Megalextoria
Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Digital Archaeology » Computer Arcana » Computer Folklore » SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea?
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339571 is a reply to message #339560] Fri, 17 March 2017 17:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 2:12:20 PM UTC-6, JimP. wrote:

> The Middle Ages Church had passion plays, to show parts of the Bible,
> for the mostly illiterate populace. So plays in and of themselves
> cannot be sinful.

Only if one thinks that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible,
which does not include most Protestants.

John Savard
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339572 is a reply to message #339559] Fri, 17 March 2017 17:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 2:10:15 PM UTC-6, JimP. wrote:

> The preacher pointed out that Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson
> had just a short while before starred in a movie titled The Ten
> Commandmants. So not all movies were sinful.

But that just shows how insidious Satan's strategies can be!

In fact, I think there's a famous Cecil B. DeMille quote about
movies based on the Bible - that making such a movie lets one get
away with including certain things in the movie that would not
have otherwise been allowed back in those days.

John Savard
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339573 is a reply to message #339560] Fri, 17 March 2017 17:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:11:38 -0500
JimP. <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:55:34 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> This page
>>
>> http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_92.htm
>>
>> presents a short summary of this point of view.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> The Middle Ages Church had passion plays, to show parts of the Bible,
> for the mostly illiterate populace. So plays in and of themselves
> cannot be sinful.

Hmm, so torture and murder cannot be sinful because the Catholic
Church once did both.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339574 is a reply to message #339572] Fri, 17 March 2017 17:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 3:25:56 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 2:10:15 PM UTC-6, JimP. wrote:
>
>> The preacher pointed out that Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson
>> had just a short while before starred in a movie titled The Ten
>> Commandmants. So not all movies were sinful.
>
> But that just shows how insidious Satan's strategies can be!
>
> In fact, I think there's a famous Cecil B. DeMille quote about
> movies based on the Bible - that making such a movie lets one get
> away with including certain things in the movie that would not
> have otherwise been allowed back in those days.

Cecil B. DeMille did say "Give me any two pages of the Bible, and
I'll give you a picture", but the quotes of the kind I'm looking
for seem to have come from other people talking about him: for
example, Darryl F. Zanuck said "When you get a sex story in
Biblical garb, you can open your own mint".

John Savard
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339576 is a reply to message #339534] Fri, 17 March 2017 17:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andrew Swallow is currently offline  Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 17/03/2017 17:22, JimP. wrote:
{snip}

> The sequence where the character is in that satelty room is to
> apparently turn him into that star child that some tv showings they
> clip that part.

The ending to 2001 is where the aliens evolve/turn man from ape into angel.
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339577 is a reply to message #339538] Fri, 17 March 2017 17:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andrew Swallow is currently offline  Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 17/03/2017 17:48, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 11:22:57 AM UTC-6, JimP. wrote:
>> She wanted the pastor and members to outlaw movie going as it
>> was sinful, says so in the Bible. The preacher rightfully pointed out
>> the Bible was written over 1,000 years before the invention of
>> electricity, we hadn't had about that Baghdad battery back then, he
>> then asked where that was in the Bible ?
>
> Well, maybe there could be a part in the Bible where it was said to be
> sinful to watch plays, since people had live theater before Edison was
> born: Shakespeare and Aristophanes come to mind.
>
> I'm not aware of any such passage in the Bible, but if there _was_ one,
> it would be reasonable to conclude from it that watching movies or
> television would *also* be sinful as well.
>
> John Savard
>

One of the 10 Commandments bans the making of images. Jews and Muslims
have traditionally taken this very literally.
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339578 is a reply to message #339576] Fri, 17 March 2017 18:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Charlie Gibbs is currently offline  Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-17, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 17/03/2017 17:22, JimP. wrote:
> {snip}
>
>> The sequence where the character is in that satelty room is to
>> apparently turn him into that star child that some tv showings they
>> clip that part.
>
> The ending to 2001 is where the aliens evolve/turn man from ape into angel.

It really helps to have read the book. That part of the movie suffers
from lack of narrative.

--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339588 is a reply to message #339561] Fri, 17 March 2017 20:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> On 2017-03-17, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> It's a fairly mundane passage, guy travels to a satellite, then the moon,
>> we see stewardesses and they deliver the meals. But altogether, and with
>> that music, it has to be one of the best scenes from a science fiction
>> movie ever.
>
> Not to mention the bit of humour where we see Dr. Floyd perusing
> the instructions for the zero-G toilet. (I have a book on the
> making of the movie which contains the full text of the placard.)

