You know, I realized when I re-read my post, it could be hard to parse. Sorry for that.
First, Just so you know, some positions taken by modern day followers of Judaism (and even in the first century) have no basis in the Torah, Prophets, or Writings. As an example, the immortal soul. Ezekiel 18:4 and 20 plainly state human souls die. Jews say otherwise.
So what is taught in Judaism now is not a reliable guide for what was believed and written down in the time of Moses or even Ezekiel.
Second, I do not get involved in politics, so you will never find me petitioning either way in this matter
Now to the meat of the matter. Moses is the accepted writer of Exodus and Job (according to the Talmud) So in Job 3:16, Moses quotes Job as saying:(NIV) "Or why was I not hidden in the ground like a stillborn child, like an infant who never saw the light of day?" The word "stillborn child" is the word used for abortion or miscarriage in the Bible more than once. The word is transliterated 'nephel' a noun from the root 'naphal' a verb, meaning to fall or to be cast down. One example of usage: "and many of them *perish*" (Exodus 19:21) Note, only a few usages mean death, but all mean falling of some sort.
When we get to Exodus also written by Moses according to the Talmud, the word in 21:22 is 'yatsa'' a root itself, a verb meaning to go, come out, depart, to come or go forth (with purpose or for result), to cause to go or come out, bring out, lead out, to deliver. This is a completely different word. When it is used in the Bible, there is not necessarily a failure involved. A quick perusal of usage actually indicates successful bringing forth, i.e. "and the earth *brought forth* grass" (Genesis 1:12)
We read that the Talmud says that a fetus is not a soul. But the Talmud is a commentary or explanatory for the Torah. So what Moses wrote and what the Talmud teaches might not be the same. It's up to the reader to decide what to believe.
A literal rendering of the passage would be close to "And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges; " (Young's Literal Translation)
As I said before, the word for what comes out is the same for living breathing offspring, in Job, a suckling or child and in Exodus progeny, offspring or child.
With all that said then, when it says injury, (a noun singular defined as harm or mischief or injury to anyone) then it would naturally apply to both mother and child(ren). Unless your teachings precluded that. (See first paragraph)
You can research this for yourself if you want. http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm is a resource to find concordances and definitions of words. (Beware the commentaries)
In short: the natural language would point to any injury (to mother or 'children') requiring 'eye for eye' especially since the word used for children in Exodus (Young's) everywhere else in the Bible indicate living, breathing, already born progeny.
If "yatsa'", here translated miscarriage means "nephel" abortion, or miscarriage (Job 3:16 Psalms 58:8), then sure; but the word means literally 'comes out, brings out or is caused to come out'. yatsa' is not a word in the bible anywhere used for miscarriage. To be honest, it's not the word for birth either.
Note it also calls what comes out from her after this struggle is 'yeled' which means son, child, young man, descendant.
BTW, Nice use of choosing translation to best suit your desires. Almost no other translation says miscarriage.
As an aside, soul in Bible Hebrew is nephesh. It means literally: breather or that which breathes. Genesis 9:4 equates the soul with the blood. The bible also says land animals and sea animals *are* souls. (Genesis 1:20,24)
So, according to that definition an embryo becomes a soul at ~??? When does an embryo make their own blood cells? Google didn't really answer that question. At least by day 20.
And Fetuses do 'breathe' third trimester. (No, not for oxygen, so not really breathe)
Or maybe Breather, since linked with blood, really means one who respires, which happens at zygote stage. (which also an oocyte and sperm does)
Oh, you may be thinking of the Adam account: Genesis 2:7, which reads: "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
No, but it is a page full of rights for the unborn, and equates anyone who chooses not to let a woman carry to term with homicide. And two homicides if they choose for her no longer to be quick.
You said:
Because an embryo isn't a human being with rights.
I have a thought. Please allow me to bounce it off of you. You said: "Unless you think that not working is inherently wrong, bad for a person, bad for society..."
What happens now when a psychologically normal person doesn't have to work? When everything is provided for him or her. Does that person function well? What happens when a child is raised that way? What education would be needed in that environment?
