The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

=> Re: partial answer

Posted by pancho (Guest) - Tuesday, January 10 2006, 18:39:15 (CET)
from 201.155.147.4 - dsl-201-155-147-4.prod-empresarial.com.mx

Mexico -

Windows XP -

Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

Don wrote:
>Shlama.
>
>Farid:
>"...who assasinated the NEXT Marshimun? While you can make a case that Kurds are "just like that"...what do you say about the CHRISTIAN who murdered Marshimun? Would you say Christians are "just like that"? I doubt it..let me tell you what you´d say..."he got it WRONG"."
>
>-Well, I would say to you what a true communist/socialist would say concerning the capitalist Chinese who run businesses/corporations as capitalists but belong to a country that is nominally Communist and thus have the name "Communist" attached to them. These "Christians" that murdered Mar Shimon Eshai are not Christians at all, just like the Chinese who were exploiting the blacks in South Africa were not really living as practicing Communists. You see my point? And as you already know but maybe don't see me knowing is that there are good and bad in all people.

...like I said...if a religion or a medicine produces that many "wrong" outcomes, that medicine and religion should be pulled from the shelves...it is not the people who are at fault...but more what they are TAUGHT. If math students don`t learn math you don`t shoot them or get rid of math..you change the kind of teaching that goes on...obviously something is murderously wrong in Christianity that it gets it THIS wrong..and it`s there, staring you right in the face...your religion was BORN in murder.
>
>Farid:
>"..like I said, you have been encouraged to pick at your scabs forever. If you people read more than tatian and Syriac manuscripts you might get sight of the larger picture....which shows brother killing brother and raping sister since the beginning of time..certainly since the beginning of the Christian era...what do you call a war in which citizen kills citizen..and we´re talking about the SAME religion? It´s called a civil war...there have been thousands of them...and people try to put it behind them as fast as they can and get down to living in the present."
>
>-You are correct about civil wars happening. I don't disagree with that. I would also like to move past such things as well and live in the present, but certain things must be made known so that they do not occur again.

...then why is it okay to spread the same hate filled messages against Islam as it was recently okay to spread about Judaism? We know what that led to..and it seems Christians are on the warpath again...and justifying their inclination to murder innocent people by once again blaming THEM.

Moving to the present can only occur when people on both or all sides make an effort to understand what happened. That's the only reason for learning history - so that we learn from mistakes. And I'm not saying we're the only ones that are right and they are wrong or vice-versa. We need to all sit down and admit what we all did correctly and what we should not have done that was wrong. This is one of the key points one learns in psychology and communication studies concerning relationships.

...I agree.
>
>Farid:
>"...you may want to ask yourself WHY they hate you first."
>
>-These specific people I mention do not hate me or anyone...they admit truths. In general, all humans hate for several key reasons: Misunderstanding each other, not learning/knowing about each other, and if we see or perceive people to be hypocrites. I do not deny that many people who are nominally "Christian" are hypocrites...but so are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Janists, Zoroastrians, etc. (and the list includes ALL religions and ALL people of various ideologies).

...yes but, there isn`t a SINGLE religion that was born in murder..that confuses love with execution...whose followers LOVE and WEEP for the person who HAD to be killed in order for them to benefit...Muhammad died peacefully in bed, his family and friends around him...why did Jesus have to be sodomized, whipped, tortured, humiliated and then nailed? Why would a "father" demand such nonsense in the name of setting any kind of example EXCEPT getting people used to murdering Innocents in order to BENEFIT? People are decidedly squirrely...all the more reason NOT to get them playing at cannibalism and vampirism and enshrining the lowest sort of opportunism, which if indulged in on earth will get you thrown in jail?
>
>Farid:
>"...Ashur is not and never was the ONE and ONLY God...not even yahwe says he is the ONLY god. Ashur was god when there were MANY gods and respect was shown to them ALL...there are STILL many gods, only we don´t respect them all because we this mindless fetish, born of being crowded into empires where ONE ruler ruled over several people he never heard of or saw, of insisting there MUST be only one god...there are MANY gods today..alive and doing well...and that is as it SHOULD be...a god, to be real MUST grow from the experience of his followers..it is simply arrogance and a devotion to brutal force to say there must be ONE god...why must there be?