A friend of mine had a reproduction (I assume made from the copy of the
text in the book) of the placard in his toilet.
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339590 is a reply to message #339577] Fri, 17 March 2017 21:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G

Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:
> One of the 10 Commandments bans the making of images. Jews and Muslims
> have traditionally taken this very literally.

Certain protestant sects as well... while many Christians decorate their
homes with "portraits" of Christ (Sallman's "Head Of Christ" being a
very popular one), there are some branches that consider it prohibited.
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339593 is a reply to message #339571] Fri, 17 March 2017 22:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:24:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 2:12:20 PM UTC-6, JimP. wrote:
>
>> The Middle Ages Church had passion plays, to show parts of the Bible,
>> for the mostly illiterate populace. So plays in and of themselves
>> cannot be sinful.
>
> Only if one thinks that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible,
> which does not include most Protestants.
>
> John Savard

Yeah, I'm a Protestant.
--
Jim
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339594 is a reply to message #339572] Fri, 17 March 2017 22:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:25:55 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 2:10:15 PM UTC-6, JimP. wrote:
>
>> The preacher pointed out that Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson
>> had just a short while before starred in a movie titled The Ten
>> Commandmants. So not all movies were sinful.
>
> But that just shows how insidious Satan's strategies can be!
>
> In fact, I think there's a famous Cecil B. DeMille quote about
> movies based on the Bible - that making such a movie lets one get
> away with including certain things in the movie that would not
> have otherwise been allowed back in those days.
>
> John Savard

Probably certain amounts of undress. Though they didn't show bare
chested Egyptian royalty. I seem to remember the silent version of
Cleopatra included things, costumes or lack thereof, that later on
were impossible to show in theaters.
--
Jim
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339595 is a reply to message #339573] Fri, 17 March 2017 22:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:26:13 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:11:38 -0500
> JimP. <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:55:34 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> This page
>>>
>>> http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_92.htm
>>>
>>> presents a short summary of this point of view.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> The Middle Ages Church had passion plays, to show parts of the Bible,
>> for the mostly illiterate populace. So plays in and of themselves
>> cannot be sinful.
>
> Hmm, so torture and murder cannot be sinful because the Catholic
> Church once did both.

Unless they made a passion play of an auto defe. I think not.
--
Jim
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339596 is a reply to message #339576] Fri, 17 March 2017 22:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:46:32 +0000, Andrew Swallow
<am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 17/03/2017 17:22, JimP. wrote:
> {snip}
>
>> The sequence where the character is in that satelty room is to
>> apparently turn him into that star child that some tv showings they
>> clip that part.
>
> The ending to 2001 is where the aliens evolve/turn man from ape into angel.

According to the 2010 book, it was more to keep an eye on humans. The
astronaut and HAL 9000 blocked some info going back to the aliens.
--
Jim
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339597 is a reply to message #339590] Fri, 17 March 2017 22:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:42:58 -0600, Lawrence Statton NK1G
<lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:
>> One of the 10 Commandments bans the making of images. Jews and Muslims
>> have traditionally taken this very literally.
>
> Certain protestant sects as well... while many Christians decorate their
> homes with "portraits" of Christ (Sallman's "Head Of Christ" being a
> very popular one), there are some branches that consider it prohibited.

One of the Churches I went to had lots of Nordic Jesus pictures. I
didn't believe he was blond and blue eyed. He was a Jew.
--
Jim
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339602 is a reply to message #339596] Fri, 17 March 2017 23:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andrew Swallow is currently offline  Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 18/03/2017 02:24, JimP. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:46:32 +0000, Andrew Swallow
> <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17/03/2017 17:22, JimP. wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>> The sequence where the character is in that satelty room is to
>>> apparently turn him into that star child that some tv showings they
>>> clip that part.
>>
>> The ending to 2001 is where the aliens evolve/turn man from ape into angel.
>
> According to the 2010 book, it was more to keep an eye on humans. The
> astronaut and HAL 9000 blocked some info going back to the aliens.
> --
> Jim
>

They are not mutually excursive
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339606 is a reply to message #339595] Sat, 18 March 2017 02:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:22:57 -0500
JimP. <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:26:13 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:11:38 -0500
>> JimP. <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:55:34 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This page
>>>>
>>>> http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_92.htm
>>>>
>>>> presents a short summary of this point of view.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>>
>>> The Middle Ages Church had passion plays, to show parts of the Bible,
>>> for the mostly illiterate populace. So plays in and of themselves
>>> cannot be sinful.
>>
>> Hmm, so torture and murder cannot be sinful because the Catholic
>> Church once did both.
>
> Unless they made a passion play of an auto defe. I think not.