Please note, I am not saying the system or 'working for the man' is ideal, but what would happen if no one had to work? As a society and as individuals, would it look like a zoo? or what?
You know, I had the same experience with an otherwise intelligent man. But he told me that his high school teacher told him that gravity was like swinging a bucket around in circles. It was gravity that kept the water in the bucket. Same as on earth and the oceans and us. I do not know what the teacher had in mind or actually taught, but if it was an analogy, I couldn't think of a worse one. See gravity is the bucket, not the spinning, but what do you think they will understand?
I also had a 2nd grade teacher who didn't know what to do when confronted with: Solve for x where x-5=2. (I didn't either, but I asked my dad and he explained it to me so that I understood.)
Religion has been the source of more pain, suffering, war and unjustified persecution than all other reasons leading to any of those conditions taken together.
I agree. But is the reason belief in God in a generic sense or the specific beliefs that religions espouse today?
Have you ever thought, couldn't the anarchist say the same about government?
Are you saying that the religions found today are so rotten that mankind needs to make a clean sweep? Or is your argument that belief in $deity is so inherently dangerous that speech about such cannot be allowed?
What do we usually call organisations that use fear, threatening or outright physical harm to achive their goals?
Terrorists? The snark in me could say Governments. I agree that religions do act like terrorist organizations. Are we so sure that all do? Or is the danger of abuse of belief or faith just too great to be tolerated?
There was two reasons I did that. The most obvious to me is that if one wants to take away freedom of religion, then freedom of speech could very well be next. I.e. "that religion has been scientifically proven to be bunk. Away foul untruth!!" is only one or two steps separate from "that speech is proven to be bunk. Away foul untruth!!"
In addition, do you not realize this whole subject is also a restriction on freedom of religion? What about atheists or Christians or Budhists in Pakistan? This ruling curbs their freedom of religion.
Really the problem with this is that religions are involved in politics. And yes, that includes all religions and all politics. Namely things like "Christian Coalition"
If that is not what he is saying, but in fact he is using rhetoric to argue his point, understand it for what it is, an argument.
Your use of the words "brainwashing" and "ridiculous" indicate you are arguing against the existence of $deity. You didn't, however, comment on my main point: his rhetoric, and yours, sounds very like religious rhetoric, especially the thought of being the sole owner of "Truth" and that all other forms of religion or lack thereof is ridiculous.
Or were neither Opportunist nor you using rhetoric, specifically Pathos?
a serious mental condition that needs professional treatment, not respect.
I am not here to argue the existence of $deity, but are you advocating the removal of one of the First Amendment rights? (or your country's equivalent)
In the US, freedom of religion is right next to freedom of speech.
What would the foreseeable outcome of your proposed course of action entail? Line every citizen up and ask them, "Do you believe in the 'Supernatural'?" And if the answer is yes, give them a nice helpful shot in the arm of Haldol?
Or maybe you are exercising your freedom of speech in conjunction with your freedom of (from) religion?
Yes I am. Really, watch the movie. The one by Kubrick. With Peter Sellers (Pink Panther is never the same after). Sure, no porn, but if you want a movie that depicts humans as they are...
Sure it's not a porn, but sometimes one has to leave the basement^w Fortress of Solitude.
The movie from whence the term "Lolita" came depicted psychological coercion to obtain sex. Interesting movie. I would rate it high on a true-to-life meter. In the end, she grows up and rejects all older men in favor of a broken peer. (Aside: Peter Sellers is a master)
However, I think "Lolita" has changed connotations since. Now it generally means a (barely) post-pubescent who is psychologically attracted to older men. If that is how a girl's (or boy's) mind works, how is that different from LGBT?
But if a pre-pubescent girl wants sex, I would seriously suspect prior sexual abuse.
I personally know a 35 year old woman who regularly goes in vans because of promise of "fendi-gucci-prada-coach-louis" I will inform her of the dangers of NYC's Chinatown.
I'm not joking either. They sell fake purses from vans parked in parking garages in Chinatown every day of the year. You get in one and they close the door and all the windows are blacked out with trash bags. Hot as you know what, she says. They use PTT to communicate... All for fake purses.
