Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?) 
Author Message
 Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)

Quote:
> Lisp (or Scheme) deserves to survive.

In order to survive, you have to

 - stay alive
 - reproduce
 - spread

Seems that the latter bit has been taken to extremes not witnessed by too
many other computer languages, in the form of the Deep Space autonomous(-ish)
mission.

                                                                      Philip
--
DISARRAY ('dis-u-Rae) n. Data structure that looks like an array, but isn't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

+44 (0)1223 49 4639                 | Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton
+44 (0)1223 49 4468 (fax)           | Cambridgeshire CB10 1SD,  GREAT BRITAIN
PGP fingerprint: E1 03 BF 80 94 61 B6 FC  50 3D 1F 64 40 75 FB 53



Fri, 01 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)

Quote:

> Erik Naggum wrote a surprisingly mild reply:


> > | One must first wonder what is wrong with the system that produces these
> > | kinds of people that commit the crimes.

> >   what's wrong is thinking that political systems produce any kind of
> >   people.  "societies don't produce people.  people produce people."

> Of course you are right, but the society has a profound impact on the people
> that produce people; we are social animals. By system I meant the whole
> thing: family, education, work, etc... not a political system, which is only
> a part of it.

> >   requiring people to compete  with others in terms of being the most needy
> > is a really, truly horrible

> Who ever said that welfare should be unconditional ? There is a lot of work
> to do and I don't see a reason why people who are on welfare couldn't do a little
> work for their income. I don't like freeriders any more than you do, but
> they're not the reason why we shouldn't help people that are temporarily in a
> bad situation. I'm not qualified to make suggestions for these systems, but I
> firmly believe that there are better alternatives than the ones used now.

I'm not qualified either, but as long as we're into the off-topic silly
season, I observe and suggest anyway.

A problem with need-based welfare is that one gets no assistance until
all personal resources are exhausted. Then, although we provide
maintenance, the means for recovery - car, enough money to stock up on
bargains, a cushion for emergency medical care, etc., are gone. So even
those who have not absorbed a "culture of poverty" become effectively
trapped in that mode.

We might provide emergency assistance to tide people over temporary bad
times, and dormatory housing and communal dining rooms fot those who
can't pull themselves out within a reasonable time.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> One other minor factor is that at least in the IT business people have to
> work overtime and everything is very much efficiency oriented; people burn
> sometimes just snap. I think there was such a case in the US just a few days
> out and ago. Everything is about competition and therefore extremely
> stressful. People don't give a fsck about working hours when they have to
> compete with each other in productivity.

> >   my take on it is that people who are allowed to think that they can
> >   _demand_ that others keep them alive and well start to think they are
> >   _deprived_ of it if others don't actually keep them alive and well, and
> >   such attitudes may well lead to criminal behavior as it already ignores
> >   the rights and needs of those who are required to care for them with
> >   nothing tangible in return, not even a thank-you.

> Criminal behaviour is made up of many factors. There are certain structures in
> communities that are more likely to "produce" people with criminal tendencies.
> These should be changed.  I would guess that upbringing is the biggest. In
> some systems people who are rich to begin with have the chances and the poor
> don't or at least are in a considerably worse situation to begin with.
> Education is probably one of the deciding factors and it's is usually tied to
> wealth. In the nordic countries the educational system considers most people
> equal to begin with and that is one of the biggest reasons I like living here.
> At least everyone has an almost equal chance.

> Timo

--
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------


Fri, 01 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)

Quote:

> The Ten Commandments are listed twice in the Bible. Compare the two
> lists. There may be a surprise.

Ex 20 is more terse than Deut 5. What teacher does not rephrase/amplify/explicate
when giving a review, especially 40 years later. I see no contradiction.

As some have found theology to be grossly off topic to Forth ( it is a stretch :)
), I will try to respond only privately.

To respond to what is probably the general underlying challenge:
In accepting the verbal plenary inspirational view of Scripture I do not think that
the human authors were acting as stenographers, but that God used the authors'
individual backgrounds to record exactly what He wished recorded. The clearest
example of this may be comparing Luke to the other synoptics ( see Luke 1:1-4 ).



Fri, 01 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)

Many years ago there was a CP/M program called Kamas, which started life as
a BBS program, and evolved into an outline program for writing. It was a
variant of STOIC, and its True was a 1 in the least-significant bit, i.e.
Odd numbers were true and Even numbers were false.

Walter Rottenkolber
-----------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
>But let's not forget the AMD Am29000 series, wherein "truth" == "negative"
>(or more precisely, a "1" in the most-significant bit), and the
architecture
>specifically *didn't* define any "one true truth" other than the MSB.



Fri, 01 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
But Len, in an integer world, pi *IS* three! ;-)

For the purpose of their construction, this precision was just fine.

As you well know, no matter what value we give, it will still be imprecise.

