| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Elroy Willis" |
| Date: |
03 Jan 2004 11:23:04 AM |
| Object: |
Age of Aquarius |
Note: This is crossposted to alt.astrology and alt.bible. I'm not
attempting to start a flame war, but rather to start up a rational
discussion on the "Age of Aquarius" and how it relates to the Bible
and astrology.
I just finished reading "The DaVinci Code" and am doing some research
on one of the ideas brought up in the book, namely that of some new
"Age of Aquarius," and what will mark its exact beginning.
Anyone who has done a fair amount of reading about Jesus will have
certainly run across claims that he was supposed to be some marker for
the beginning of the age of Pisces, what with the fish symbolisms and
all that were used by the first Christians and the Jesus fishes on
cars today.
So, I started web-surfing, reading different sites from modern
astrologers, trying to get an idea of what they think might mark some
actual "beginning" of the "Age of Aquarius," and the results were
interesting in many ways.
Much of it seems to include "end of the world" type ideas, with wars
and earthquakes and stuff that you read about in the Bible, from what
I've seen so far. Those are present in all times throughout history,
so seeing them around you is no indication of anything "new" at least
in my opinion. History repeats itself, so it's said...
From:
http://raphaelonline.com/Aquarius.htm
"In no way is this new age the end of the world or a final time of any
sort, except in regard to the end of this present day Earth
civilization."
I wonder what this guy means by "end of this present day Earth
civilization." Probably some WWIII, or armageddon or doomsday
situation?
Reading on...
"Much mischief and evil is connected with this change, especially in
respect to religions, and the use of new scientific discoveries and
advancements. These will increase and continue until the end of this
present day civilization, which will come by way of World War III."
Yep, WWIII. Another doomsayer. I wonder if doomsaying is parcel
and part of all astrologers beliefs? I don't know for sure...
From:
http://www.paranormality.com/age_of_aquarius.shtml
"Age of Aquarius : The Age of Aquarius can mean the end of an era,
(age of Pisces) and the beginning of another. Many feel the Age of
Aquarius heralds the coming of the "end of times" as written in the
Bible, others feel it is the dawning of the "new world order".
Whatever it means it is still mysterious, and opinions differ widely
in the Astrology community."
This is starting out a little better... It's recognized that opinions
differ widely among astrologers as to when some "exact beginning"
of the "Age of Aquarius" began, or will begin.
"Thus, the spring equinox has been occurring in Pisces for the past
several thousand years and will begin to occur in the constellation
Aquarius in the near future. This is the background for current
speculations about the so-called Age of Aquarius. The phenomenon of
the precession of equinoxes also means that the spring equinox
occurred in the sign Aries during the Hellenistic period (the period
of Ptolemy), in Taurus several thousand years prior to the Hellenistic
period, and so forth backward through the zodiac."
[...]
Although I don't personally believe in astrology, or at least the
astrological idea that the position of constellations or planets can
affect people's personalities and futures, I do accept the above as an
objective fact which can be proven true through research. The
"wobble" of the earth causes the constellation seen on the
spring equinox (or any other time actually) to slowly change over
time.
"Thus, attention is called to the negative Piscean tendency to adopt
an attitude of blind faith, and to the positive Aquarian tendency to
adopt a more empirical attitude."
I'm all for people giving up blind faith, and even astrology, and
moving on to some new age of reason where people think more
empirically and logically, tossing out superstition and those who sell
it along the way.
It wouldn't bother me a bit to see the RCC and other religious
organizations go down the tubes, as well as the astrologers who
make money off of other people by "selling" them some charts or
horoscopes. Same for the fake faith healers, and the phoney psychics
out there. Wouldn't bother me to see them all go away, just like Miss
Cleo seems to have gone away, at least around here.
On to another page...