Obama claims to be a Christian. He is a member of a Church. He does things like Easter and Christmas and Church. While we don't know what is in his heart/mind on the subject, I don't think he could have been elected if his opponents or the media had found evidence he did Friday prayers for six months in his office when he was 23. (Just as an example)
But as I understand the NT and history, Christ and the first few generations of Christians avoided politics and war... on pain of death.
and the Republicans for... well, it's hard to say, exactly, except "if the Democrats are for it, then we're against it."
But how many people really understand that? And why/how did it happen?
What I really wonder is if there will ever be a non-christian POTUS. Even after GWB, Obama could never have won if he was even privately non-christian.
I wonder why such feel the need to rewrite history if "God" is on their side.
OTOH, I try my best to never underestimate the willingness of a person or group to believe what they want, in spite of clear and unequivocal evidence to the contrary.
AFAIK, maximum efficiency for electric motors or generators: 95%
.95^2=.90
Planetary gears per stage: 97%
.97^2=.94 .97^3=.91
So, maybe; depending on wiring of electric route and number of stages of Planetary gearing.
If you treat your customers poorly just so you can show a profit to the shareholders, then you will lose your customers, your profit, and your shareholders. However, if your primary obligation is to the customer, then you will generate more profit, and please the shareholders.
I agree that would be smart, but look at cell phone companies or cable companies, or health insurance companies. While the customer may actually be first, it really does not appear that way to most outside observers.
What may be a good way to gauge the soundness of the logic is to ask, 'Are drug companies altruistic?'
Another valid consideration is how little is even known about why/how diseases happen. From what I understand about drug research is that it is not much better than shooting in the dark and listening for a thud. I found this subheading and the next in Wikipedia about drug discovery an interesting read.
Really, for a 'cure' of many things, the technology to deliver to every cell in the body and insert in the right place modified DNA needs to be developed, as I see it.
I can't speak for Shovas, but I'll admit the recent neanderthal evidence was very interesting. (I'm still reading and digesting the article, btw, why isn't it on/.? I saw it on the firehose at least 5 times.)
What could convince me that all life on earth come from one original organism (or a very few) will really only be found when we decipher epigenetics. Basically, I have 3 questions.
How do 20,000 genes make 2,000,000 proteins in humans? How does mutation of genome cause new genes and not just variants of same gene? How does the theory of evolution explain why one gene will be used in so many different functions in the body? For example, Titin, a protein, in 8 isoforms, from one gene, TTN, is used in various types of muscle. But TTN, the gene, also is used in cell mitosis, it works with chromosomes. That's every cell in the body and not just muscles. And a complete and total different function. The isoforms in humans of Titin, come from specific *different* deletions in the gene TTN. So the heart cells' epigenetics transcribe titin differently than the bicep cells. Maybe it's like taking one long run on sentence and making a book (and best seller at that) longer and more complex than that one sentence. How did mutations do that?
So,
1)How does Evolution cause novel genes to arise?
2)How does Evolution cause one gene to carry so many unique functions?
3)How does Evolution cause epigenetics to encode/decode novel genes
Yes they are all related.
And for the bonus round, please explain how a chromosome's centromere can be bisected (with no genome lost) and the whole chromosome telomeres and all can be attached to another chromosome and then be able to function properly?
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I realized when I re-read my post, it could be hard to parse. Sorry for that.
First, Just so you know, some positions taken by modern day followers of Judaism (and even in the first century) have no basis in the Torah, Prophets, or Writings. As an example, the immortal soul. Ezekiel 18:4 and 20 plainly state human souls die. Jews say otherwise.
So what is taught in Judaism now is not a reliable guide for what was believed and written down in the time of Moses or even Ezekiel.