...more later.....
>
>...Monotheism has made people murderously intolerant..that is the only gift it has given us..it was implemented by Tyrants who insisted on their RIGHT to rule over the lives of strangers...to force THEIR ways on everyone...Christianity has KILLED the natural spirituality of millions of people round the world..reducing them to caricatures of their former selves while halting their natural progression.
>
>...come on...there WERE several gods back then. You´re trying to cover up what WASN´T a crime back then. No one back then minded having separate gods...you´re using your devotion to monotheism to re-write our history..we had TONS of gods and loved them all...Ishtar was NOT Ashur...she wasn´t Jesus either."
>
>-I don't deny that we, in our various pre-unified tribes and some post-unified cities, had "gods" but they were only "gods" in the sense that each tribe was worshipping its own single entity just with different names. We did have city gods as well but it didn't take too long for us to (as a whole nation) accept one entity. Here is a poem from Assyrian King Ashur Banipal (a man of reason and academia whom you know compiled a huge library that we unfortunately don't have much access to):
>
>"O Father of all creations, who watches over all beings.
>
>O Lord who determines the orbits of heavens and earth.
>
>Whose command is not set aside.
>
>Who holds fire and water, and guides all souls.
>
>What god reaches thy perfection?
>
>Who is glorified in heaven? Thou alone art glorified.
>
>Who is exalted on earth? Thou alone art exalted.
>
>Thy word proclaimed in heaven, angels prostrate themselves.
>
>Thy word proclaimed on earth, the oracles kiss the ground.
>
>Thy word blows like a storm in the sky, food and drink flows.
>
>Thy word settles down upon the earth, vegetation grows up.
>
>Thy word spreads over the flock and cattle, life increases.
>
>Thy word, who can comprehend it?
>
>Who is like unto thee O Lord? There is none, but Thee.
>
>Supreme in heaven, Supreme on earth.
>
>O lord of the exalted high ones,
>
>Thy word has no rival, thy divinity is beyond compare."
>
>This was how many Assyrian kings wrote. Clearly, he is referencing a monotheistic "god" - Ashur in this case. Ashur Banipal is just one example of kings/people who wrote this way. I wish I had the time to compile all of them. However, you in one post wrote that Assyrians were tolerant and didn't massacre people, etc. Following the logic that monotheism makes us intolerant, then Ashur Banipal and those that came before and after him must have been assholes, no? By the way, I don't think they really were assholes or that did were intolerant. I do agree with your earlier comment that they were tolerant among other things. Nevertheless, even though they did have various city gods or tribal gods, they were usually monotheistic but included the "attributes" of Ashur, which were masculine or feminine depending on the word that became the name of those attributes.
>
>Farid:
>"...that´s the whole point of an exchange such as this...to find OUT what each thinks...but you´re expected to RESPOND...not merely turn away."
>
>-Well, we are doing a good job with that. This is a really good conversation. I found this more fun than most other internet forum debates. I'm not turning away from the conversation as a whole, just this one aspect because it requires too much citing for which I am too busy for and it makes me kind of tired of talking about it for that reason. You are not the one turning me away. It's just the nature of the debate and how our view on this specific things is so different that I feel I have to pull out so many things to show. That's my issue.
>
>Farid:
>"...we can COMMENT on each other´s idiologies...you do not have to be in agreement to discuss...I don´t want to discuss church liturgy with you...we were discussing the REASONS for such beliefs."
>
>-Truthfully, you know and state this more than I do. Faith/religious beliefs don't have too much reason behind them. I have always been aware of that. Probably the most humanly reasonable of all religions would be either Islam or Zoroastrianism...but I think moreso Islam. But then again, that's why they are FAITHS. The faith that I myself have doesn't tell me to throw away what I need for this world. I live my life here and what I have faith for in regards to the next life or whatever is my faith.
>
>Farid:
>"...well you DO use the word Evangelical way too much. You DO believe Jesus said to spread his message etc."
>
>-Yes, but to those who choose to accept it. I should not force my belief on you even if you don't want it. Even Yeshua says that when he says "brush your feet off and move on." That's the problem with Christianity. It's most "loyal" followers are the biggest hypocrites on earth. And that's why I agree with you when you state that they're self-righteous and try to enforce things on others.
>
>Farid:
