I'm refering not to the translation from the Hebrew but to the translation from the Greek.
As to your other arguements, particularly the disagreement concerning animus, I contending that we are two people seperated by a common language, and I agree with your statement in part, but not in toto.
Falls in under the first one. After all, if you would not act in such a manner in the first place, then you are 'agreeing' with the law through your actions.
You are making the same mistake in thinking that many other people make the other way. Science and Religion are not incompatable. Science deals with the mechanics of existance, religion deals with the meaning of existance. The two are not mutually incompatable. The problem arises when people insist upon literal interpretation of things that were never meant to be taken literally, and/or are horribly mistranslated.
The Genesis of the Bible is a prime example. While it says the world was created in Seven Days (if one includes the day the Judeo-Christian God took for rest,) there are two immediate problems which spring forth, one linguistic, and the other philisophical.
Firstly, the word day is not a very good translation. More aptly, it would be 'age' or 'period.' Secondly, on a less straight forward notion, one can inquire, "How do you know what to God is a day? Is not God that which is entirely beyond human understanding and reasoning? How then can you, man, an imperfect and fallible being, dare to presume to know the mind of the Perfect and Infallible, to be able to know the Ineffable Mind of God?"
Please bear in mind after reading that that I am not a Christian, but a Discordian/Buddhist.
The point I'm trying to make is that the two do not overlap except when one labors under a misunderstanding of the purposes of one or the other, or both. Science explains to us the reasons we exist: Because certain organic compounds like to arrange themselves in repeating patterns, because certain chemical reactions take place, because traits are heritable and over the course of many generations sexual selection picked certain ones.
Religion explains to us why we exist: What is our purpose? What's the point? What awaits us beyond this fleeting mortal moment, this lifespan that flashes by almost too briefly (indeed, for some, much more quickly.) How do we all relate to each other? How should we relate to each other?
The realms are entirely seperate. In other words: Blame Stupid People.
Oh, my, I've got this vicious beast backed into a corner. Let me turn my back on it...
You have some brilliant logic, Anonymous Coward. If you chase someone into a hole who has every intention of doing everything in their power, no matter the damage to their person, to kill you, you do not leave them alive.
Some of the members of the colonies sincerely wish to have our independence revoked.
Sincerely yours, Carl Eric von Kleist, IV Second Emperor of the United States of America Defender of Mexico and Canada Voted 'Most likely to be killed in a manner involving Chopsticks' Wholely Owned and Operated by the Frobozz Magic Company, Ltd.
Oh my god. I finally got a freak. My UID is 115173 and I FINALLY GOT A FREA
Er. Sorry. Anyway:
This is the problem with history: We only exist in one world-line. We are forever plagued by what might have been, what could have been, what should have been. However, when I look around, while I find that I do not live in the Best of All Possible Worlds, I find the one I'm in isn't too bad. There is work that could be done and it looks like it will get done, in time.
Power and Wisdom must go hand in hand. To see an example of what happens when they do not go hand in hand, just look at our current President.
However, wisdom is cold and calculating. Ideally, we use our hearts to see what should be done, and then we wisely choose a course, and use our power to make it so. We had to have Japan surrender, and unconditionally. No other option would truely get the point across. Cultural differences.
Passing a law against something never made anyone not do it. People do not obey law out of respect for the law: Any who say they do are probably not right in the head. People 'obey' laws for two reasons: Either they would not act in a manner contrary to the law in the first place, or they fear punishment.
If these laws are enforced with jackboot thugs with caps that say 'Police' on them, then one of two things would happen: Either the individual's desire for self-preservation kicks in, or the individual finds that some things are worth dying for.
Personally, I am a firm believer that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and martyrs, and I would be perfectly happy with dying to quench liberty's thirst for the blood of tyrants, since I myself have gotten over my irrational fear of death.
However, because I no longer fear death does not imply that I am in any great hurry to meet it.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best: The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.
Your right to define what is and is not acceptable behaviour ends where your body does. And my right to cause harm ends where my body ends.
It is no more right to tell a man not to commit suicide (as going to the showers is the best part of the game) than it is to tell someone they may not drink alcohol, or do drugs, or sell their body for money, or eat red meat on a Friday, or what god to worship.
So we're agreed that nukes were the only way to achieve the desired goal, then?
And unless you were actually alive during the time this happened, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take the word of my Grandpa, who was alive at the time, for what it was really like.
Anyway, us latin speakers really know the truth. Namely, that sic means, 'thusly.' It's used as an affirmative, no mater what those 'ita vera' bastards tell you.
I take it you know very little about the theory of war.
There was no false dichotomy. All those other solutions you prance out infront of us were examined and dismissed as 'not good enough.' We had to have unconditional surrender from Japan to inforce the point that they had been defeated, and it was a bad idea to start shit with the United States. The fact that we later let them keep their emperor is beside the point.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's possible any of us will ever do that.
DEATH TO ROLAND PIQUEPAILLE!
/me coughs.
Sorry. Had something in my throat.
If you see Jack Brennan, tell him I'm lookin' for him.
And we shall call it... EverQuest.
/me does the Doctor Evil Thing.
I'm refering not to the translation from the Hebrew but to the translation from the Greek.
As to your other arguements, particularly the disagreement concerning animus, I contending that we are two people seperated by a common language, and I agree with your statement in part, but not in toto.
Just because something is created under false pretenses does not mean it cannot contain good ideas or a kernal of truth.
I am not a Christian.
Are you suggesting that life arose first on the Earth? Because I'm fairly sure that there were 'plants on land' before Sol, Terra, and Luna existed.