From:
http://www.lightforthelastdays.co.uk/docs/cults_occult/aquarius.html
"The Daily Mail (29/12/97 - 2/1/98) featured a series of articles by
astrologer Jonathan Cainer, who claims that 'the Age of Aquarius is
truly dawning.' The articles paint a rosy view of the future in
contrast with 'gloomy visions' that the 20th century would end 'in
chaos and collapse'. Cainer believes the 20th Century has 'run out of
steam' and we are now about to create 'a world based on enlightenment,
prosperity, freedom and tolerance.'"
Kinda weird that "running out of steam" would lead to enlightenment,
but then I thought about getting old, and getting wiser in old age,
and moving slower...
"The "face of the man" is the ancient sign of Aquarius, the sign of
the man carrying the water-pot, to which Christ referred when He sent
His disciples into the city, saying: "Behold, when ye are entered into
the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water;
follow him into the house where he entereth in." (St. Luke, XXII, 10.)
This is the zodiacal sign into which we are entering."
I find a problem with this idea, since if Jesus was supposed to be
ushering in the age of Pisces, why would he speak of some water
pitcher and the age of Aquarius?
It then dawned on me that if Jesus was actually an astrologer, and
was trying to martyr himself as the marker for the new age of Pisces,
then he might likely speak in some code to his disciples about
"bearing the cross" or "bearing the crossing over" into some new
astrological age. The part about the water pitcher could have been
a message to any future Christian astrologers who wanted to martyr
themselves as part of some "new age" marker.
[...]
'If the Age of Aquarius is upon us, what have we been living through
until now? The answer is the Age of Pisces. For just as the turning of
the earth has its yearly seasons, it traces, as it travels through the
sky, a much broader cyclic pattern... The Egyptians knew all about
this. So did the Greeks. They called it a 'great year' and they
subdivided it into 12 'great months', each named after a different
Zodiac sign. Each 'great month' lasts roughly 2,160 years. The last,
Pisces, had just begun when Christ was born in Bethlehem. It's
interesting to speculate that it may be no coincidence that the early
Christians used a fish as a symbol of their faith.'"
What I'm interested in is what kind of symbol the people who believe
the "Age of Aquarius" is upon us will use, or are using right now.
Any examples that anyone wants to present?
For Pisces, it was a fish, and for Aquarius, it's supposed to be a
water pitcher or water bearer? Since fish live in water, is there a
connection there?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
12 Feb 2004 05:42:24 PM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote:
No. But it takes a sin nature to be a sinner. The thoughts show the sin
nature.
"ellis@no.spam" wrote:
So you have a "sin nature"?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
We all do ... including you, hon.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
12 Feb 2004 06:59:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:35:45 GMT, georgann <chenault@mindspring.com>
wrote:
No. But it takes a sin nature to be a sinner. The thoughts show the sin
nature.
The medicines aren't kicking in?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
12 Feb 2004 07:18:22 AM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Sin is not the same thing as breaking one of the Commandments.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Do you consider certain thoughts to be sins, even if you don't act
on those thoughts?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
No. But it takes a sin nature to be a sinner. The thoughts show
the sin nature.
Which particular thoughts?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
12 Feb 2004 04:49:55 PM |
|
|
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Sin is not the same thing as breaking one of the Commandments.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Do you consider certain thoughts to be sins, even if you don't act on those
thoughts?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
No. But it takes a sin nature to be a sinner. The thoughts show the sin
nature.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Which particular thoughts?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Thoughts like comparing yourself to anyone else instead of recognizing who
God made you to be. Thoughts like "my husband ... my child... my family ...
fill in the blank ... is better than that person's. Thoughts like I want to
do this (fill in the blanks) even though I know I should not. Etc. Etc.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
13 Feb 2004 10:13:34 AM |
|
|
In article <BC516D42.35364391%chenault@mindspring.com>, georgann says...
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Sin is not the same thing as breaking one of the Commandments.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Do you consider certain thoughts to be sins, even if you don't act on those
thoughts?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
No. But it takes a sin nature to be a sinner. The thoughts show the sin
nature.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Which particular thoughts?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Thoughts like comparing yourself to anyone else instead of recognizing who
God made you to be.