>"My position is that Christianity has been the greatest scourge the world has ever seen...that it has produced the self-rightrous and pious MOTHER of all excuses to go kill people..that it is a religion BORN in murder, not life otr resurrection...since NOTHING could have happened if a man was not FIRST murdered...if he was not FIRST killed...so the resurrection could take place and impres you all so. I´m compelled by the facts before me to try to understand why Christians kill...why they kill all those of other faiths and then go kill EACH OTHER. No one...no one has killed more Christians than OTHER Christians...and it puzzles me and scares me when I hear Christians dreaming out loud of of Judgement Day and how GLORIOUS it will be when the world errupts in flames and bloodshed...these people are NOT preparing for peace but for TOTAL war! It is the "peace" of the cemetary they seek...this makes then dangerous and their behavior SHOWS how dangerous they are."
>
>-Again, I agree. However, to me - to me - there is a distinction to draw between the COTE and the West. I do not deny incidents like the one that Tiglath posted about the Persians during the Sassanid Empire. However, most of those things were attempts to destroy the COTE from within. And I will also agree that it was used for negative purposes - but so was Communism under several regimes. However, that does not stop loyal Communists from saying "F Communism" simply because of the way certain people used it and as a result, deaths occurred. I too, see wrong things within, but that's why "movements" occur. They occur so that people can remove the wrong from an ideology they think can be viable if people really worked hard at it. If not, then they move on and create some new institution to reach their goals. And just like your compelled to understand why Christian kills Christian, I can be compelled to ask why Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims kill each other or why anyone kills another person. This is our human nature. We cannot escape it. It will exist with or without religion.
>
>Farid:
>"...I don´t believe in religions...they are all irrational by nature, they HAVE to be..and I distrust any "teacher" who insists you must hand over your Reason...or not develop it for it is an enemy of FAITH."
>
>-I don't believe in religion but I believe in my own personal faith. I think religion is like any institution and it can be exploited to destroy people's lives.
>
>Farid:
>"..Jews praise themselves for being so "bold" as to show their warts in their bible...it´s just too neat and clean to "discover" they were "highly paid technicians" all of a sudden...everyone dreams of re-writing their history...look at you. There´s even an attempt being made to re-write the history of the last Nazi Pope..the one who made the deal with Hitler...Murdoch, or one of them, has had "new studies" released in which they "prove" there was no such deal...even the American military plants articles...so, yes...when people CAN do it...they WILL re-write their history. Just because you find it incredible doesn´t make it so."
>
>-Hmm, you're right about that. I have nothing to combat that. However, when I state something about the past (like the notion on monotheism) I do so b/c of "evidence" I have seen. I am open to anyone to come and prove otherwise to me with reasonable evidence as well.
>
>Farid:
>"...good. Unlike Paul and others, you manage to remain rational. They all started out as if they COULD...but were soon howling at the moon and sprinkling pixie dust. I am always amazed that people who disdain Reason and PRAISE fath and illogic seem to feel the NEED to act as if anything they say should make SENSE...why not just smear war paint on, chant and be done with it? Why even BOTHER to appear to be rational?"
>
>-I don't know Paul and the others. However, even if you and I have similarities and differences with others, we are still individuals and thus I will look at you like that.
>
>Farid:
>"...have you read Mien Kampf?...that was written by a Christian. Jews lived in peace in Iraq...Jews did NOT live in peace in Germany...or for long anywhere in Christian lands..and yes, the Christians DID finally catch the Jews...they placed them in Aushcwitz and Bergen Belsen and a few other camps where they systematically cooked them. Was it, "Hahahaha", hilarious?"
>
>No, the events were not hilarious. Your words that you used to describe were. You almost made it seem like you were talking about people who were all responsible for a bank robbery and someone caught them. That's what was so funny about your words.
>
>Farid:
