ comes from the Greek word Khristos meaning anointed. The latin form of that word is Christus.So the people were calling him "Jesus the Anointed one".Greek was a common language of trade in that part of the world at that time. These are links explaining trade languages. There are far too many to post them all here but its a start. http://humanities.uchicago.edu/faculty/mufwene/mufw_bantucon.html http://www.christianseparatist.org/ast/hist/aramaic.htm http://www.friesian.com/upan.htm

[ September 17, 2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Those are some fine links. I have been looking for a Jew-free Bible for years! What they have to do with your claim about the proportion of multilingual speakers over time is, alas, lost on me. If proper "research" involves pouring over Christian Identity websites I think I'm better off doing something more entertaining, like removing my fingernails with a razor, or drinking acid.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Only one of those links mentions christianity. Did you look at the other two? As for the separatist link its only there because it does tell part of the story of how the bible was written. The language controversy goes on and on. Just posting it doesn't mean I agree with all they say.Or anything they say for that matter.
 

---

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
'Cuz this is MY separation of church and state, part: what-EVAH!

Seriously, I do think there's a precedent for not letting government look like it's setting up religion.
Though it would be fun to see the Soylentologists and Satanists go, they have to be strict and unbiased.

Personally, I agree with the motive behind the ten commandments.
Really, most of them are obvious guidlines to human ethics, that's why they are found in all religions worth a damn (sic).
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
I see nothing at all wrong in having all codes of Law displayed in one form or another in every courthouse. Regardless of the religious background. The history of the concept of law is too important not to be recognized.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I agree: we'll start with the Koran to make sure we're not all hypicrites.
We'll display the Christian laws LAST.
 

---

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
Mountain Man said: "having all codes of Law displayed in one form or another in every courthouse"

You must really hate trees.
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
I was thinking more in the line of metal plaques. An example of the laws and a short history of where they came from. In order of their appearance in history. The code of Hamurabi first. The others would be displayed equaly, Native American, Hindu,etc. Only the largest courthouses could handle the full presentation but smaller commemorations could be designed. It would be more of a tool to interest people in the necessity of the Law in everyday life and a way of firing up the imagination and desire to learn of the young. http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/bibleLanguages.htm another link to study this one gives better information. Aparently the Jews of that time often spoke or wrote in three different languages. Hebrew,Aramaic,and Greek.

[ September 17, 2003, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Mountain Man ]
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
There was a Stephenson reference, and Simon didn't say anything about it? Surprising...
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Man:
I was thinking more in the line of metal plaques. An example of the laws and a short history of where they came from. In order of their appearance in history. The code of Hamurabi first.

---

You'd never be able to satisfy everyone and the US alone recognizes everything from Satanism to UFO cults as viable (and tax exempt) practising religons.
Then there's all of Christianity's spinoffs, sequels, prequels and of course, the re-launch books (although those are not really considered "canon" and have kinda a fanboy feel to them).
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Good point. The Laws that are a part of the history of mankind on this planet should have their place. Screw the UFO nuts.Religion is not the thing I would like to see displayed, but to present these Laws without telling how they came to be would be anti religion,not neutral to religion.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Agreed.
This hereby ends the "Seperation of Church and State" thread.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Well, what do you want me to say? I'm going to go see him speak next week.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 

quote:

---

If Sol would like to know more about the subject, he can start with web searches. My own knowledge comes from real world conversations with professional translators.

---

Oh, now that's just classic DT. Come on Daniel we know it's you, 'fess up already. Mind you, it also sounds like Colin/Lindsly/Trinculo/targetemployee/Newark, and we haven't heard from him lately either. 8)
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Simon: I don't know. Something like "Stephenson! Capital show, old fellow!" or whetever it is that the kids are saying these days.
 

---

Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
 
*is just glad someone knew what he was talking about even if a little disappointed that Simon didn't try to high-five him* - fa la ba la resumes...

Where are you going to see him, Simon?
 

---

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
Who is this Stevenson that Lee will be seeing?
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Robert Louis. I've determined that if I hook up a generator to his grave, in which he's been spinning since Treasure Planet was released, it'll solve all the world's energy peoblems.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sol System:
Well, what do you want me to say? I'm going to go see him speak next week.

---

See who?
Jesus? (probably NOT a good idea)
That wacky Judge?
Mountain Man?

You speakth of events and members concluded long before my own stealthy arrival.
Please elaborate.
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
David Spade, I think.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Fourteen tickets to a fortnight of consecutive midnight showings of Dickie Whatever, BABY!

But, no, Stephenson is going to be reading from Quicksilver at the University Bookstore at the University of Washington. Now I just have to figure out a way to get to Seattle and overcome my crippling fear of urban streets.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Quicksilver? The crappy Kevin Bacon movie?
Bor-ing.
 

---

© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3