Not following that, the argument was that plays can't be sinful
because the Church once had passion plays - which I generalised to X can't
be sinful because the Church once did X - then I substituted 'torture and
murder' for X instead of plays.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339608 is a reply to message #339533] Sat, 18 March 2017 06:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-17, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-17, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>> a bit of sex-education by watching the courting couples in the
>> back row)
>>
>> The Church knew that TV would weaken their power, so we had no local
>> TV until 1961
>>
> 1961 is when we got an English language commercial tv station here. I
> don't know if there'd been a French language commercial station before,
> but the only English one was the CBC. I was one at the time, so I
> wouldn't have noticed any of it.
>
> Michael
>

A young friend works in the building indstry, which means that he
babysites sometimes, instead of leaving the two kids with his mother.
He was telling me of how cartoons keep the kids amused, but now he
cannot even be in the room, while TV is on. (His wife, as is almost
usual in Ireland now, has a better job)


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339609 is a reply to message #339522] Sat, 18 March 2017 06:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-17, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 16/03/2017 23:12, JimP. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:06:11 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 2:45:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Really? It had been a movie some years before, so I would have thought
>>>> > Irwin Allen had enough brain to pick.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, I don't remember the movie.
>>>>
>>>> I do remember "Fantastic Voyage". Even as a kid I liked Raquel Welch" <g>
>>>
>>> Wasn't in 'Fathom' where she was a sky diver ?
>>> --
>>> Jim
>>>
>> Raquel Welch was in both of those films.
>>
>
> One Million Years BC. Is there an alt.rec.raquel.welch?
>

Raquel was very good looking, and not a bimbo,
(individual.net has no such group, which may be in error. Just
noticed, description is Welsh, Country is Wales.
Again, individual net has fido7.kharkov.* ..That city seems to have
at least 3 different names


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339610 is a reply to message #339538] Sat, 18 March 2017 06:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 11:22:57 AM UTC-6, JimP. wrote:
>> She wanted the pastor and members to outlaw movie going as it
>> was sinful, says so in the Bible. The preacher rightfully pointed out
>> the Bible was written over 1,000 years before the invention of
>> electricity, we hadn't had about that Baghdad battery back then, he
>> then asked where that was in the Bible ?
>
> Well, maybe there could be a part in the Bible where it was said to be
> sinful to watch plays, since people had live theater before Edison was
> born: Shakespeare and Aristophanes come to mind.
>
> I'm not aware of any such passage in the Bible, but if there _was_ one,
> it would be reasonable to conclude from it that watching movies or
> television would *also* be sinful as well.
>
> John Savard

Or looking at porn on the Internet?.

The Bible, if studied close enough, can be used to justify anything,
like most religious books. I feel sorry for poor old Onan.


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339611 is a reply to message #339597] Sat, 18 March 2017 06:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Morten Reistad is currently offline  Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
In article <tl6pcc5jn4uuoiau2kld2mm3d8me1dvmci@4ax.com>,
JimP. <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:42:58 -0600, Lawrence Statton NK1G
> <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:
>>> One of the 10 Commandments bans the making of images. Jews and Muslims
>>> have traditionally taken this very literally.
>>
>> Certain protestant sects as well... while many Christians decorate their
>> homes with "portraits" of Christ (Sallman's "Head Of Christ" being a
>> very popular one), there are some branches that consider it prohibited.
>
> One of the Churches I went to had lots of Nordic Jesus pictures. I
> didn't believe he was blond and blue eyed. He was a Jew.

The one physical attribute we do know about him, from several independent
sources, is that he had fair or white hair. He was from the Amhraic part
of the Middle East, but was solidly Jewish. He had Amhraic as his mother
toughe. (And "Jesus" in Amhraic today means "Saviour", but the cause and
effect of this is not known).

Hebrew was a language he learnt in his early years, probably before 10.

He would probably also have been exposed to Latin and Greek, but
there is no record of this except that there is no reference to translators
in his trials, something which would probably have been noted.

They were widely shunned, almost to the level of the other money
collectors widely referenced in the bible.

-- mrr
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339614 is a reply to message #339379] Sat, 18 March 2017 06:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-17, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2017-03-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 11:55:35 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> This page
>>>
>>> http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_92.htm
>>>
>>> presents a short summary of this point of view.
>>
>> And here's another way of expressing it...
>>
>> https://www.gracegems.org/ATS/theater.htm
>
> Who cares what a bunch of 2000 years dead goat herders think?
>
>

You do, the whole system of time.division can be traced way back.
(Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) are based on Gods who are
no longer generally recognized. I think (Loki -- various spellings)
has recently been elected US. president.


