John wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:15:30 -0400, TJ wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:

Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.
There wasn't ever a year 1 either, what's your point.?
The calendar we use was invented in the 15th century and missed the
birth of Jesus by about 4 1/2 years by the current best guess
It doesn't matter when it was invented, or whether they got the dates of
specific events correct. What does matter is how they started counting.
If they started with 1, then 2000 was the end of the 20th century. If
they started with 0, then 1999 was the end of the 20th century. I think
they started with 1, since only mathematicians, computer programmers,
and engineers start counting with 0.

However, if you can show me where they started counting with the January
1 that *followed* the date when they *believed* Christ was born, then I
will also concede the point.

The truth is, nobody really knows. I don't think Pope Gregory ever
thought he would be questioned on the matter. After all, you just don't
question the Pope's edicts.

TJ

Go down to the store and buy a dozen eggs - do you get 11 eggs - 0 -
11?? a loaf of bread - you get "0" loaves maybe?

My point exactly. So, if you are going to count 2000 years, why stop and
celebrate after number 1999? The first 2000 years is complete at the
*end* of year 2000, not the beginning of 2000. The next 100 years start
with the beginning of 2001.

The whole arguement is not even rediculas, it is simply stupid.


Yep. I read somewhere that most people in 1900 realized that that was
the last year of the 19th century. I guess that means that 20th century
man was stupider than 19th century man.

TJ

hk wrote:


Besides, if you wanted to know when "Christ" allegedly was born, you'd
have to consult a Hebrew calendar. :)

Ah, the word "Christ" in quotes, in that context. Explains a lot. In
fact Harry, you reveal much more by what you *don't* say than what you do.

I'm curious, Harry. Are all liberals as filled with hatred for those who
disagree with them as you are? If so, I don't think we should elect one.
Sounds like a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen if you ask me.

TJ

TJ wrote:
hk wrote:


Besides, if you wanted to know when "Christ" allegedly was born, you'd
have to consult a Hebrew calendar. :)

Ah, the word "Christ" in quotes, in that context. Explains a lot. In
fact Harry, you reveal much more by what you *don't* say than what you do.

I'm curious, Harry. Are all liberals as filled with hatred for those who
disagree with them as you are? If so, I don't think we should elect one.
Sounds like a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen if you ask me.

TJ


I use "Christ" in quotes because I don't believe he was the "annointed"
or "the messiah. For one thing, he did not fill all the stated criteria
of Jewish tradition. Are you aware that Jewish tradition requires that
the messiah be a human being, and not divine? Didn't think so. But I
have many other "theological" reasons.

My disbelief in Jesus as "Christ" is not based upon "hate," as you
simple-minded righties seem to so easily believe. My readings of
religious literature tell me that Jesus was a pretty cool dude. I am
most impressed by his reported compassion for the poorest among us, an
attribute *not* shared by those here who most loudly proclaim their
Christianity.

I have a relative, retired, who really follows the teachings of Jesus.
He and his wife spend almost all their time and most of their spare
money helping the hungry, the homeless, the medically needy and the
lonely, and they're not preachy. I would call him a "Christian." Too
many of the self-described "Christians" here are "I've got mine, so
screw you" Republicans.

Christianity and today's right-wing Republicanism are mutually
inconsistent.

On Aug 26, 8:54*pm, TJ wrote:
John wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:15:30 -0400, TJ wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:49:29 -0400, TJ wrote:

Now, if you can show me where the first
century started with year 0, I'll concede your point.
There wasn't ever a year 1 either, what's your point.?
The calendar we use was invented in the 15th century and missed the
birth of Jesus by about 4 1/2 years by the current best guess
It doesn't matter when it was invented, or whether they got the dates of
specific events correct. What does matter is how they started counting..
If they started with 1, then 2000 was the end of the 20th century. If
they started with 0, then 1999 was the end of the 20th century. I think
they started with 1, since only mathematicians, computer programmers,
and engineers start counting with 0.

However, if you can show me where they started counting with the January
1 that *followed* the date when they *believed* Christ was born, then I
will also concede the point.

The truth is, nobody really knows. I don't think Pope Gregory ever
thought he would be questioned on the matter. After all, you just don't
question the Pope's edicts.

TJ

Go down to the store and buy a dozen eggs - do you get 11 eggs - 0 -
11?? a loaf of bread - you get "0" loaves maybe?