Sorry dear, I'm the product of my biological parents, not some fictious
character.
Thoughts like "my husband ... my child... my family ...
fill in the blank ... is better than that person's.
Nope, don't do this.
Thoughts like I want to
do this (fill in the blanks) even though I know I should not. Etc. Etc.
So, am I sinning when I decide that I'm going to eat a piece of pizza instead of
a nice salad?
Oooooooookay.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
13 Feb 2004 10:25:44 AM |
|
|
And so upon Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:13:34 +0000 didst Robibnikoff speak
thusly:
In article <BC516D42.35364391%chenault@mindspring.com>, georgann says...
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Sin is not the same thing as breaking one of the Commandments.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Do you consider certain thoughts to be sins, even if you don't act on those
thoughts?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
No. But it takes a sin nature to be a sinner. The thoughts show the sin
nature.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Which particular thoughts?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Thoughts like comparing yourself to anyone else instead of recognizing who
God made you to be.
Sorry dear, I'm the product of my biological parents, not some fictious
character.
Thoughts like "my husband ... my child... my family ...
fill in the blank ... is better than that person's.
Nope, don't do this.
Thoughts like I want to
do this (fill in the blanks) even though I know I should not. Etc. Etc.
So, am I sinning when I decide that I'm going to eat a piece of pizza instead of
a nice salad?
Oooooooookay.
And does that make Atkins a prophet?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Age of Aquarius |
12 Feb 2004 06:59:35 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:49:55 GMT, georgann <chenault@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Thoughts like comparing yourself to anyone else instead of recognizing who
God made you to be. Thoughts like "my husband ... my child... my family ...
fill in the blank ... is better than that person's. Thoughts like I want to
do this (fill in the blanks) even though I know I should not. Etc. Etc.
How about the thought some have prentending they are forgiven their
[continuous] adultery?
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
13 Feb 2004 07:51:24 AM |
|
|
Thoughts like comparing yourself to anyone else instead of recognizing who
God made you to be. Thoughts like "my husband ... my child... my family ...
fill in the blank ... is better than that person's. Thoughts like I want to
do this (fill in the blanks) even though I know I should not. Etc. Etc.
"Jos Flachs" wrote:
How about the thought some have prentending they are forgiven their
[continuous] adultery?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
That's not my thoughts but God's promise in the sacrifice of Christ for me.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
13 Feb 2004 12:45:18 PM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Sin is not the same thing as breaking one of the Commandments.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Do you consider certain thoughts to be sins, even if you don't act
on those thoughts?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
No. But it takes a sin nature to be a sinner. The thoughts show
the sin nature.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Which particular thoughts?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Thoughts like comparing yourself to anyone else instead of recognizing
who God made you to be. Thoughts like "my husband ... my child... my
family ... fill in the blank ... is better than that person's. Thoughts like I
want to do this (fill in the blanks) even though I know I should not. Etc.
Does it make you feel better to know that even as an atheist, I
sometimes have those same thoughts? Those thoughts don't make
me or you evil, or in need of some saviour who forgives you for those
thoughts. As long as you don't act on those thoughts, they can
hardly be considered a sin, or a crime.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
13 Feb 2004 01:30:56 PM |
|
|
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Thoughts like comparing yourself to anyone else instead of recognizing who
God made you to be. Thoughts like "my husband ... my child... my family ...
fill in the blank ... is better than that person's. Thoughts like >> I want
to do this (fill in the blanks) even though I know I should not. Etc.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Does it make you feel better to know that even as an atheist, I sometimes have
those same thoughts? Those thoughts don't make me or you evil, or in need of
some saviour who forgives you for those thoughts. As long as you don't act on
those thoughts, they can hardly be considered a sin, or a crime.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
From our thoughts come actions. And as our thoughts are generally selfish in
one way or another, they are almost all sinful.