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339615 is a reply to message #339543] Sat, 18 March 2017 06:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> This book was quite the polemic, from the year 1633:
>
> https://archive.org/details/maspla00pryn
>
> John Savard

I was taught that women were not allowed on stage in Shakesperes
time. Wonder how they managed kissing and all that. Must ask
the local Lesbians and Gay community.


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339616 is a reply to message #339560] Sat, 18 March 2017 06:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-17, JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:55:34 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> This page
>>
>> http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_92.htm
>>
>> presents a short summary of this point of view.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> The Middle Ages Church had passion plays, to show parts of the Bible,
> for the mostly illiterate populace. So plays in and of themselves
> cannot be sinful.
> --
> Jim

Oberammergau (sp?) was under criticism at one time, for taking a
very (Middleagish) view of things.


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339617 is a reply to message #339573] Sat, 18 March 2017 06:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-17, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:11:38 -0500
> JimP. <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:55:34 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> This page
>>>
>>> http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_92.htm
>>>
>>> presents a short summary of this point of view.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> The Middle Ages Church had passion plays, to show parts of the Bible,
>> for the mostly illiterate populace. So plays in and of themselves
>> cannot be sinful.
>
> Hmm, so torture and murder cannot be sinful because the Catholic
> Church once did both.
>

Depends on how you regard the terms. The recentish US goverment does
regard either as being bad.


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339618 is a reply to message #339574] Sat, 18 March 2017 06:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 3:25:56 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 2:10:15 PM UTC-6, JimP. wrote:
>>
>>> The preacher pointed out that Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson
>>> had just a short while before starred in a movie titled The Ten
>>> Commandmants. So not all movies were sinful.
>>
>> But that just shows how insidious Satan's strategies can be!
>>
>> In fact, I think there's a famous Cecil B. DeMille quote about
>> movies based on the Bible - that making such a movie lets one get
>> away with including certain things in the movie that would not
>> have otherwise been allowed back in those days.
>
> Cecil B. DeMille did say "Give me any two pages of the Bible, and
> I'll give you a picture", but the quotes of the kind I'm looking
> for seem to have come from other people talking about him: for
> example, Darryl F. Zanuck said "When you get a sex story in
> Biblical garb, you can open your own mint".
>
> John Savard

I notice that there are films on youtube that seems to have
been organized by Christion fundementalists. (I don't really
disagree to them).. Besides that, AFAIK, there are a lot of
Religious type of large scale films from religions coming out,
and a while ago there was "Oh, Inchon!", I think it was called.


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339619 is a reply to message #339577] Sat, 18 March 2017 06:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-17, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 17/03/2017 17:48, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 11:22:57 AM UTC-6, JimP. wrote:
>>> She wanted the pastor and members to outlaw movie going as it
>>> was sinful, says so in the Bible. The preacher rightfully pointed out
>>> the Bible was written over 1,000 years before the invention of
>>> electricity, we hadn't had about that Baghdad battery back then, he
>>> then asked where that was in the Bible ?
>>
>> Well, maybe there could be a part in the Bible where it was said to be
>> sinful to watch plays, since people had live theater before Edison was
>> born: Shakespeare and Aristophanes come to mind.
>>
>> I'm not aware of any such passage in the Bible, but if there _was_ one,
>> it would be reasonable to conclude from it that watching movies or
>> television would *also* be sinful as well.
>>
>> John Savard
>>
>
> One of the 10 Commandments bans the making of images. Jews and Muslims
> have traditionally taken this very literally.


There was a recreated aynagogue, dug up from the old city of Dura
uropius(sp?), in the museum in Damascus, which had representations
of human beings on the walls.
Nobody seems to know if that was a general custom.
That whole thing has come on gone over the ages, Byzanthium went through
that phase as well, (Icon-Smashers?). Muslims regard themselves as an
update of Judaism, for the first few years they worshipped facing
Jerusalem. (Don't tell any Jew or Muslim that, if you have anything
else to do that day.