>...that wasn´t the question. The question was, how can you follow TWO gods if you are a monotheist? Would you accept a Jewish Christian? A Muslim Christian? You people can´t accept an "Assyrio-Chaldean"...who is supposedly BOTH of one ethnicity..you say she must CHOOSE which...that to be "Chaldean" is wrong...that it simply means "Assyrian" anyway...so how come you can believe in TWO gods? The name of the religion contains the name of the god...CHRIST-ians are those who follow Christ...YAHWE-ists are those who follow yahwe...BUDDHA-ists are those who follow Buddha...MUHAMMED-ans are those who follow Muhammad...guess which god ASHUR-ians follow? You can mash the two together if it makes you feel better...but it is still true that you give precedence to the Jew...no Assyrian EVER did that.
>
>-Speaking through logic, it's not possible. However, some people will say that a "god" exists irrespective of culture. See, you (and others) are of the belief that gods are human made objects or ideas. I (and others) are of the belief that "gods" can be human made objects or ideas but that there exists some "Creator," some entity that created the universe whom I can not associate only to my culture/ethnicity. The only thing I (for example) can do is claim that I learned about this "Creator" (God, whatever) first or second (and so on) or claim that I was told about him through someone else or claim that what I know about him was revealed to my people/ethnicity whereas perceptions of this "Creator" are different to another ethnicity because each person and each people see things differently. You see what I'm saying? This is where our difference is - I believe he is a Spirit and you believe he is just a cultural or personal idea/symbol/object. It just so happens that I believe my ethnicities name is Ashur and so is my god, you see? Aside from that, how can one claim that there is anything so special about a belief/faith in "God" if it does not have some entity that is larger than us. For example, in the 3 basic monotheistic religions, they all believe that there is this unseen God (occasionally seen or revealed to man) that has created the universe. Buddhism claims has its niche or its special place in the world in that it claims (via an atheistic tradition) that one must meditate and forget about the world. Well, as you say, let's be reasonable about this. First of all, why be on this earth to forget about it and its wonders? Second, this idea of meditation is something I can achieve without Buddhism; things like yoga incorporate meditation. The idea of not harming any creation is also found in other things...so I don't really need it either. In fact, if this belief in anything "special" lacks some almighty Creator, what is its point? What would be the point of me creating a God if he does not do anything for me but simply stands as a statue or serves as discussion by virtue of being a word on paper. Following this logic, I would argue that atheism allows me to a better person b/c it means I am not tied down to worshipping anything or following silly rituals which in turn allows me to pursue making money to live better with or to directly help people with my actions. So yes Farid, religion is not meant to be reasonable. If it was it wouldn't be any different from being a Capitalist or Communist, etc. That's why this crazy thing we refer to as "faith" is unique. It finds its uniqueness in having faith or holding belief that the universe and its inhabitants were created by a Creator. I don't claim my belief (in its original, unchanged and uninterpreted forms) to be better than science. It has a completely different reason for being. Science seeks to explain and offers hypotheses for something that could occur while belief is this side thing I am entitled to and concerns me and my beliefs on the afterlife. Why it began to be used as a weapon to destroy man is not something I can answer but is not something I can agree with.
>
>Farid:
>"...yes but you are in the odd position of prefering to attend to the pupil instead of the master who TAUGHT the pupil. You´ll be hard pressed to get out of college that way."
>
>-Almost done (Spring) w/ the BA.
>
>Farid:
>"...but your god won´t. What would you think of a parent whose child comes running with a cut finger to...who first says the child must express faith and gratitude and swear loyalty to HIM, BEFORE he will put a band-aid on her finger...and that if she doesn´t...she can just go to her room and bleed? Not much of a parent...not much of a god."
>
>-Logically a very good point that NO ONE can argue with. You are correct in your statement. However, there are people that believe that continue to suffer as well. The reward for believing is not having your body healed. The point of such healings is to serve as "miracles." Even non-believers can be and have been healed. The so-called "bible" mentions such cases. I have seen such things as well where believers have prayed for non-believers and they have been healed. Am I saying that it humanly makes sense - no. That doesn't change that it happened and I have witnessed such things. The real question here is...do I throw away all of those experiences simply because they don't make sense? Do I dismiss that many occasions as "coincidences?" I know where you're coming from, I really do and it would make perfect sense why you think it is all BS and unexplainable coincidences. However, I can't sit here and pretend the same when I see all I have seen. It is too much of a coincidence to really be a coincidence. I think you are using your reason. But I think I am using my reasoning as well by questioning whether something is a coincidence or not.