Second, I do not get involved in politics, so you will never find me petitioning either way in this matter
Now to the meat of the matter. Moses is the accepted writer of Exodus and Job (according to the Talmud) So in Job 3:16, Moses quotes Job as saying:(NIV) "Or why was I not hidden in the ground like a stillborn child, like an infant who never saw the light of day?" The word "stillborn child" is the word used for abortion or miscarriage in the Bible more than once. The word is transliterated 'nephel' a noun from the root 'naphal' a verb, meaning to fall or to be cast down. One example of usage: "and many of them *perish*" (Exodus 19:21) Note, only a few usages mean death, but all mean falling of some sort.
When we get to Exodus also written by Moses according to the Talmud, the word in 21:22 is 'yatsa'' a root itself, a verb meaning to go, come out, depart, to come or go forth (with purpose or for result), to cause to go or come out, bring out, lead out, to deliver. This is a completely different word. When it is used in the Bible, there is not necessarily a failure involved. A quick perusal of usage actually indicates successful bringing forth, i.e. "and the earth *brought forth* grass" (Genesis 1:12)
We read that the Talmud says that a fetus is not a soul. But the Talmud is a commentary or explanatory for the Torah. So what Moses wrote and what the Talmud teaches might not be the same. It's up to the reader to decide what to believe.
A literal rendering of the passage would be close to "And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges; " (Young's Literal Translation)
As I said before, the word for what comes out is the same for living breathing offspring, in Job, a suckling or child and in Exodus progeny, offspring or child.
With all that said then, when it says injury, (a noun singular defined as harm or mischief or injury to anyone) then it would naturally apply to both mother and child(ren). Unless your teachings precluded that. (See first paragraph)
You can research this for yourself if you want. http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm is a resource to find concordances and definitions of words. (Beware the commentaries)
In short: the natural language would point to any injury (to mother or 'children') requiring 'eye for eye' especially since the word used for children in Exodus (Young's) everywhere else in the Bible indicate living, breathing, already born progeny.
If "yatsa'", here translated miscarriage means "nephel" abortion, or miscarriage (Job 3:16 Psalms 58:8), then sure; but the word means literally 'comes out, brings out or is caused to come out'. yatsa' is not a word in the bible anywhere used for miscarriage. To be honest, it's not the word for birth either.
Note it also calls what comes out from her after this struggle is 'yeled' which means son, child, young man, descendant.
BTW, Nice use of choosing translation to best suit your desires. Almost no other translation says miscarriage.
To begin, I do not involve myself in politics.
As an aside, soul in Bible Hebrew is nephesh. It means literally: breather or that which breathes. Genesis 9:4 equates the soul with the blood. The bible also says land animals and sea animals *are* souls. (Genesis 1:20,24)
So, according to that definition an embryo becomes a soul at ~??? When does an embryo make their own blood cells? Google didn't really answer that question. At least by day 20.
And Fetuses do 'breathe' third trimester. (No, not for oxygen, so not really breathe)
Or maybe Breather, since linked with blood, really means one who respires, which happens at zygote stage. (which also an oocyte and sperm does)
Oh, you may be thinking of the Adam account: Genesis 2:7, which reads: "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
Note 'being' in that verse is nephesh or soul.
No, but it is a page full of rights for the unborn, and equates anyone who chooses not to let a woman carry to term with homicide. And two homicides if they choose for her no longer to be quick.
You said:
Because an embryo isn't a human being with rights.
You know, That might be insightful if it was factually correct.
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/FetalHomicideLaws/tabid/14386/Default.aspx
Even CA calls it Homicide if malicious forethought. It would be an exercise for the reader to see if the laws are ever enforced.
I have a thought. Please allow me to bounce it off of you. You said: "Unless you think that not working is inherently wrong, bad for a person, bad for society..."
What happens now when a psychologically normal person doesn't have to work? When everything is provided for him or her. Does that person function well? What happens when a child is raised that way? What education would be needed in that environment?
Please note, I am not saying the system or 'working for the man' is ideal, but what would happen if no one had to work? As a society and as individuals, would it look like a zoo? or what?
You know, I had the same experience with an otherwise intelligent man. But he told me that his high school teacher told him that gravity was like swinging a bucket around in circles. It was gravity that kept the water in the bucket. Same as on earth and the oceans and us. I do not know what the teacher had in mind or actually taught, but if it was an analogy, I couldn't think of a worse one. See gravity is the bucket, not the spinning, but what do you think they will understand?
