Regarding Christians being "just" a Jewish sect foe "hundreds of years." Uh . no. Sorry. Wrong.
Jesus was indeed born Jewish. Some of what Jesus preached is very reminiscent of Hillel's preaching - no surprise, because they were members of the same tradition. But at the time of his death, the most powerful groups and/or sects in Roman Judaea considered Jesus and his followers heretical. This is one of the reasons Pilate didn't want to be involved - it was an internal Jewish matter, as far as he was concerned. Moreover, the protection given Christians as Jews didn't last all that long. Jews who saw Christians as heretics pushed for the protections to be removed, and we have executions of Christians under Claudius and Nero. Under emperors like Trajan, Christianity was only prosecuted as a crime in a don't ask, don't tell" way - but it was certainly considered a crime. And from the very early stages, Christians didn't consider themselves Jews any longer.
SO, if Christians didn't consider themselves to be Jewish, proper Jews didn't consider them Jewish, and the Romans (who only began to define Christians as different *after* being told by the Sanhedrin et al. that Christians weren't Jews) didn't think they were Jews, how could they have been Jewish for hundreds of years? Just wondering ;-)
Absolutes can be awkward on the wikipedia unless you have facts to back them up - and even then, if it's historical, there will be other facts that might not back you - and someone else is bound to know them.
A slight correctionYes, those facts were more or less correct -- although facts can never be complete. In any case - I dont think this is the venue or forum for a discussion of religion - as Im explaing to LD in private email. ( It's open season on the brand-spanking *new religions though ;)
If this thread was however, a clever tool to regain the active interest of our long lost colleague Julie Hoffman Kemp - then all goes according to plan. :)
-Steven
Stevertigo wrote:
Yes, those facts were more or less correct -- although facts can never be complete. In any case - I dont think this is the venue or forum for a discussion of religion - as Im explaing to LD in private email. ( It's open season on the brand-spanking *new religions though ;)
If this thread was however, a clever tool to regain the active interest of our long lost colleague Julie Hoffman Kemp - then all goes according to plan. :)
-Steven
why do you have black bg and black text?
First of all - a rule in psychology is "noone can *make you angry."
Carrying this theme over to the color issue: No one can make you see colors you dont want to: Its your job to manage the settings of what you see there. So, in windows - internet options - under accesibility - you can "ingnore colors specified on web pages" Under colors you can "use system colors". Then the color profile you set from the desktop (right click -properties..etc.) will apply to your web content too.
In Mozilla - its similar - only the "ignore" and "use system colors" are both on the colors page.
There you go - that way no matter what I do - (cause these are all sent text only anyway - so i dunno.) it wont come up unreadable. BTW: I have my settings for light text on black background to minimise eyestrain. (less radiation) I recommend it.
I hope.. you... like. I like! Yashemazh. -SM
At 11:25 AM 6/18/2003, you wrote:
First of all - a rule in psychology is "noone can *make you angry."
Carrying this theme over to the color issue: No one can make you see colors you dont want to: Its your job to manage the settings of what you see there. So, in windows - internet options - under accesibility - you can "ingnore colors specified on web pages" Under colors you can "use system colors". Then the color profile you set from the desktop (right click -properties..etc.) will apply to your web content too.
In Mozilla - its similar - only the "ignore" and "use system colors" are both on the colors page.
There you go - that way no matter what I do - (cause these are all sent text only anyway - so i dunno.) it wont come up unreadable. BTW: I have my settings for light text on black background to minimise eyestrain. (less radiation) I recommend it.
I hope.. you... like. I like! Yashemazh. -SM
Of course... you are ABSOLUTELY correct. It's totally our fault...
Of course, no one can MAKE me not compose a filter in Eudora that automatically sends your emails to the trash folder... then I certainly won't have to see black on dark grey. ;)
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Of course... you are ABSOLUTELY correct. It's totally our fault...