>
>Farid:
>..they are not individuals..it is an EVANGELICAL religion...it praises itself for sending MISSIONARIES..at other times you BRAG about how you went to China and everywhere else and SPREAD the message.
>
>Yes, they did send people to "spread" the message but they didn't do it at the cost of those other peoples' lives. They didn't disrupt the culture of the Chinese by speaking about Yeshua's words. They either accepted the words of Yeshua or they didn't. They still had their own architecture, language, culture, etc. (those that did accept and those that didn't). And actually, the COTE does not evangelize today. I agree with all your points if you want to apply that to the west but the COTE doesn't evangelize. I actually spoke to someone (I decline to state who) who told me that those who are a part of the Church need to learn how to improve themselves and be good with each other and if people who live outside of them like their way of living, they will accept it themselves. There are two methods of "spreading" the word. The actual walking around the earth has already been done. The rest of it simply involves one actually following what he/she has preached so he doesn't look like a hypocrite. We have failed miserably at this especially recently and this why today we are weak.
>
>Farid:
>..as a WHOLE your religion has been the bloodiest scouge the world has ever seen. And the whole IS responsible for the actions of individuals...you can´t simply say the Christians who turned to killing Jews BECAUSE the church taught them to, got it wrong and acted as individuals.
>
>-Correct again. Whatever my "faith" has become today, that "religion" is a virus. My only course of action is to continue living the way I live and hope that the so-called "Christians" will stop being hypocrites.
>
>Farid:
>"...who said he was? I said he came from the dessert...many people came from there...you all resent the MUSLIMS who came from the dessert...you embrace Sargon and Hammurabi because they came BEFORE Christ...before Muhammad drove Christ out. Had the people of Sumer been Christian you´d HATE the later Assyrians...because they drove Christ OUT! That´s all this about...your resentment that Jesus got the old heave-ho. The Muslim army and leaders did nothing different than what Sargon and Hammurabi and several other people did...they came from the dessert, brought new ways and new gods, mixed with the settled populations and created a NEW and more energetic mixture from the tired old stock...all this anger is simply because Christ got out in his place."
>
>-What desert? At the time that Sargon and Hammurabi lived, desertification was not as widespread as it is today. So which desert are you talking about? The one to the west of Assyria? Or the one to the south? If it is the south, that is traditionally Arabia. If it is the west, it was not always desert and even so Assyrians lived there as well. Regardless, I don't have much of a problem with Islam. I just don't like names being changed. Also, just like I showed some evidence, please show me where it says Sargon and Hammurabi were from whatever desert you say they were. I would like to see that. If you are going to say b/c Hammurabi was an Amorite he came from the desert, I will agree they did not live in the heart of Babylon, but where they came from was not entirely desert at the time but more like what's between the Sahara and the Jungles of Africa (something in between).
>
>Farid:
>"...no Muslim can comfortably call himself Assyrian so long as YOU define it as "Christian". Muslims of Iraq accept their distant ancestors as being Assyrian...before this latest Christian jihad against the Holy Land, Iraq´s official website mentioned the Assyrians AND on the homepage showed Assyrian symbols PLUS the cross! Do you think Christians would show the Cresecent if they had an "Assyria" where Uruk is now? Do you think "Assyrians" would mention the glorious Islamic Empire that followed the glorious Assyrian and Babylonian and Chaldean and Persian empire? I doubt it."
>
>-When did I define it as one specific religion? I wouldn't instate a state religion. And I would mention the Islamic Empire as I always do mention it when I talk to people who ask me. How would I and how do I? I always mention that the Assyrians (initially the Christian ones as I'm discussing the point right when Islam came and thus Assyrians weren't Muslim yet) handed civilization to the Assyrian and Arab Christians and Muslims and via the Islamic Conquests that stretched out all the way to Spain, humans beings living in the west received the vast knowledge during that insurge of "academia" called "The Enlightenment." I proceed to give them several words in Latin and Spanish that are clearly Assyrian to prove it.