You just don't know what sin is.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
13 Feb 2004 01:39:29 PM |
|
|
In article <BC52901F.3536491B%chenault@mindspring.com>,
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote:
You just don't know what sin is.
Like you do? Please warn us when you are going to say
something like that. I'd rather not spray my screen
and keyboard with hot tea.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
13 Feb 2004 02:08:52 PM |
|
|
In article <BC52901F.3536491B%chenault@mindspring.com>, georgann says...
snip
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
From our thoughts come actions. And as our thoughts are generally selfish in
one way or another, they are almost all sinful.
<rolls eyes> Oy, what a crock.
You just don't know what sin is.
Sure I do - It's a made-up construct of your religion and, as such, doesn't
apply to me.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
14 Feb 2004 07:11:18 AM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Thoughts like comparing yourself to anyone else instead of recognizing who
God made you to be. Thoughts like "my husband ... my child... my family ...
fill in the blank ... is better than that person's. Thoughts like >> I want
to do this (fill in the blanks) even though I know I should not. Etc.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Does it make you feel better to know that even as an atheist, I sometimes have
those same thoughts? Those thoughts don't make me or you evil, or in need of
some saviour who forgives you for those thoughts. As long as you don't act on
those thoughts, they can hardly be considered a sin, or a crime.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
From our thoughts come actions. And as our thoughts are generally selfish in
one way or another, they are almost all sinful.
You just don't know what sin is.
It's a make-believe thing that you believe in. I know that much.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Baldwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
13 Feb 2004 01:41:25 PM |
|
|
georgann wrote:
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Thoughts like comparing yourself to anyone else instead of recognizing who
God made you to be. Thoughts like "my husband ... my child... my family ...
fill in the blank ... is better than that person's. Thoughts like >> I want
to do this (fill in the blanks) even though I know I should not. Etc.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Does it make you feel better to know that even as an atheist, I sometimes have
those same thoughts? Those thoughts don't make me or you evil, or in need of
some saviour who forgives you for those thoughts. As long as you don't act on
those thoughts, they can hardly be considered a sin, or a crime.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
From our thoughts come actions. And as our thoughts are generally selfish in
one way or another, they are almost all sinful.
Wow. Just, wow.
You are so fucked up in the head and warped with this whole 'all
thoughts are sinful' ***** that you belong in a Stephen King novel. I
can practically hear you saying "Everyone will see your dirty pillows"
just by reading your tripe.
The closest thing I can find to a 'sin' is that bass-ackwards primitive
fucks like you are permitted to breed and infect your children with your
self deprecating garbage.
--
Dan Baldwin, unethical *by design*
"I have always thought that the reason Dinosaurs were so big is because
of the dramatic difference in gravitational strength between that time
period and now" -Edmo the paleontologist
"If the whole group must be ruined to prevent that, so be it. Few if
anyone comes to my defense, so why the hell should I care if they have a
good place to post ?" -Foamy Bartmo, Phyrric meteorologist
"Christ was just an enlightened person, not unlike me." -Edmo the humble
"I am an authority, and I do not force my views on others like you do."
-Edmo, enemy of Irony Meters all over Usenet
"It's not Latin, clueless wannabe tryhard." -Fucknozzle Junior
discussing the phrase 'Illegimati non carborundum'(sic)
Hail the un-alive
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edmond Wollmann" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
12 Feb 2004 11:30:33 AM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<BC50CF40.35364163%chenault@mindspring.com>...
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Sin is not the same thing as breaking one of the Commandments.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Do you consider certain thoughts to be sins, even if you don't act
on those thoughts?
The thought that we are automatically negative and need help to
overcome our "bad" nature is a sinful thought.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
No. But it takes a sin nature to be a sinner. The thoughts show the sin
nature.
I thought the Bible says we are all "born in sin"? If you are going to
believe in a negative dogma, at least try to follow it religiously.
Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden
from you will be disclosed to you." The Gospel of Thomas.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2004 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/TOC.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
12 Feb 2004 05:41:21 PM |
|
|
No. But it takes a sin nature to be a sinner. The thoughts show the sin
nature.