--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339622 is a reply to message #339611] Sat, 18 March 2017 07:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

In article <3pevpd-keq.ln1
@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
says...
>
> In article <tl6pcc5jn4uuoiau2kld2mm3d8me1dvmci@4ax.com>,
> JimP. <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:42:58 -0600, Lawrence Statton NK1G
>> <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
>>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:
>>>> One of the 10 Commandments bans the making of images. Jews and Muslims
>>>> have traditionally taken this very literally.
>>>
>>> Certain protestant sects as well... while many Christians decorate their
>>> homes with "portraits" of Christ (Sallman's "Head Of Christ" being a
>>> very popular one), there are some branches that consider it prohibited.
>>
>> One of the Churches I went to had lots of Nordic Jesus pictures. I
>> didn't believe he was blond and blue eyed. He was a Jew.
>
> The one physical attribute we do know about him, from several independent
> sources, is that he had fair or white hair.

What are these "independent sources"? The only
source we have from people who claim to have
actually met him is the Bible. Everything else
is second-hand. Further, the Biblical mention
of white hair is in a description of a vision--
according to the same passage he has a sword
sticking out of his mouth, so it's rather
difficult to take it is other than symbolism.

> He was from the Amhraic part
> of the Middle East, but was solidly Jewish. He had Amhraic as his mother
> toughe. (And "Jesus" in Amhraic today means "Saviour", but the cause and
> effect of this is not known).

I believe you mean "Aramaic", although there is
a different language, "Amharic", that was also
spoken in a different part of the Middle East.
>
> Hebrew was a language he learnt in his early years, probably before 10.
>
> He would probably also have been exposed to Latin and Greek, but
> there is no record of this except that there is no reference to translators
> in his trials, something which would probably have been noted.

The actual trial before Pilate gets about a
dozen sentences pertaining to Jesus'
interactions with the court--that's about 4 per
observer. It's not like we have a detailed
transcript.

> They were widely shunned, almost to the level of the other money
> collectors widely referenced in the bible.

What leads you to believe that Pilate didn't
speak the local language?

And what leads you to believe that interpreters
were "shunned"?
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339623 is a reply to message #339614] Sat, 18 March 2017 08:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ahem A Rivet's Shot is currently offline  Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 18 Mar 2017 10:31:28 GMT
mausg@mail.com wrote:

> You do, the whole system of time.division can be traced way back.
> (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) are based on Gods who are
> no longer generally recognized.

As indeed are Saturn's day Moon day and Sun day.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339626 is a reply to message #339534] Sat, 18 March 2017 08:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jmfbahciv is currently offline  jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
JimP. wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:31:49 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ca2b446b-627f-4e56-b2d3-
>>> 0a6cb19c595c@googlegroups.com>, hancock4
>>> @bbs.cpcn.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 2:45:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Really? It had been a movie some years before, so I would have thought
>>>> > Irwin Allen had enough brain to pick.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, I don't remember the movie.
>>>>
>>>> I do remember "Fantastic Voyage". Even as a kid I liked Raquel Welch"
<g>
>>>
>>> I saw Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea when I was
>>> a kid. Movie came out in '61 when I would have
>>> been 8 or so. Placed in the far future of 1973.
>>> I liked it then but seeing a movie in a theater
>>> was such a treat that I liked just about
>>> everything.
>>>
>> Yes, up until I was in my teens, I saw relatively few films. I think it
>> just happened, but here in Quebec there had long been a long, since the
>> thirties, where kids under a certain age weren't allowed in theatres.
>> There'd been a big fire in the thirties at a movie theatre, full of kids,
>> and it wasn't so much the fire, but the exits were blocked or locked, so
>> many died in the pile-up at the doors. So the catholic church, which had
>> great influence campaigned for the law, probably helped because they saw
>> movie going as "evil". I'm not sure when the law was revoked, the late
>> fifties or early sixties. But I don't remember seeing any films in
>> theatres here (I had in Denmark in 1965) until 1967 or so.
>
> One of the Baptist Churchs where I grew up, a women attended a few
> sermons and then showed up at the weekly business meeting on Wednesday
> night. She wanted the pastor and members to outlaw movie going as it
> was sinful, says so in the Bible. The preacher rightfully pointed out
> the Bible was written over 1,000 years before the invention of
> electricity, we hadn't had about that Baghdad battery back then, he
> then asked where that was in the Bible ? She got upset and said it was
> in there, and stomped out saying we were all going to Hell. We prayed
> for her. It isn't in there.

Some Baptists put banning books on the ballet here. When my mother
told me about it, I mentioned that their banning would also have to
include the Bible.

I wasn't allowed to go to movie houses when I was a kid. The first
movie I ever saw was on TV and it was _The Day the Earth Stood
Still_ on the show they called Saturday Night at the Movies.
I was stunned.