>
>Farid:
>"...I´ve been told it had a different name from the time of the Ottomans at least."
>
>-Yes, actually you're correct. It was not intially called "Islam." I don't have my Islam books in front of me but I can find the word for you.
>
>Farid:
>"...we were renamed Arab. This is your complaint because Iraqis dared to say they too are descended from the ancient Assyrians BUT that they are a part of the ARAB world. Every Muslim in the MidEast is mindfull of his and her own national identity and proud and jealous of it. The designation of Muslims countries of the MidEast as ARAB was simply in response to the collective threat faced by them from the EUROPEANS...who made no bones about hating ISLAM and coveting the resources of Muslim lands...faced with such a monolith, Muslim nations of the MidEast came together under their own name of ARAB...so that it became a Euro-Arab confrontation...there is comfort and also strength in numbers...but also in unity. If the Christians of France and England and Germany and Russia and Austria were going to come as EUROPEAN-CHRISTIANS, then the Muslims of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Arabia were going to face them and defend themselves as ARAB-MUSLIMS."
>
>-The Assyrians of Iraq (and later Jordan, Syria, Lebanon) were renamed to Arab but not those living in Hakkari and in Iran. How come the Persians/Iranians never renamed us there? You don't mention how the conquering Arabs coveted our history and our accomplishments. I admit they conquered a lot but the only thing that would solidify them even more and make them even more credible would be to conquer with the banner that they were bringing civilization - our civilization and claiming it was theirs.
>
>Farid:
>"...The Muslims of Mongolia and Indonesia are NOT Arabs and never said they are."
>
>-I wasn't talking about them...I was referring to the Arab League.
>
>Farid:
>...It is also a LANGUAGE group...a group of independent nations linked by a common language...Iran is NOT an Arab nation just because it has a religion FROM Arabia.
>
>Yes thank Ashur. Iran was strong enough to fend off that "arab" influence and maintain its own rich culture. Even still, the Elamites of Ahwaz (the only other Semitic group remaining) were changed into "arabs" [of Persia]. It was a conspiracy. People always say if we all converted to Islam that Assyria would still be around, that's not true. The majority of converts to Islam in what is now called Iraq were Assyrians (as you even mentioned). That didn't change them from being relabeled arabs. If Iran didn't get relabled then we should not either.
>
>Farid:
>"...they no more "crept" into Assyria than your family crept into America...they MOVED."
>
>No, they slowly crept into it because they coveted the beauty and resources and civilization of Assyria which the various tribes living in that big sandcastle now called Arabia did not have. Don't believe me, read W. Montegomery Watt who is Muslim and is acredited by Arab Muslims.
>
>Farid:
>"..of course..not even ARABS recognized anything called "Arab"...T.E Lawrence lamented that there was no way on earth to unite the "Arabs" of ARABIA...that each tribe held on jealously to their tribal name....the people of Arabia had NO sense of themselves as belonging to a nation called Arabia...and that is even more true for Muslims" the further they get from Arabia proper. The Pan_Arab movement that started all of this was merely a political response to a growing reality of pan-Christian EUROPEANISM that was hungering after the resources they are STILL killing us for."
>
>-Partly true. Those english connivers hired "Lawrence of Arabia" to go into it and risk his life to understand the land and its various inhabitants. They sent him in there to carve it and the rest of the middle east up before they began their campaigns of the 1900s. Note how Assyrians of Assyria (now called Iraq) did not have much beef with Arab Muslims living there for a period and then suddenly it began in the time of WWI and WWII. Why? And I'm talking before Assyrians joined the British in those two wars it started, Farid. This is before the "sedition" you refer to. It is all a big conspiracy to rid the planet of the people who brought civilization to the world so they can claim it themselves. I don't have a problem with Arabs and Muslims. Our people were smart enough to live with them for quite a while. The problems began when the Westerners began meddling in affairs.
>
>Farid:
>"..you all scream about UNITING in order to be STRONG...is it any different than what the Muslims of the region sought to do by forming ONE common identity? Don´t you all go on and on about the importance of being UNIFIED? That´s all being "Arab" meant...and it only recently came into existence as a word to describe a group of people...and at that only for political purposes of self-defense against the Christian Killing Machine."