Would some future generation be making fun of us when they read a text that
says pi is "3.14" or some other such approximation?

- Bill

"The difference between a 'citizen' and a 'subject' is
the right to keep and bear arms." - Bill Zimmerly


Quote:


> (snip)

> > Show me a contradiction.

> My favorite is the following:

> I Kings Ch. 7 verse 23

> In King James translation: "And he made molten sea, ten cubits from the
one
> brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits:
> and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

> From which it is obvious that pi must be three.

>   -LenZ-



Fri, 01 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)
No need to apologize, Tom.

Some falsehoods need to answered with the truth, no matter how off-topic it
may be.

Well done.

- Bill

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power
and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither
were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish
heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
things." - Romans 1:20-23


Quote:
> Hello William,

> I apologize for being so far off topic, and for the cross posting.  That
is
> why I added the extra "are Christians Good?" to the end of the subject,
> so people that don't want to read it, can ignore it.

> I don't believe in foisting my opinions onto people that don't want to
> hear them, but the posting demanded a response.

> I will try to restrain myself in the future, but I can't make any
promises.
> My general technique for something like this is to respond publicly for
> the initial message, then to revert to email for further interaction.

> Just my thoughts,

> Tom Zimmer




> > Yeesh.  This junk is SO far off topic it's sick.  Can it, okay?  This
can
> > be carried out PERFECTLY well on the appropriate NGs (I wouldn't mind if
> > this topic wasn't causing such a flamewar).

> > --
> > -William "Billy" Tanksley



Fri, 01 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)

Quote:

> > The Ten Commandments are listed twice in the Bible. Compare the two
> > lists. There may be a surprise.

> Ex 20 is more terse than Deut 5. What teacher does not
> rephrase/amplify/explicate when giving a review, especially 40 years
> later. I see no contradiction.

> As some have found theology to be grossly off topic to Forth ( it is a
> stretch :) ), I will try to respond only privately.

> To respond to what is probably the general underlying challenge:
> In accepting the verbal plenary inspirational view of Scripture I do
> not think that the human authors were acting as stenographers, but
> that God used the authors' individual backgrounds to record exactly
> what He wished recorded.

Perhaps a Biblical literalist like you, would be so kind and explain to
us biblically challenged folks the rationale for the following edicts
respecting handicapped people from Leviticus 21: 16-24.

  "16. And the LORD spake unto Moses saying.

  "17. "Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy
       seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him
       not approach to offer the bread of his God.

  "18. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall
       not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a
       flat nose, or any thing superfluous.

  "19. Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

  "20. Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his
       eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

  "21. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the
       priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD
       made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh
       to offer the bread of his God.

  "22. He shall eath the bread of his God, both of the most holy,
       and, and of the holy.

  "23. Only he shall not go into the vail, nor come nigh unto the
       altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my
       sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

  "24. And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and to his
       sons, and unto all the children of Israel."

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.



Fri, 01 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)

Quote:

> >The book contradicts itself in so many places that I wonder how it is
> > even possible to interpret it literally.

> Show me a contradiction.  (BTW many have claimed contradictions exist
> and when I have challenged them the response has always been "Well
> everybody knows there are contradictions". Never have I been given an
> example. )

Perhaps you should try to solve this challenge, originally written by
Dan Barker, author of the book "From Preacher to Atheist".

**

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for fundamentalist Christians. My challenge
is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for
proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me
exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was
born.

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of
the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the
book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts
1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8.
These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a
single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple,
chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the
ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when;
and where these things happened.

The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it
only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts.
Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses.
The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one
single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard
to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to
mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of
Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing
event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers,
or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others
might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it.
Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.

One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women
arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the
angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the
stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no
other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that
the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they
said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of
the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled
away: for it was very great."

Quote:
Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre."

John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote:
Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot
have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be
understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the
women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and
it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2
begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily
shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before
the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first
post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a
mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as
predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly,
and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he
goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have
been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the
angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours
earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went
away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And
when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew
28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that
Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if
Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but
gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give
different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke
shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in
Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus
Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are
impossible to reconcile.

Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an
elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg),
rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use
this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant
is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive
at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been
done with the resurrection.

Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the
resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of
an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the
other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles,
lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing,
they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an
accident, there was a resurrection.

I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible
witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself,
anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in
Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of
these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.

Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but
Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away!
Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to
Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening
meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned
thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need
about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap
scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to
Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something
is very wrong here.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these
contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do
throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses.
Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

This challenge could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural
beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses
coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious
consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out
that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy
skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit
between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat
their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was
not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived
during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news
from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not"
(Luke 24:11)?

Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay. For
example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path,
at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples,
Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous
and we have no original versions.)

But first things first: Christians, either tell me exactly what happened
on Easter Sunday, or let's leave the Jesus myth buried next to Eastre
(Ishtar, Astarte), the pagan Goddess of Spring after whom your holiday
was named.

Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:

What time did the women visit the tomb?

     Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
     Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun"
(16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen"
     (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
     Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn"
(NRSV)
     John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?

     Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
     Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
     Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other
women (24:10)
     John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?

     Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
     Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
     Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
     John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived
(19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

     Matthew: No (28:2)
     Mark: Yes (16:4)
     Luke: Yes (24:2)
     John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

     Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
     Mark: One young man (16:5)
     Luke: Two men (24:4)
     John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

     Matthew: Angel sitting
...

read more »



Fri, 01 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Is LISP dying?(are Christians Good?)

Quote:

> >The book contradicts itself in so many places that I wonder how it is
> > even possible to interpret it literally.

> Show me a contradiction.  (BTW many have claimed contradictions exist
> and when I have challenged them the response has always been "Well
> everybody knows there are contradictions". Never have I been given an
> example. )

Perhaps you should try to solve this challenge, originally written by
Dan Barker, author of the book "From Preacher to Atheist".

**

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for fundamentalist Christians. My challenge
is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for
proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me
exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was
born.

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of
the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the
book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts
1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8.
These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a
single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple,
chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the
ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when;
and where these things happened.

The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it
only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts.
Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses.
The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one
single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard
to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to
mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of
Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing
event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers,
or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others
might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it.
Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.

One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women
arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the
angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the
stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no
other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that
the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they
said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of
the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled
away: for it was very great."

Quote:
Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre."

John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote:
Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot
have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be
understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the
women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and
it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2
begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily
shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before
the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first
post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a
mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as
predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly,
and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he
goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have
been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the
angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours
earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went
away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And
when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew
28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that
Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if
Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but
gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give
different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke
shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in
Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus
Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are
impossible to reconcile.

Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an
elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg),
rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use
this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant
is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive
at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been
done with the resurrection.

Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the
resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of
an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the
other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles,
lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing,
they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an
accident, there was a resurrection.

I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible
witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself,
anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in
Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of
these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.

Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but
Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away!
Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to
Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening
meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned
thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need
about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap
scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to
Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something
is very wrong here.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these
contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do
throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses.
Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

This challenge could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural
beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses
coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious
consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out
that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy
skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit
between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat
their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was
not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived
during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news
from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not"
(Luke 24:11)?

Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay. For
example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path,
at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples,
Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous
and we have no original versions.)

But first things first: Christians, either tell me exactly what happened
on Easter Sunday, or let's leave the Jesus myth buried next to Eastre
(Ishtar, Astarte), the pagan Goddess of Spring after whom your holiday
was named.

Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:

What time did the women visit the tomb?

     Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
     Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun"
(16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen"
     (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
     Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn"
(NRSV)
     John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?

     Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
     Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
     Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other
women (24:10)
     John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?

     Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
     Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
     Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
     John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived
(19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

     Matthew: No (28:2)
     Mark: Yes (16:4)
     Luke: Yes (24:2)
     John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

     Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
     Mark: One young man (16:5)
     Luke: Two men (24:4)
     John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

     Matthew: Angel sitting
...

read more »



Fri, 01 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]

Quote:



>> > Doesn't the bible also say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and
>> > specify communinal stoning to death for such offenses as {*filter*}ery and
>> > violating the the sabbath? Christians abandoned stoning for burning at
>> > the stake.
>> It's my understanding that that directive is more properly translated as,
>> "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live."
>A better literal translation, but not better in meaning.

Why do you believe so?  I don't recognise the root, and that was written a
LONG time ago.  The root is used in quite a few other places, none of
which make anything very clear.

Quote:
>The term refers
>to a poisoner of minds, a corruptor. Christians in power in formerly
>pagan Europe called them witches, and treated then the same way.

Paul spoke to pagans on numerous occasions, and not only didn't kill them
(probably a good publicity move :), he spoke of their deities with
respect, and classed his God in with them (as the Unknown God).  Anyone
who does otherwise is obviously failing to understand, and the failure is
in their own {*filter*}y hands.

Interestingly enough, some of the strongest words in the NT are directed
against poisoners -- the translation in KJV is "sorcerors", but the Greek
word was "pharmacologia" -- studiers of {*filter*}.

I have no reason for or against to believe that the word translated
"witch" in the OT means anything similar to "sorceror" in the NT.  Nor
have you.

Quote:
>Remember, when Saul was in trouble, he consulted the Witch of Endor. To
>punish him, God gave his throne to David.

He consulted "a woman who had a familiar spirit." Not the same word (in
Hebrew), and not even a close form.  And he was punished for consulting
her, not for failing to kill her.  Altogether, VERY poor evidence for your
reading of "...not suffer a witch to live."

Quote:
>Jerry

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley


Fri, 01 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 433 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

 Relevant Pages 
 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software