"Edmond Wollmann" wrote:
I thought the Bible says we are all "born in sin"? If you are going to believe
in a negative dogma, at least try to follow it religiously.
Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you
will be disclosed to you." The Gospel of Thomas.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Don't bother quoting the Apocrypha to me, bub.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Flonkenstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
12 Feb 2004 06:00:28 PM |
|
|
Being tired of lurking, on Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:41:21 +0000, georgann
posted:
No. But it takes a sin nature to be a sinner. The thoughts show the sin
nature.
"Edmond Wollmann" wrote:
I thought the Bible says we are all "born in sin"? If you are going to
believe in a negative dogma, at least try to follow it religiously.
Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from
you will be disclosed to you." The Gospel of Thomas.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Don't bother quoting the Apocrypha to me, bub.
We really adore kookfights here at AUK!!!!!!1!!!!!
--
mhm 27x12
smeeter #28
Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21
CEO Alcatroll Labs Inc.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
12 Feb 2004 06:28:11 PM |
|
|
In article <BC51794F.353643D9%chenault@mindspring.com>,
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote:
Don't bother quoting the Apocrypha to me, bub.
It's a much more accurate version of the text, georgann. I
can see why you wouldn't like it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
12 Feb 2004 06:59:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 23:41:21 GMT, georgann <chenault@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Don't bother quoting the Apocrypha to me, bub.
Why not? That is not a part of your holy bible?
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
13 Feb 2004 07:54:23 AM |
|
|
Don't bother quoting the Apocrypha to me, bub.
"Jos Flachs" wrote:
Why not? That is not a part of your holy bible?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Nope. To most Catholics, maybe. The distinction being that Protestants don't
accept the Apocrypha books as cannon because neither Jesus nor the apostles
ever quoted any or them.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
14 Feb 2004 09:26:16 AM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Don't bother quoting the Apocrypha to me, bub.
"Jos Flachs" wrote:
Why not? That is not a part of your holy bible?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Nope. To most Catholics, maybe. The distinction being that Protestants
don't accept the Apocrypha books as cannon because neither Jesus nor
the apostles ever quoted any or them.
Which books do you believe that were never tampered with by the
Catholic church?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
15 Feb 2004 07:47:14 AM |
|
|
"Jos Flachs" wrote:
Why not? That is not a part of your holy bible?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Nope. To most Catholics, maybe. The distinction being that Protestants don't
accept the Apocrypha books as cannon because neither Jesus nor the apostles
ever quoted any or them.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Which books do you believe that were never tampered with by the Catholic
church?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Who said anything about "tampering"? The Catholics accept as cannon books
that are not recognized as convincingly inspired of God and so theirs is a
somewhat larger Bible than that of the Protestants.
If you want to know which books the Protestants agree are cannon look up any
conventional Bible translation and look them over. You would probably have
to go to a Catholic bookstore to specifically purchase a Catholic bible that
includes the (specious?) additions not included in the Protestant Bibles.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
16 Feb 2004 06:08:08 AM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
If you want to know which books the Protestants agree are cannon look
up any conventional Bible translation and look them over. You would probably
have to go to a Catholic bookstore to specifically purchase a Catholic bible that
includes the (specious?) additions not included in the Protestant Bibles.
Why do you consider it as the Catholics "adding them" instead of the
Protestants "removing them" instead? Didn't Catholicism pre-date
Protestantism by a thousand years or more?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
16 Feb 2004 04:28:04 PM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
If you want to know which books the Protestants agree are cannon look up any
conventional Bible translation and look them over. You would probably have to
go to a Catholic bookstore to specifically purchase a Catholic bible that
includes the (specious?) additions not included in the Protestant Bibles.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Why do you consider it as the Catholics "adding them" instead of the
Protestants "removing them" instead? Didn't Catholicism pre-date
Protestantism by a thousand years or more?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Any number of heresies predated Protestantism. Some of them purporting to be
Christian. For example the Gnostics. By definition - not Christian.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
15 Feb 2004 09:14:37 AM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"Jos Flachs" wrote:
Why not? That is not a part of your holy bible?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Nope. To most Catholics, maybe. The distinction being that Protestants don't
accept the Apocrypha books as cannon because neither Jesus nor the apostles
ever quoted any or them.
