Archaeologica.org

Samarians were a remnant of Israel

Um, actually the Samaritans were a) the remnants of the original Canaanite population (lower class) which was not deported by the Assyrians and b) the remnants of the various Asiatic peoples who were moved into the region by the Assyrians in the 7th century BC, and c) a smattering of Greeks who began showing up in the aftermath of Alexander and the various Hellenistic kingdoms wich followed.

They were forcibly converted to Judaism by the Hasmonean ruler, John Hyrcanus c 104 BC. They were never accepted as "Jews" by the power structure in Jerusalem.

And Paul and the rest were all Australian Abbos!
The Catholic Bible differs from the KJA, the Sunni from the Shia, thus they are not Christians and not Muslims?
As you refer to Him as Christ I will here assume that you claim to be a Christian, if so how do you justify your attitude with Matthew 5-44 and Mark 12 29-31. Love thy neighbour as thyself.
No ifs ands or buts, no exceptions, no exclusions, no Love thy neighbour as thyself, unless of course he happens to be Jewish!
If not Jewish Law which? Greek, Roman, American?
Samaritans do not deny Judaism, they claim that they are the true Jews that their sect was untainted by the Exile. Bit like Sunni and Shia, but I have yet to meet a Samaritan who didn't claim to be a practioner of Judaism.
Thus I assume, correct me me if you will, that you would accept a Samaritan as a friend but not an Orthodox Jew? Or a Catholic but not a Protestant, or a Sunni but not a Shia because each claims that the other is not a 'true' practioner? That only 'they' have access to the 'truth'?
Seeing as Hyrcanus was waging war in all directions his view points on those who opposed him are about as reliable as the Nazi term 'untermenschen' for Slavs and should be treated accordingly!

Roy.

These used to be the first or second listing if you searched Los Lunas.
Now it is buried back on page 5
Now you have to search for the “Los Lunas Decalogue”

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/loslunas.html

http://www.mhccorp.com/archaeology/deca ... ction.html

These shows some of the other rock art.
http://www.gregoryprimo.org/Pages/galle ... =DECALOGUE

http://www.wcp-nm.com/ll/llpg02.htm

These show a translation
http://www.mhccorp.com/archaeology/deca ... ation.html

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics ... ogue_Stone

Since it is the 10 Commandments there are a whole bunch of various religious oriented sites as well.
I have skipped over them.

If you start checking into this archeological site it is easy to fall into the rabbit hole of a number of sites suggesting Phoenician presence in the South West.
A number of them are pure bunk.
But then, “Where there is smoke there is fire.”

Digit wrote:As you refer to Him as Christ I will here assume that you claim to be a Christian

That is a knee-jerk reflex on your part then, because spelling Him with a capital does NOT automatically imply that the speller is a christian. The reason he/she does that could simply be politeness, courtesy, basic manners, and/or empathy with or towards christians. Not necessarily that he/she is a christian.
I, myself, am a good example: when I talk/debate/argue about christianity I usually refer to their Almighty (see? A capital!) as God (a capital again). Yet I am a convinced and professed atheïst who thinks religion, of any kind, is and always has been the source of untold misery in the world.

So don't assume too easily...

That is a knee-jerk reflex on your part then

No it isn't, it as I stated, an assumption. I use the H out of respect for others. Courtesy costs nothing.

Roy.

Digit wrote:

That is a knee-jerk reflex on your part then

No it isn't, it as I stated, an assumption. I use the H out of respect for others. Courtesy costs nothing.

'Respect' has nothing to do with it. Respect needs to be earned on merit. Before it is extended/offered. Respect is not a given. Respect is not a birthright. So if merit is the qualifying factor, religion(s) certainly has/have no right to respect.
But they do have a right to be treated with common courtesy, general politeness, and basic manners. Which is something quite different.

Most religous people I have met have earned my respect.

Roy.

Digit wrote:Most religous people I have met have earned my respect.

Most religous people I have met have earned my disdain. For hypocrisy. Or stupidity. Or both.
However, I try to approach them with common courtesy, general politeness, and basic manners. Never with 'respect'.

You two at it again?

MichelleH wrote:You two at it again?

Yeah, we're debating, Michelle. That's what forums are for, aren't they?

But then, “Where there is smoke there is fire.”

And, not infrequently, an arsonist.

MichelleH wrote:You two at it again?

Most religous people I have met have earned my disdain. For hypocrisy. Or stupidity. Or both.

I like you too, Rokcet

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

MichelleH wrote:You two at it again?

Yeah, we're debating, Michelle. That's what forums are for, aren't they?

Yes, that's what forums are for BUT you can reply without being boorish.

Quality links, KBS. Thanx.