/BAH
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339628 is a reply to message #339611] Sat, 18 March 2017 09:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-18, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <tl6pcc5jn4uuoiau2kld2mm3d8me1dvmci@4ax.com>,
> JimP. <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:42:58 -0600, Lawrence Statton NK1G
>> <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
>>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:
>>>> One of the 10 Commandments bans the making of images. Jews and Muslims
>>>> have traditionally taken this very literally.
>>>
>>> Certain protestant sects as well... while many Christians decorate their
>>> homes with "portraits" of Christ (Sallman's "Head Of Christ" being a
>>> very popular one), there are some branches that consider it prohibited.
>>
>> One of the Churches I went to had lots of Nordic Jesus pictures. I
>> didn't believe he was blond and blue eyed. He was a Jew.
>
> The one physical attribute we do know about him, from several independent
> sources, is that he had fair or white hair.
Cite:?

AFAIK, Galillee had only recently been converted to Judaism.
(Macibees?)
Much as been made at the time, that Jesus 'real' father was a
Roman legionaire. That rumor would have been later, probably
from Appolonius of Tyana, when the older religions became aware
that Christianity might become the `official' religion of the
Roman Empire, intolerant of them.


> He was from the Amhraic part
> of the Middle East, but was solidly Jewish. He had Amhraic as his mother
> toughe. (And "Jesus" in Amhraic today means "Saviour", but the cause and
> effect of this is not known).
>

AFAIK, Amharic was the general language of that area at thta time, educated
people spoke Greek (Koine?). I once heard a religious service in Amharic.
AFAIK, that community fled somewhere West after being warned by the local
Al Nusra faction (A branch of Al Queda) that they faced elimination.

> Hebrew was a language he learnt in his early years, probably before 10.

Cite?.. from what I read, Hebrew was long since dead, except for religious
ceremonies.

>
> He would probably also have been exposed to Latin and Greek, but
> there is no record of this except that there is no reference to translators
> in his trials, something which would probably have been noted.
>
> They were widely shunned, almost to the level of the other money
> collectors widely referenced in the bible.

A good story of the moneychangers, was that Roman and a sort of Greek
coinage was widely used in that area, but not accepted as an offering
in the Temple, so it had to be changed to Jewish coins for this purpose,
the moneychangers would then exchange the `alien' coins with the priests
for Jewish coins. Kinda like Cuba at the moment.

>
> -- mrr

AFAIK, we know nothing independently of Jesus's life, except for
a mention in Josephus, which is widely doubted.


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339631 is a reply to message #339626] Sat, 18 March 2017 09:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-18, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> JimP. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:31:49 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>> in there, and stomped out saying we were all going to Hell. We prayed
>> for her. It isn't in there.
>
> Some Baptists put banning books on the ballet here.

Wonder how they felt about the ballet ?

lt about l
> When my mother
> told me about it, I mentioned that their banning would also have to
> include the Bible.
>
> I wasn't allowed to go to movie houses when I was a kid. The first
> movie I ever saw was on TV and it was _The Day the Earth Stood
> Still_ on the show they called Saturday Night at the Movies.
> I was stunned.
>


When I was young, the local cinema had a film, by Griffith, I think,
about the capture of Babylon by the Persians, scenes of carousing
Babylonians (evil, naturally) being drowned by the diverted river.
I had nightmares about it for a while after.

--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339637 is a reply to message #339614] Sat, 18 March 2017 12:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP.

On 18 Mar 2017 10:31:28 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:

> On 2017-03-17, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2017-03-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 11:55:35 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> This page
>>>>
>>>> http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_92.htm
>>>>
>>>> presents a short summary of this point of view.
>>>
>>> And here's another way of expressing it...
>>>
>>> https://www.gracegems.org/ATS/theater.htm
>>
>> Who cares what a bunch of 2000 years dead goat herders think?
>>
>>
>
> You do, the whole system of time.division can be traced way back.
> (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) are based on Gods who are
> no longer generally recognized. I think (Loki -- various spellings)
> has recently been elected US. president.

I think he is refering to Middle East goat herders, not Scandinavian
goat herders.

Thursday was originally Thorsday, etc.
--
Jim
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339638 is a reply to message #339615] Sat, 18 March 2017 12:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: JimP.

On 18 Mar 2017 10:34:10 GMT, mausg@mail.com wrote:

> On 2017-03-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> This book was quite the polemic, from the year 1633:
>>
>> https://archive.org/details/maspla00pryn
>>
>> John Savard
>
> I was taught that women were not allowed on stage in Shakesperes
> time. Wonder how they managed kissing and all that. Must ask
> the local Lesbians and Gay community.