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
Which books do you believe that were never tampered with by the Catholic
church?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Who said anything about "tampering"? The Catholics accept as cannon books
that are not recognized as convincingly inspired of God
Convincingly inspired?
What does that mean? Recognized by who?
and so theirs is a somewhat larger Bible than that of the Protestants.
Because they added stuff after the Protestants came up with their
Bible? What is the first Protestant Bible, and what is it based on?
If you want to know which books the Protestants agree are cannon look
up any conventional Bible translation and look them over. You would probably
have to go to a Catholic bookstore to specifically purchase a Catholic bible that
includes the (specious?) additions not included in the Protestant Bibles.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't Catholicism and the
Catholic Bible around long before Protestants?
Shouldn't you have said "subtractions" instead of "additions" in your
above statement?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
14 Feb 2004 10:42:24 AM |
|
|
And so upon Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:26:16 +0000 didst Elroy Willis speak
thusly:
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Don't bother quoting the Apocrypha to me, bub.
"Jos Flachs" wrote:
Why not? That is not a part of your holy bible?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Nope. To most Catholics, maybe. The distinction being that Protestants
don't accept the Apocrypha books as cannon because neither Jesus nor
the apostles ever quoted any or them.
Which books do you believe that were never tampered with by the
Catholic church?
They had *centuries to work the things over...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
14 Feb 2004 12:32:41 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in alt.atheism
didst Elroy Willis speak thusly:
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Don't bother quoting the Apocrypha to me, bub.
"Jos Flachs" wrote:
Why not? That is not a part of your holy bible?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Nope. To most Catholics, maybe. The distinction being that Protestants
don't accept the Apocrypha books as cannon because neither Jesus nor
the apostles ever quoted any or them.
Which books do you believe that were never tampered with by the
Catholic church?
They had *centuries to work the things over...
I wonder which council of people georgann trusts to have made
the decisions about which books should be included? Surely
she doesn't trust some Catholic council, does she?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
15 Feb 2004 07:51:42 AM |
|
|
Which books do you believe that were never tampered with by the Catholic
church?
They had *centuries to work the things over...
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
I wonder which council of people georgann trusts to have made the decisions
about which books should be included? Surely she doesn't trust some Catholic
council, does she?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I trust the monks who got the Bible past near annihilation of its contents
by the marauding Huns. Why should I not trust the Catholic Church to get
some things right too?
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
All your prophecy are belong to Christ!
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
15 Feb 2004 12:04:56 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 15 Feb 2004 13:51:42 +0000 didst georgann speak thusly:
Which books do you believe that were never tampered with by the Catholic
church?
They had *centuries to work the things over...
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
I wonder which council of people georgann trusts to have made the decisions
about which books should be included? Surely she doesn't trust some Catholic
council, does she?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I trust the monks who got the Bible past near annihilation of its contents
by the marauding Huns. Why should I not trust the Catholic Church to get
some things right too?
So they were right about interpreting things so as to decide which books
should be preserved as "inspired" but wrong about interpreting those books?
Wait... let's back up...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Aquarius |
15 Feb 2004 09:07:00 AM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Which books do you believe that were never tampered with by the Catholic
church?
They had *centuries to work the things over...
"Elroy Willis" wrote:
I wonder which council of people georgann trusts to have made the
decisions about which books should be included? Surely she doesn't
trust some Catholic council, does she?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I trust the monks who got the Bible past near annihilation of its contents
by the marauding Huns.
Which monks are you talking about?
Why should I not trust the Catholic Church to get some things right
too?
Why not trust it completely, then? Is it the divorce issue?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