My point exactly. So, if you are going to count 2000 years, why stop and
celebrate after number 1999? The first 2000 years is complete at the
*end* of year 2000, not the beginning of 2000. The next 100 years start
with the beginning of 2001.

The whole arguement is not even rediculas, it is simply stupid.

Yep. I read somewhere that most people in 1900 realized that that was
the last year of the 19th century. I guess that means that 20th century
man was stupider than 19th century man.

TJ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I used the timer on the stove to time my steak tonight.. When the
timer said zero, there was one second left until the tone went
off...??? Oh my.. global taxing?

hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:


Besides, if you wanted to know when "Christ" allegedly was born,
you'd have to consult a Hebrew calendar. :)

Ah, the word "Christ" in quotes, in that context. Explains a lot. In
fact Harry, you reveal much more by what you *don't* say than what you
do.

I'm curious, Harry. Are all liberals as filled with hatred for those
who disagree with them as you are? If so, I don't think we should
elect one. Sounds like a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen if you
ask me.

TJ


I use "Christ" in quotes because I don't believe he was the "annointed"
or "the messiah. For one thing, he did not fill all the stated criteria
of Jewish tradition. Are you aware that Jewish tradition requires that
the messiah be a human being, and not divine? Didn't think so. But I
have many other "theological" reasons.

My disbelief in Jesus as "Christ" is not based upon "hate," as you
simple-minded righties seem to so easily believe. My readings of
religious literature tell me that Jesus was a pretty cool dude. I am
most impressed by his reported compassion for the poorest among us, an
attribute *not* shared by those here who most loudly proclaim their
Christianity.

I have a relative, retired, who really follows the teachings of Jesus.
He and his wife spend almost all their time and most of their spare
money helping the hungry, the homeless, the medically needy and the
lonely, and they're not preachy. I would call him a "Christian." Too
many of the self-described "Christians" here are "I've got mine, so
screw you" Republicans.

Christianity and today's right-wing Republicanism are mutually
inconsistent.



I don't care whether you consider Jesus the Messiah as prophesied by
Judaism or not. If you must know, I have some doubts about that myself,
despite being raised as a Christian. The idea that some dude was
crucified just so I could get a get-out-of-jail-free card for heaven no
matter what I might have done with my life always seemed at odds with
the concept of being accountable for my own actions. I've always
preferred the accountability concept. I also don't care whether you are
Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or any of a thousand or so other
religions - or if you have no religion at all. What difference is it
supposed to make?

Being the sort of person you are, of course you twisted my question into
something else, something that you preferred to answer, because the
question you wanted to answer made "Christians" look bad. My "hatred"
question wasn't simply about religion, or any other particular specific
subject. It doesn't matter what the subject is, you express hatred for
all those who disagree with you. Personally, I find it practically
impossible to hate anybody. Even you. But you do it so easily that I
must again ask if all liberals are that way. I'm just trying to
understand it, that's all.

TJ

"TJ" wrote in message
...

I don't care whether you consider Jesus the Messiah as prophesied by
Judaism or not. If you must know, I have some doubts about that myself
but, all I really want to know is What Kind of Boat did he have ?

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:46:59 -0400, TJ wrote:

hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:


Besides, if you wanted to know when "Christ" allegedly was born,
you'd have to consult a Hebrew calendar. :)

Ah, the word "Christ" in quotes, in that context. Explains a lot. In
fact Harry, you reveal much more by what you *don't* say than what you
do.

I'm curious, Harry. Are all liberals as filled with hatred for those
who disagree with them as you are? If so, I don't think we should
elect one. Sounds like a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen if you
ask me.

TJ


I use "Christ" in quotes because I don't believe he was the "annointed"
or "the messiah. For one thing, he did not fill all the stated criteria
of Jewish tradition. Are you aware that Jewish tradition requires that
the messiah be a human being, and not divine? Didn't think so. But I
have many other "theological" reasons.

My disbelief in Jesus as "Christ" is not based upon "hate," as you
simple-minded righties seem to so easily believe. My readings of
religious literature tell me that Jesus was a pretty cool dude. I am
most impressed by his reported compassion for the poorest among us, an
attribute *not* shared by those here who most loudly proclaim their
Christianity.

I have a relative, retired, who really follows the teachings of Jesus.
He and his wife spend almost all their time and most of their spare
money helping the hungry, the homeless, the medically needy and the
lonely, and they're not preachy. I would call him a "Christian." Too
many of the self-described "Christians" here are "I've got mine, so
screw you" Republicans.