I also had a 2nd grade teacher who didn't know what to do when confronted with: Solve for x where x-5=2. (I didn't either, but I asked my dad and he explained it to me so that I understood.)
Google: natural laser
First Hit: http://laserstars.org/news/MWC349.html
According to bp, (grain of salt, or shakers) two relief wells are currently being drilled. One is at 10,000 ft and the other is ~8,500 ft.
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/relief-well.pdf
http://www.georgetownlawjournal.com/issues/pdf/95-1/hayden.pdf%5B1%5D.pdf
Talks about US government supporting (with $$, etc.) moderate Mullahs in Afghanistan who preach the wonders of freedom of religion in US to Afghan country folk in hopes they do not join Al Quaeda.
God does not belong in government
"My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36
As a Christian myself, I agree with you!
--
Deputy Campaigns Officer, Pirate Party UK[pirateparty.org.uk]
Ha ha.
Religion has been the source of more pain, suffering, war and unjustified persecution than all other reasons leading to any of those conditions taken together.
I agree. But is the reason belief in God in a generic sense or the specific beliefs that religions espouse today?
Have you ever thought, couldn't the anarchist say the same about government?
Are you saying that the religions found today are so rotten that mankind needs to make a clean sweep? Or is your argument that belief in $deity is so inherently dangerous that speech about such cannot be allowed?
What do we usually call organisations that use fear, threatening or outright physical harm to achive their goals?
Terrorists? The snark in me could say Governments. I agree that religions do act like terrorist organizations. Are we so sure that all do? Or is the danger of abuse of belief or faith just too great to be tolerated?
There was two reasons I did that. The most obvious to me is that if one wants to take away freedom of religion, then freedom of speech could very well be next. I.e. "that religion has been scientifically proven to be bunk. Away foul untruth!!" is only one or two steps separate from "that speech is proven to be bunk. Away foul untruth!!"
In addition, do you not realize this whole subject is also a restriction on freedom of religion? What about atheists or Christians or Budhists in Pakistan? This ruling curbs their freedom of religion.
Really the problem with this is that religions are involved in politics. And yes, that includes all religions and all politics. Namely things like "Christian Coalition"
"needs professional treatment" sounds somewhat like "Involuntary Commitment"
If that is not what he is saying, but in fact he is using rhetoric to argue his point, understand it for what it is, an argument.
Your use of the words "brainwashing" and "ridiculous" indicate you are arguing against the existence of $deity. You didn't, however, comment on my main point: his rhetoric, and yours, sounds very like religious rhetoric, especially the thought of being the sole owner of "Truth" and that all other forms of religion or lack thereof is ridiculous.
Or were neither Opportunist nor you using rhetoric, specifically Pathos?
a serious mental condition that needs professional treatment, not respect.
I am not here to argue the existence of $deity, but are you advocating the removal of one of the First Amendment rights? (or your country's equivalent)
In the US, freedom of religion is right next to freedom of speech.
What would the foreseeable outcome of your proposed course of action entail? Line every citizen up and ask them, "Do you believe in the 'Supernatural'?" And if the answer is yes, give them a nice helpful shot in the arm of Haldol?
Or maybe you are exercising your freedom of speech in conjunction with your freedom of (from) religion?
IOW: Your (lack of) religion is the one true way?
Sorry, I was never around before 1962 film. I was also not around before the 1955 book.
I promise to check out the book. My philosophy regarding books and movies is that the original is always better.
I would like to meet someone who really does view the book's Lolita as canonical compared to the current meme.
If you have read the book, I promise to give you all my current mod points. (3)
Yes I am. Really, watch the movie. The one by Kubrick. With Peter Sellers (Pink Panther is never the same after). Sure, no porn, but if you want a movie that depicts humans as they are...
Sure it's not a porn, but sometimes one has to leave the basement^w Fortress of Solitude.