Of course, no one can MAKE me not compose a filter in Eudora that automatically sends your emails to the trash folder... then I certainly won't have to see black on dark grey. ;)
Well, the "Buddy Christ Dashboard Statue" could make you - if I asked him. :) http://shop.store.yahoo.com/jsbstash/budchrisdass1.html
-SM
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:25:16 -0700, Stevertigo stevertigo@attbi.com gave utterance to the following:
First of all - a rule in psychology is "noone can *make you angry."
Carrying this theme over to the color issue: No one can make you see colors you dont want to: Its your job to manage the settings of what you see there. So, in windows - internet options - under accesibility - you can "ingnore colors specified on web pages" Under colors you can "use system colors". Then the color profile you set from the desktop (right click -properties..etc.) will apply to your web content too.
In Mozilla - its similar - only the "ignore" and "use system colors" are both on the colors page.
So what exactly do the settings for two web browsers that I hardly ever use have to do with the way my e-mail client displays things?
There you go - that way no matter what I do - (cause these are all sent text only anyway - so i dunno.) it wont come up unreadable.
Bzzt - wrong. You are sending Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0025_01C3357D.255F69E0" which includes a text/plain part and an text/html part which specifies <BODY bgColor=#202020> and contains numerous font tags which set the text color as #000000 (black).
The initial fault is Julie's (she posted in multipart with both text and HTML to start with, but MSOE seems to have a rather severe bug when replying to multipart messages - applying your bg colour but the original message's font colour.
I humbly suggest that: 1) Julie endeavour to post only text/plain to mailing lists (have you *seen* what multipart messages can do to a digest or archive?) 2) Steve endeavours to find a setting whereby OE replies to multipart messages only in text/plain. (Many mail clients have such a setting) 3) Both of you try to find a decent mail client. :-)
So what exactly do the settings for two web browsers that I hardly ever use have to do with the way my e-mail client displays things?
Well, the internet options in Internet explorer are interused between outlook, MSOE, MSIE, and some other microsoft internet 'products'
Stevertigo wrote:
First of all - a rule in psychology is "noone can *make you angry."
Carrying this theme over to the color issue: No one can make you see colors you dont want to: Its your job to manage the settings of what you see there. So, in windows - internet options - under accesibility - you can "ingnore colors specified on web pages" Under colors you can "use system colors". Then the color profile you set from the desktop (right click -properties..etc.) will apply to your web content too.
In Mozilla - its similar - only the "ignore" and "use system colors" are both on the colors page.
There you go - that way no matter what I do - (cause these are all sent text only anyway - so i dunno.) it wont come up unreadable. BTW: I have my settings for light text on black background to minimise eyestrain. (less radiation) I recommend it.
I hope.. you... like. I like! Yashemazh. -SM
I like it! Except my theme is blueish...well...I'll go find a black theme :)
Stevertigo wrote:
Yes, those facts were more or less correct -- although facts can never be complete. In any case - I dont think this is the venue or forum for a discussion of religion - as Im explaing to LD in private email. ( It's open season on the brand-spanking *new religions though ;)
If this thread was however, a clever tool to regain the active interest of our long lost colleague Julie Hoffman Kemp - then all goes according to plan. :)
-Steven
BTW Steven your last post was again black on black.
LD in his boundless enthusiasm had managed to miss the metaphorical significance of the Nietzsche quotation: "There are no Christians alive today, the last one died on the cross." In what should perhaps also have included a smiley, he seemed to suggest that Christ was not a Christian. Of course, there is no obligation that someone must be that for which he is an eponym, but it does help if one recognizes an historical personage's cultural importance even as one questions the theology.
Some people have a hard time with metaphor
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
BTW Steven your last post was again black on black.
LD in his boundless enthusiasm had managed to miss the metaphorical significance of the Nietzsche quotation: "There are no Christians alive today, the last one died on the cross." In what should perhaps also have included a smiley, he seemed to suggest that Christ was not a Christian. Of course, there is no obligation that someone must be that for which he is an eponym, but it does help if one recognizes an historical personage's cultural importance even as one questions the theology.
Some people have a hard time with metaphor
Ec
I understood the metaphor. I guess I should have put a smiley face on the end. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com