Christianity and today's right-wing Republicanism are mutually
inconsistent.



I don't care whether you consider Jesus the Messiah as prophesied by
Judaism or not. If you must know, I have some doubts about that myself,
despite being raised as a Christian. The idea that some dude was
crucified just so I could get a get-out-of-jail-free card for heaven no
matter what I might have done with my life always seemed at odds with
the concept of being accountable for my own actions. I've always
preferred the accountability concept. I also don't care whether you are
Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or any of a thousand or so other
religions - or if you have no religion at all. What difference is it
supposed to make?

Being the sort of person you are, of course you twisted my question into
something else, something that you preferred to answer, because the
question you wanted to answer made "Christians" look bad. My "hatred"
question wasn't simply about religion, or any other particular specific
subject. It doesn't matter what the subject is, you express hatred for
all those who disagree with you. Personally, I find it practically
impossible to hate anybody. Even you. But you do it so easily that I
must again ask if all liberals are that way. I'm just trying to
understand it, that's all.

TJ

Looks like you've become one of us. Now's he's calling you some good names.

"When will they ever learn, When will they ever learn?"
--
John *H*

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:22:02 GMT, "Rudy" wrote:


"TJ" wrote in message
...

I don't care whether you consider Jesus the Messiah as prophesied by
Judaism or not. If you must know, I have some doubts about that myself
but, all I really want to know is What Kind of Boat did he have ?


He didn't need no steeenking boat!
--
John *H*

TJ wrote:
hk wrote:
TJ wrote:
hk wrote:


Besides, if you wanted to know when "Christ" allegedly was born,
you'd have to consult a Hebrew calendar. :)

Ah, the word "Christ" in quotes, in that context. Explains a lot. In
fact Harry, you reveal much more by what you *don't* say than what
you do.

I'm curious, Harry. Are all liberals as filled with hatred for those
who disagree with them as you are? If so, I don't think we should
elect one. Sounds like a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen if
you ask me.

TJ


I use "Christ" in quotes because I don't believe he was the
"annointed" or "the messiah. For one thing, he did not fill all the
stated criteria of Jewish tradition. Are you aware that Jewish
tradition requires that the messiah be a human being, and not divine?
Didn't think so. But I have many other "theological" reasons.

My disbelief in Jesus as "Christ" is not based upon "hate," as you
simple-minded righties seem to so easily believe. My readings of
religious literature tell me that Jesus was a pretty cool dude. I am
most impressed by his reported compassion for the poorest among us, an
attribute *not* shared by those here who most loudly proclaim their
Christianity.

I have a relative, retired, who really follows the teachings of Jesus.
He and his wife spend almost all their time and most of their spare
money helping the hungry, the homeless, the medically needy and the
lonely, and they're not preachy. I would call him a "Christian." Too
many of the self-described "Christians" here are "I've got mine, so
screw you" Republicans.

Christianity and today's right-wing Republicanism are mutually
inconsistent.



I don't care whether you consider Jesus the Messiah as prophesied by
Judaism or not. If you must know, I have some doubts about that myself,
despite being raised as a Christian. The idea that some dude was
crucified just so I could get a get-out-of-jail-free card for heaven no
matter what I might have done with my life always seemed at odds with
the concept of being accountable for my own actions. I've always
preferred the accountability concept. I also don't care whether you are
Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or any of a thousand or so other
religions - or if you have no religion at all. What difference is it
supposed to make?

Being the sort of person you are, of course you twisted my question into
something else, something that you preferred to answer, because the
question you wanted to answer made "Christians" look bad. My "hatred"
question wasn't simply about religion, or any other particular specific
subject. It doesn't matter what the subject is, you express hatred for
all those who disagree with you. Personally, I find it practically
impossible to hate anybody. Even you. But you do it so easily that I
must again ask if all liberals are that way. I'm just trying to
understand it, that's all.

TJ

Let us join together and offer this morning tribute to Harry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYEnpo2rma0

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:26:14 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:18:48 -0700, Calif Bill wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm

Did you read that link? "This year appears set to be the coolest
globally this century." This century started in *2000*.

And, "Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since
1850".

The article is about the La Nina/El Nino temperature swing.

The Republican Party Platform for 2008 includes addressing Global
Warming.