The movie from whence the term "Lolita" came depicted psychological coercion to obtain sex. Interesting movie. I would rate it high on a true-to-life meter. In the end, she grows up and rejects all older men in favor of a broken peer. (Aside: Peter Sellers is a master)
However, I think "Lolita" has changed connotations since. Now it generally means a (barely) post-pubescent who is psychologically attracted to older men. If that is how a girl's (or boy's) mind works, how is that different from LGBT?
But if a pre-pubescent girl wants sex, I would seriously suspect prior sexual abuse.
I personally know a 35 year old woman who regularly goes in vans because of promise of "fendi-gucci-prada-coach-louis" I will inform her of the dangers of NYC's Chinatown.
I'm not joking either. They sell fake purses from vans parked in parking garages in Chinatown every day of the year. You get in one and they close the door and all the windows are blacked out with trash bags. Hot as you know what, she says. They use PTT to communicate... All for fake purses.
I went to bed and then realized my error.
Obama claims to be a Christian. He is a member of a Church. He does things like Easter and Christmas and Church. While we don't know what is in his heart/mind on the subject, I don't think he could have been elected if his opponents or the media had found evidence he did Friday prayers for six months in his office when he was 23. (Just as an example)
But as I understand the NT and history, Christ and the first few generations of Christians avoided politics and war... on pain of death.
and the Republicans for ... well, it's hard to say, exactly, except "if the Democrats are for it, then we're against it."
But how many people really understand that? And why/how did it happen?
What I really wonder is if there will ever be a non-christian POTUS. Even after GWB, Obama could never have won if he was even privately non-christian.
I wonder why such feel the need to rewrite history if "God" is on their side.
OTOH, I try my best to never underestimate the willingness of a person or group to believe what they want, in spite of clear and unequivocal evidence to the contrary.
AFAIK, maximum efficiency for electric motors or generators: 95%
.97^2=.94
.97^3=.91
.95^2=.90
Planetary gears per stage: 97%
So, maybe; depending on wiring of electric route and number of stages of Planetary gearing.
If you treat your customers poorly just so you can show a profit to the shareholders, then you will lose your customers, your profit, and your shareholders. However, if your primary obligation is to the customer, then you will generate more profit, and please the shareholders.
I agree that would be smart, but look at cell phone companies or cable companies, or health insurance companies. While the customer may actually be first, it really does not appear that way to most outside observers.
What may be a good way to gauge the soundness of the logic is to ask, 'Are drug companies altruistic?'
Another valid consideration is how little is even known about why/how diseases happen. From what I understand about drug research is that it is not much better than shooting in the dark and listening for a thud. I found this subheading and the next in Wikipedia about drug discovery an interesting read.
Really, for a 'cure' of many things, the technology to deliver to every cell in the body and insert in the right place modified DNA needs to be developed, as I see it.
I can't speak for Shovas, but I'll admit the recent neanderthal evidence was very interesting. (I'm still reading and digesting the article, btw, why isn't it on /.? I saw it on the firehose at least 5 times.)
What could convince me that all life on earth come from one original organism (or a very few) will really only be found when we decipher epigenetics. Basically, I have 3 questions.
How do 20,000 genes make 2,000,000 proteins in humans? How does mutation of genome cause new genes and not just variants of same gene? How does the theory of evolution explain why one gene will be used in so many different functions in the body? For example, Titin, a protein, in 8 isoforms, from one gene, TTN, is used in various types of muscle. But TTN, the gene, also is used in cell mitosis, it works with chromosomes. That's every cell in the body and not just muscles. And a complete and total different function. The isoforms in humans of Titin, come from specific *different* deletions in the gene TTN. So the heart cells' epigenetics transcribe titin differently than the bicep cells. Maybe it's like taking one long run on sentence and making a book (and best seller at that) longer and more complex than that one sentence. How did mutations do that?
So,
1)How does Evolution cause novel genes to arise?
2)How does Evolution cause one gene to carry so many unique functions?
3)How does Evolution cause epigenetics to encode/decode novel genes
Yes they are all related.
And for the bonus round, please explain how a chromosome's centromere can be bisected (with no genome lost) and the whole chromosome telomeres and all can be attached to another chromosome and then be able to function properly?