Youg boys played the parts of women on Shakespearian stages.
--
Jim
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339641 is a reply to message #339615] Sat, 18 March 2017 13:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Andrew Swallow is currently offline  Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 18/03/2017 10:34, mausg@mail.com wrote:
> On 2017-03-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> This book was quite the polemic, from the year 1633:
>>
>> https://archive.org/details/maspla00pryn
>>
>> John Savard
>
> I was taught that women were not allowed on stage in Shakesperes
> time. Wonder how they managed kissing and all that. Must ask
> the local Lesbians and Gay community.
>
>
Simple. There is very little kissing in Shakespeare.
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339653 is a reply to message #339609] Sat, 18 March 2017 15:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Quadibloc is currently offline  Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 4:23:41 AM UTC-6, ma...@mail.com wrote:

> Raquel was very good looking, and not a bimbo,

Yes, that is very true, though she had the misfortune of basically
playing one on the silver screen. That a woman's good looks are more
valued than anything else she can do... is sad, but true, and less
unjust than it might seem, as it's not really as if the other things
women can do are valued all that much less than those same things when
done by men.

She was an intelligent person, but she was also, apparently, flawed as
an actress, having limited emotional range.

John Savard
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339654 is a reply to message #339540] Sat, 18 March 2017 15:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> This page
>
> http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_92.htm
>
> presents a short summary of this point of view.
>
> John Savard
>

Wow!

--
Pete
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339655 is a reply to message #339622] Sat, 18 March 2017 15:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <3pevpd-keq.ln1
> @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
> says...
>>
>> In article <tl6pcc5jn4uuoiau2kld2mm3d8me1dvmci@4ax.com>,
>> JimP. <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:42:58 -0600, Lawrence Statton NK1G
>>> <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
>>>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:
>>>> > One of the 10 Commandments bans the making of images. Jews and Muslims
>>>> > have traditionally taken this very literally.
>>>>
>>>> Certain protestant sects as well... while many Christians decorate their
>>>> homes with "portraits" of Christ (Sallman's "Head Of Christ" being a
>>>> very popular one), there are some branches that consider it prohibited.
>>>
>>> One of the Churches I went to had lots of Nordic Jesus pictures. I
>>> didn't believe he was blond and blue eyed. He was a Jew.
>>
>> The one physical attribute we do know about him, from several independent
>> sources, is that he had fair or white hair.
>
> What are these "independent sources"? The only
> source we have from people who claim to have
> actually met him is the Bible. Everything else
> is second-hand. Further, the Biblical mention
> of white hair is in a description of a vision--
> according to the same passage he has a sword
> sticking out of his mouth, so it's rather
> difficult to take it is other than symbolism.

I had not heard this, but there are certainly independent sources. The
books of the New Testament were selected from a lot of competing texts
which are at least as likely (or unlikely) to be authentic.

>
>> He was from the Amhraic part
>> of the Middle East, but was solidly Jewish. He had Amhraic as his mother
>> toughe. (And "Jesus" in Amhraic today means "Saviour", but the cause and
>> effect of this is not known).
>
> I believe you mean "Aramaic", although there is
> a different language, "Amharic", that was also
> spoken in a different part of the Middle East.

Ethiopia.

>>
>> Hebrew was a language he learnt in his early years, probably before 10.
>>
>> He would probably also have been exposed to Latin and Greek, but
>> there is no record of this except that there is no reference to translators
>> in his trials, something which would probably have been noted.
>
> The actual trial before Pilate gets about a
> dozen sentences pertaining to Jesus'
> interactions with the court--that's about 4 per
> observer. It's not like we have a detailed
> transcript.
>
>> They were widely shunned, almost to the level of the other money
>> collectors widely referenced in the bible.
>
> What leads you to believe that Pilate didn't
> speak the local language?

I would really doubt any Roman official would bother.

>
> And what leads you to believe that interpreters
> were "shunned"?
>



--
Pete
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339656 is a reply to message #339631] Sat, 18 March 2017 15:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Peter Flass is currently offline  Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
Senior Member
<mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-03-18, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> JimP. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:31:49 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>> in there, and stomped out saying we were all going to Hell. We prayed
>>> for her. It isn't in there.
>>
>> Some Baptists put banning books on the ballet here.
>
> Wonder how they felt about the ballet ?
>
> lt about l
>> When my mother
>> told me about it, I mentioned that their banning would also have to
>> include the Bible.
>>
>> I wasn't allowed to go to movie houses when I was a kid. The first
>> movie I ever saw was on TV and it was _The Day the Earth Stood
>> Still_ on the show they called Saturday Night at the Movies.
>> I was stunned.
>>
>
>
> When I was young, the local cinema had a film, by Griffith, I think,
> about the capture of Babylon by the Persians, scenes of carousing
> Babylonians (evil, naturally) being drowned by the diverted river.
> I had nightmares about it for a while after.
>

Intolerance? How the heck old are you, anyhow? Or did it take a while for
movies to make it to Irekand?

