Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (24847)	9/6/1998 11:32:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<Maybe you can tell us where he discovered all of that knowledge about Demiurges, Aeons and so forth. It's not in any bible I've seen, but you may have found one that does have it.>> That might have been one of the bits that was edited. Must all Christians, by definition, derive all their scripture from the Bible as we know it today? <<You don't like 'parasite'? Fine. They "piggy-backed" their beliefs upon a variety of host religions.>> Didn't all Christianity "piggy-back" on Judaism? Steve

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (24847)	11/28/1998 3:16:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

<The gnostic Christians perceived things in a different way from some other early Christian groups, but were definitely Christians. Thank you, Pope Christine, for the clarification. I posted the beliefs of the "Gnostic Christian" Valentinus previously. Maybe you can tell us where he discovered all of that knowledge about Demiurges, Aeons and so forth. It's not in any bible I've seen, but you may have found one that does have it.> Okay, Freddy, here are some web sites discussing Valentinus and the early Christian Gnostics. He seems to have been a Catholic priest in the second century, and is described as "devoutly Christian". These sites also discuss the first Council of Nicea, where, as you will remember from our previous discussions, the concept of Trinity won out, and many Gnostic Christians ended up losing their lives. I am really still quite curious as to how you can decide that the Gnostics were not Christians, but have finally come to the conclusion that you must be of the belief that Christianity as a belief system came fully formed, like a thunderbolt from the skies. Any reading of the history of the times would seem to lead, however, to the conclusion that it was a belief system which finally caught on over a period of several hundred years, of course with a lot of bloodshed as people fought over which kind of Christianity was the right one. I think it is important to remember here that Jesus was a Jew, and had no concept of Christianity at all. thelema.net theshop.net members.aol.com <I am curious as to how you can describe a group of believers as "parasites" and still claim to to be discussing this issue on a scholarly rather than a biased and emotional basis? You don't like 'parasite'? Fine. They "piggy-backed" their beliefs upon a variety of host religions. You don't object to "piggy-backers" do you?> While "parasites" is derogatory and judgmental, so is "piggy-backers" to some degree. What I do not understand is what is wrong with a belief system, Christianity for example, EVOLVING over time, as it obviously did. The Christians behaved like parasites as well, very cleverly taking all the pagan holidays and traditions and deliberately and gradually introducing Christian themes. Is is parasitic when the Christians do it? I am not sensing much objectivity in your argument. Oh, and by the way, last Monday I read a wire service article about two black sisters who have come forward, claiming to be the direct descendants of George Washington. I cannot find the article with a web search. Did anyone read it, is there a url? I was travelling at the time, and did not save the newspaper. The story was interesting in several regards. First, the sisters in their picture both have the round, moonlike but still quite flattened facial structure of Washington, a facial structure that I have never noticed elsewhere. They have a compelling story to tell as well, with quite a few details of their slave ancestor, who was showered with special opportunities and riches and allowed to enter through the front door. Some Washington historians were discussing all of the facts and suppositions in the article, and argued that Washington was sterile, and that it is more probable that a relative of his impregnated the slave woman who bore this child. However, the sisters have requested a sample of Washington's DNA, which is apparently available, and have been turned down. I am very curious as to why the request would be denied. This DNA thing is very exciting, and besides a spate of unsolved or wrongly solved crimes being thrown open for a new look, I think it is way cool that a lot of old genetic mysteries might be solved as well. These two subjects are related because history should be a search for truth, not simply a way of idolizing certain famous people, or glorifying certain time periods.