Falls in under the first one. After all, if you would not act in such a manner in the first place, then you are 'agreeing' with the law through your actions.
You are making the same mistake in thinking that many other people make the other way. Science and Religion are not incompatable. Science deals with the mechanics of existance, religion deals with the meaning of existance. The two are not mutually incompatable. The problem arises when people insist upon literal interpretation of things that were never meant to be taken literally, and/or are horribly mistranslated.
The Genesis of the Bible is a prime example. While it says the world was created in Seven Days (if one includes the day the Judeo-Christian God took for rest,) there are two immediate problems which spring forth, one linguistic, and the other philisophical.
Firstly, the word day is not a very good translation. More aptly, it would be 'age' or 'period.' Secondly, on a less straight forward notion, one can inquire, "How do you know what to God is a day? Is not God that which is entirely beyond human understanding and reasoning? How then can you, man, an imperfect and fallible being, dare to presume to know the mind of the Perfect and Infallible, to be able to know the Ineffable Mind of God?"Please bear in mind after reading that that I am not a Christian, but a Discordian/Buddhist.
The point I'm trying to make is that the two do not overlap except when one labors under a misunderstanding of the purposes of one or the other, or both. Science explains to us the reasons we exist: Because certain organic compounds like to arrange themselves in repeating patterns, because certain chemical reactions take place, because traits are heritable and over the course of many generations sexual selection picked certain ones.
Religion explains to us why we exist: What is our purpose? What's the point? What awaits us beyond this fleeting mortal moment, this lifespan that flashes by almost too briefly (indeed, for some, much more quickly.) How do we all relate to each other? How should we relate to each other?
The realms are entirely seperate. In other words: Blame Stupid People.
Well then, I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
Oh, my, I've got this vicious beast backed into a corner. Let me turn my back on it...
You have some brilliant logic, Anonymous Coward. If you chase someone into a hole who has every intention of doing everything in their power, no matter the damage to their person, to kill you, you do not leave them alive.
Some of the members of the colonies sincerely wish to have our independence revoked.
Sincerely yours, Carl Eric von Kleist, IV
Second Emperor of the United States of America
Defender of Mexico and Canada
Voted 'Most likely to be killed in a manner involving Chopsticks'
Wholely Owned and Operated by the Frobozz Magic Company, Ltd.
Oh my god. I finally got a freak. My UID is 115173 and I FINALLY GOT A FREA
Er. Sorry. Anyway:
This is the problem with history: We only exist in one world-line. We are forever plagued by what might have been, what could have been, what should have been. However, when I look around, while I find that I do not live in the Best of All Possible Worlds, I find the one I'm in isn't too bad. There is work that could be done and it looks like it will get done, in time.
Power and Wisdom must go hand in hand. To see an example of what happens when they do not go hand in hand, just look at our current President.
However, wisdom is cold and calculating. Ideally, we use our hearts to see what should be done, and then we wisely choose a course, and use our power to make it so. We had to have Japan surrender, and unconditionally. No other option would truely get the point across. Cultural differences.
I don't think I've ever said this to anyone before, seeing as how I'm firmly against it, but...
Please, for the love of humanity. Reproduce.
Yes. For me, it too, has been a long time since I have heard that phrase. LONG LIVE PBS! U/VHF UBER ALLE-
Those responsible for the fault in the post have been sacked. We apologise for the inconvenience.
Passing a law against something never made anyone not do it. People do not obey law out of respect for the law: Any who say they do are probably not right in the head. People 'obey' laws for two reasons: Either they would not act in a manner contrary to the law in the first place, or they fear punishment.
If these laws are enforced with jackboot thugs with caps that say 'Police' on them, then one of two things would happen: Either the individual's desire for self-preservation kicks in, or the individual finds that some things are worth dying for.
Personally, I am a firm believer that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and martyrs, and I would be perfectly happy with dying to quench liberty's thirst for the blood of tyrants, since I myself have gotten over my irrational fear of death.
However, because I no longer fear death does not imply that I am in any great hurry to meet it.
No, but mine was in the military.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best: The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.
Your right to define what is and is not acceptable behaviour ends where your body does. And my right to cause harm ends where my body ends.
It is no more right to tell a man not to commit suicide (as going to the showers is the best part of the game) than it is to tell someone they may not drink alcohol, or do drugs, or sell their body for money, or eat red meat on a Friday, or what god to worship.
So we're agreed that nukes were the only way to achieve the desired goal, then?
And unless you were actually alive during the time this happened, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take the word of my Grandpa, who was alive at the time, for what it was really like.
I'm also a Rational Anarchist, ala The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.
I don't make rules for other people, nor do I give a rat's ass about the rules they make for me.
Stuponfucious
Why don't we just continue the mythical animal trend and call it 'Puma'...
Or Pegasus... Or... What's the name of that mexican lizard that sucks the blood out of all those goats?
SIMMONS:That'd be the Chupacabra, sir!
Yeah. How about it, Mozilla Foundation? Chupa-thingy. I like it. It's got a nice ring to it.
Anyway, us latin speakers really know the truth. Namely, that sic means, 'thusly.' It's used as an affirmative, no mater what those 'ita vera' bastards tell you.
Oi!
I'm a religious fanatic, and damn happy with my role in life.
I take it you know very little about the theory of war.
There was no false dichotomy. All those other solutions you prance out infront of us were examined and dismissed as 'not good enough.' We had to have unconditional surrender from Japan to inforce the point that they had been defeated, and it was a bad idea to start shit with the United States. The fact that we later let them keep their emperor is beside the point.
What can I say? I'm old for my age.
If it's any consolation, I didn't start using C till I was 14.