What Does Google Suggest Suggest About Humanity?

CNETNate writes "You'll laugh, but mostly you'll cry. Some of the questions Google gets asked to deliver results for is beyond worrying. 'Can you put peroxide in your ear?', 'Why would a pregnancy test be negative?', and 'Why can't I own a Canadian?' being just a selection of the truly baffling — and disturbing — questions Google is regularly forced to answer."

Comments

Re:Really?

[CannonballHead]

After reading it, he has some good questions (if it's the link that Hatta posted below). Unfortunately, he is guilty of the same thing out-of-context-to-prove people are: he didn't bother researching his questions. For example, when Leviticus comments about not "touching" a woman during her menstrual period, it was not referring to any physical contact (say, a handshake) whatsoever, as I recall. "Touch" was a euphemism - as it is today, actually.

Interesting read, but nothing particularly new, honestly. I'm quite familiar with the debates about "OT vs. NT" and unfortunately, most people seem to think that when it comes to the Bible, if you want to take any part of it literally then you have to apply every part of it to everyone. Which is silly. Taking it "literally" means reading it for what it means. It doesn't mean that when God gave commands to a national government (Israel) that he meant those commands to be followed by America.

Not arguing that the OT is irrelevant and only the NT should be considered, as that would not be fair, either. I am arguing, however, that deciding what the Bible means/says shouldn't just be opening to a single verse in the middle of what is essentially a national constitution/covenant and applying it to the modern day... [/dead horse]

Incidentally, if Dr. Laura is trying to be an orthodox Jew, she is likely not going to particularly think the NT is all that relevant, as she has rejected Jesus as the Jewish Messiah... which puts her in a rather interesting position while interpreting the OT. Except that a lot of the first five books of the Bible - the Law, the "Tenach," etc - were given to the nation of Israel and a lot has to do with temple worship. Things have changed with national Israel in the last 3500 years though,including certain events around A.D. 70... but even before that, when the temples were destroyed, various captivities, etc. Israel, right now, cannot follow the OT Law if for no other reason than that there is an Islamic mosque on top of the temple mount. Which, again, puts Laura in an interesting position.

[/ramble]

Re:Really?

[Hucko]

Problem is (I say this as a Christian, by practice, fundamentalist, pentecostal) that there are parts that clearly spell out that there aren't exceptions to the rules. Christians will often recite to each other where Jesus says that not one jot or tittle will be done away with, specifically applying it to a Old Testament law that they like. For instance, few pentecostal Christians follow Paul's admonition to have women silent in the church (specifically the congregation but is hard not to also apply it to the broader definition for church), and the ones that do are obviously mentally unstable. Christianity, the new and old Testaments, and particularly the Old Testament mostly don't give any leeway for any modification to its code. Anyone that says otherwise is just trying to fence sit with reality and what they want to believe. Christians whether traditional or fundamentalist only acknowledge the theology they like.

I personally am on the verge of dropping it all in for no other reason than Christians reasoning (that is, no one else within the church has been able to satisfy my own reasoning.) Add to that my own personal search into the construction of Christianity, my slowly growing understanding of historical theology and the construction of the very text that is held up as The Word Of God, and I may just become an atheist.

Heh, with that statement and self acknowledgement, I just become one.