"So far, fewer than 150 people worldwide have been infected with HN51"
It would be better to say that "there have been fewer then 150 confirmed cases of NH51 in humans worldwide."
There could be countless thousands (maybe more?) who have the virus present in their system but have not become seriously sick. Maybe the reason that it is so fatal is that it exploits a genetic problem that not everyone has.
Given that situation the true mortality rate could be much lower. Currently there is no way to tell.
"if they are guilty what do we have to fear from putting them in front of a judge and jury?
Under these circumstances this is akin to saying, "If you are innocent you have nothing to fear from invasion of your privacy."
Discovery is an important part of a legal case in the USA. Both sides trade information and the case proceeds.
I think that the government dosen't want to endure that process, specifically, handing over their evidence to a legal team that represents potential enemies of the USA. It could contain things like informats names, methods of gaining intel, or information regarding the enemy that the emeny does not know the USA posesses. If the person is definitely guilty you can be assured that there is something about how the government knows this or how they captured this person that they do not want the enemy to know all the details of.
The situation is almost intractable. No one in the world community will trust a US military trial, and the US will not subvert its own security through the court system when it is not forced to.
The result is that some people get released to their own governments and other people will be there for a long, long, long time.
Re:Already done with mold
on
Space Lichens
·
· Score: 1
With MIR the fungus/mold was on the inside of the spacecraft. It traveled up with the microbe filled meatbags that the MIR was designed to provide a habitat for.
As for treating the mold/mildew/fungus, we have the same problems even on Earth. The chemical vulnerabilities that the mold cell has are similar to those of human cells. Because of this it is difficult to treat any kind of fungus infection in humans without hurting the human as well.
For instance, most anti-fungal treatments are so toxic that they are closely monitored by a physician when administered. Consider Lamisil. It is a common drug proscribed for fingernail and toenail fungus. Taking this drug can cause permanent liver and kidney damage even if taken in properly proscribed doses. Even then, it takes months of treatment to get the proper effects beause at the active dose it is killing the fungus as a very slow rate. Any higher and the toxicicity to the patient reaches levels that can be very dangerous for them.
As for the ISS it probably already is "infected" with mold spores. They are inside and on the people who come up there. If the conditions are right they will start to grow inside the thing. I would think that maintaining proper temperature and humidity would help to combat this, however, as these simple organisms are hardy and insanely well adapted to growing just about anywhere I will assume that even the ISS will eventually need to be scrapped in a similar manner as the MIR.
How is it sexist to reveal someone's sex in a news story? I am sure that everyone who was involved in the situation knew without a shadow of a doubt that the person was female. The coworkers, the story writer, the parents of the coworkers probably as well, all knew that she was a "she." I even bet that the woman in question would proudly declare that she is a woman if asked. Why should the jornalist hide it? Is it not a fact? Is it not part of identifying with the person in the case?
Maybe the writer did it to try to generate some sympathy, maybe the writer did it to tug at the heartstrings fof other women who feel that they have been unfairly condemned for similar activity?
Maybe you feel is is sexism because you connect "complaining" and "female" or the subject of "undesirable characteristics" and "female" metally and feel that this one, single, insignificant case disparages all females and they need to be protected from the depredations of journalists everywhere? Of course that raises the question, do you hold women in such low regard that you think that something like this (mentioning that they are female!) will harm them irreperably?
However, have you considered that maybe the woman in question had something that was legitimate and valid to say? Maybe she was the only person who would stand up to the management and tell them the truth about what their sorry organization. Judging from the other posts about this company they probably needed some outspoken vocal criticism from within. The neutrality of the statement dosen't speak to the content of the complaints. However, when making an accusation of sexism it is best to assume the worst, right? It's sexist because the writer is trying to attach some invalid form of action and methodology of thought to the female persona, right?
Sorry, but whan I see a simple declaration of fact that is obvious to anyone who witnessed the events in question referred to as "sexist" or "rascist" it makes me question the individual making the claim. She made no attempt to hide her sexual identity, why should anyone else?
Or do you think it would be more proper to say a "nondescript individual having no discernable external sexual identificaion, nor bearing any resemblance to any racial group that you could identify was unreliably reported to be possibly saying things at their workplace that someone might possibly construe as complainig." Ahhh, fact filled journalism at it's finest. Strawmen and sarcasm aside, a woman is a woman, a man is a man, and it's a fact, a detail, not a sexist manifesto, to mention it.