--
Pete
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339664 is a reply to message #339655] Sat, 18 March 2017 16:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Karma:
Originally posted by: J. Clarke

In article
<1838400119.511559290.596569.peter_flass-
yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
peter_flass@yahoo.com says...
>
> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <3pevpd-keq.ln1
>> @sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid
>> says...
>>>
>>> In article <tl6pcc5jn4uuoiau2kld2mm3d8me1dvmci@4ax.com>,
>>> JimP. <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:42:58 -0600, Lawrence Statton NK1G
>>>> <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
>>>> > Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:
>>>> >> One of the 10 Commandments bans the making of images. Jews and Muslims
>>>> >> have traditionally taken this very literally.
>>>> >
>>>> > Certain protestant sects as well... while many Christians decorate their
>>>> > homes with "portraits" of Christ (Sallman's "Head Of Christ" being a
>>>> > very popular one), there are some branches that consider it prohibited.
>>>>
>>>> One of the Churches I went to had lots of Nordic Jesus pictures. I
>>>> didn't believe he was blond and blue eyed. He was a Jew.
>>>
>>> The one physical attribute we do know about him, from several independent
>>> sources, is that he had fair or white hair.
>>
>> What are these "independent sources"? The only
>> source we have from people who claim to have
>> actually met him is the Bible. Everything else
>> is second-hand. Further, the Biblical mention
>> of white hair is in a description of a vision--
>> according to the same passage he has a sword
>> sticking out of his mouth, so it's rather
>> difficult to take it is other than symbolism.
>
> I had not heard this, but there are certainly independent sources. The
> books of the New Testament were selected from a lot of competing texts
> which are at least as likely (or unlikely) to be authentic.

"Heard this"? Haven't you ever _read_ the
bloody thing? If you're going to talk about
what the Bible says, you should at least go see
what it DOES say instead of relying on the
accounts of others, who often will take one or
two sentences out of a longer passage and remove
them from context.

>>> He was from the Amhraic part
>>> of the Middle East, but was solidly Jewish. He had Amhraic as his mother
>>> toughe. (And "Jesus" in Amhraic today means "Saviour", but the cause and
>>> effect of this is not known).
>>
>> I believe you mean "Aramaic", although there is
>> a different language, "Amharic", that was also
>> spoken in a different part of the Middle East.
>
> Ethiopia.
>
>>>
>>> Hebrew was a language he learnt in his early years, probably before 10.
>>>
>>> He would probably also have been exposed to Latin and Greek, but
>>> there is no record of this except that there is no reference to translators
>>> in his trials, something which would probably have been noted.
>>
>> The actual trial before Pilate gets about a
>> dozen sentences pertaining to Jesus'
>> interactions with the court--that's about 4 per
>> observer. It's not like we have a detailed
>> transcript.
>>
>>> They were widely shunned, almost to the level of the other money
>>> collectors widely referenced in the bible.
>>
>> What leads you to believe that Pilate didn't
>> speak the local language?
>
> I would really doubt any Roman official would bother.

Spent a lot of time around Roman officials have
you?
Re: SciFi: Star Trek vs. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? [message #339672 is a reply to message #339656] Sat, 18 March 2017 16:53 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
mausg is currently offline  mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
Senior Member
On 2017-03-18, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2017-03-18, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> JimP. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:31:49 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>> When I was young, the local cinema had a film, by Griffith, I think,
>> about the capture of Babylon by the Persians, scenes of carousing
>> Babylonians (evil, naturally) being drowned by the diverted river.
>> I had nightmares about it for a while after.
>>
>
> Intolerance? How the heck old are you, anyhow? Or did it take a while for
> movies to make it to Irekand?
>

The `local cinema' was managed for a while by genuine enthusiasts,
which is why it was taken over by the parish priests. There was a lot
of good stuff made in the silent era, which is sometimes available on
YouBoob


--
greymaus.ireland.ie
Just_Another_Grumpy_Old_Man
Pages (3): [ «    1  2  3    »]  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: Mind of War
Next Topic: Microsoft Admits Forcing More Users Onto Windows 10
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Mar 29 10:54:45 EDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06225 seconds