>
>-I see your point. On another note, "Arab" means several things. One definition in Arabic is "To F"
>
>Farid:
>"..Nestorian is only "incorrect" now...in the modern era...you people DIED for the belief sysetm of Nestor once upon a time. Now you turn your back on IT as well. I don´t read Syriac manuscripts as anything but Christian mythology and I don´t read missionaries as well for the same reason..and while we´re at it there is no such thing as a Christian "intellectual"..it´s a gross contradiction in terms..might as well talk about a Voodoo Intellectual from the island of Haiti who knows the 12 steps to assuring divine grace by wringing the neck of a pure rooster...give me a break!"
>
>-No, Nestorus coincidentally happened to believe the same way he did and because of personal beefs, he was ex-communicated. As a result of having similar beliefs to us, we too were considered heretics. The Assyrian contemporaries at the time of his ex-communication never even met the guy. If we died for anything we died because they were our own beliefs that this guy happened to also have. If you don't believe we never met this man read even non-Assyrian texts. And by the way, many early Arab Islamic texts refer to us as Assyrians, not Nestorian. You can add that to several Church texts you don't accept.
>
>Farid:
>"..the United States is a CHRISTIAN country...so what?"
>
>Hahaha. Nominally Christian. You think I as an Assyrian have not been discriminated against here? You think I will call such people "Christian" even if they claimed to be.
>
>Farid:
>"...no one denies you ANCIENT roots...it´s the abusrd claim that you DIRECTLY descended from the ancients that makes people laugh...me too. The ancient Assyrians mixed with EVERYONE..there was no "pure" back then. You don´t mind being part of an American League...you don´t mind being part of a Christian League...so why so bothered by their´s?"
>
>Who says am I not bothered to be associated with a bunch of self-righteous people who have the name "Christian" slapped on them but don't practice one bit of it? You think I bought that crap about them invading Iraq to "save the Assyrians?" Yea right!
>
>Farid:
>"...you show me where you mentioned an Ice Age in your post?"
>
>-Sorry, when I was referring to such large flooding I was implying several things, but the Ice Ages are not important to the point. I thought since you know so much concerning this stuff you would have probably read about geology as well.
>
>Farid:
>"...there is no evidence of any grand flooding in Judea peoper...you´re bending over backwards again to accomodate a Jew religion when there was glorious flooding regularly in Mesopotamia."
>
>-What I am referring to is not just "flood" as in a river flooding. I am referring to many thousands of years ago where the sea level was much higher than what is currently is. Please do any search on this subject and you will see that at SEVERAL times the earth was almost completely under water. Not just "Judea" or "Assyria" - the whole earth was. And I'm not talking about Noah's flood, but the Epic of the Flood in Assyrian. Rivers simply flooding is not catastrophic...but the whole world's sea level rising to where much land is immersed is catastrophic. It also has nothing to do with animals dying because God hated them. It is simple geology.
>
>Farid:
>"..the more science reveals mysteries to us the MORE miraculous Life becomes...there is NO more person earth today likely to believe in the TRUE mystery and miracle of Life than the scientist...or the poet who refuses to be taken in by cheap carnival tricks of the sort the church insists are "miracles"."
>
>-Yes, you are correct about this. Science does have many amazing discoveries and fields.
>
>-Last note. I enjoyed this conversation very much. Please do reply to this if you'd like. However, I must postpone my reply to yours till February as going on the internet to answer long questions and posts like these will cost me greatly in school performance. I'll get back to you when I'm done with my semester.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Donald

---------------------

- BACK TO INDEX - REPLY - QUOTE - EDIT - DELETE -

The full topic:

partial answer pancho - Saturday, January 7 2006, 17:12:41 (CET)
- Don pancho - 01/08 02:59
- Re: partial answer Don - 01/10 05:50
  - Re: partial answer pancho - 01/10 18:39
    - here`s LATER pancho - 01/10 22:58
      - Re: here`s LATER Maggie - 01/10 23:42
        Re: here`s LATER Don - 01/15 07:43

Content-length: 37059
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, applicatio...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: es-mx
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf4/rkvsf_core.php?Re_partial_answer-HUYn.3Pet.QUOTE
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)