A better question is what about this person being a female immediately inspires you to think that it is sexism when someone mentions her sex? I have never heard such comments when the person in question is a man. Ever./end anti-sexism rant
Torture of the kind that you see on TV dosen't work well.
There are other methods that work quite well. For instance: dilating the eyes with drugs, propping the subjects eyes open , and then directing an absurd amount of light into the eyes will break most people down quickly.
There are other methods that can gain the subjects acquiesence with very little mess and few lasting marks (on the outside).
"can survive under the light of rational inquiry when all the information is on the table"
I am curious to know what you understand about the content of the Bible itself. By this I do not mean the circumstances of its writing, but the topics, themes, and viewpoints discussed by the authors. Without this information you do not have "all the information on the table" so to speak. Why is the content important, you might ask, when you have so thoroughly convinced yourself that the Bible must be false in so many respects due to the times of writing? It just so happens that there are certain parts of the Bible that describe psychological phenomena in unique ways. If you are familiar with these concepts you can see if they are correct with respect to understanding and predicting human behavior. This by no means proves the existence of God, only that some passages have redeeming valuse and are not filled with lies, as you seem to think.
As for "showing you the beans" that is really up to you. Again, there is nothing I could say that would convince you. The Bible even says this explicitly. You want beans? To paraphrase some eastern religions "enlightenment cannot be given, you must find it yourself." "What is the strongest, by far, tool we have for learning?
Religion has never been a tool for learning. Especially when couched in the terms that follow this statement in your post. The religion that you speak about is more akin to government than anything else. It is method of attaining power and controlling people. The Bible speaks about this when it describes a valid form of government. To simplify it for you (the concept of valid Biblical government would probably take 40 hours or so of teaching to understand at a basic level) the Bible says that a properly functioning government provides freedom for the people that live under it. The actions that you describe are condemned within the pages of the Bible itself. What you discribe is the action of power hungry people who are unafraid to use religion to subjugate people.
As for "consistently, reliably, and repeatedly produces positive results"...what about the nuclear weapons? Sarin gas? Weaponization of biological toxins and pathogens? Those are positive?
And as for "religion is a system that consistently has to modify itself" I will definitely agree that "religion" has modified itself over time. However, as someone who studies orthodox Christianity from the original languages, one of our most interesting studies is that of where historical peoples have used the Bible for justfication of beliefs that do not even appear in the Bible. Reading from the Greek and Hebrew and studying the passages intently is quite rewarding. If you posessed knowledge of the type and quantity that I do you might be suprised to know just how much of what people throw around as "Christian dogma" is incorrect, incomplete, or just flat wrong.
A little secret: The Bible describes "religion" as a systematic tool designed by Satan to maintain control of the world. Spirituality or Christianity as a state of being is what is encouraged by the Bible. Sure, from your viewpoint it's completely off the deep end to even consider things in these terms, however, as I see it the things that you have described as undesirable, abhorrent, and repulsive about religion are expected. You see them as expressions of the Bible, though, while I see them as deviations or perversions, even complete denials, of the Bible's content.
It makes an easy scapegoat to blame religion. However, I blame people. Even in the absence of religion you get things like the rape of Nan King or Pol Pot's reign of terror. People will continue to do hideous things, with and without the influence of religion. Blaming a book dosen't help. Hiding behind the morally neutral tool of science won't help either.
"Truth is what is." Truth is what is true, regardless of whether you can perceive it or not. Science is a tool for allowing humans to put th
The purpose was not to validate the existence of anyone. I just mentioned Mohammed (again) to encourage some diversity in the conversation. You seemed a bit fixated on just Christian mythos, ignoring the Islam and Bhudda reference.
Regardless of any of the points that you are arguing I wouly hope that you would see the obvious circumstancial evidence for the existence of these people to be somewhat more valid than a pink genius marsupial. You seem to be arguing that it is not, which, again, makes me curious in a clinical way.
As for irrefutable proof that any person has performed miracles, well, I would bet you ten to one odds that if I had done one on live television in front of the whole world last night, today everyone would be trying to figure out what trick was used to do it. With that in mind, I am sure that a couple of thousand years intervening and not being right there yourself can't help the situation.
The intent behind your arguments reminds me of what I hear atheists say on a regular basis: "If God wanted me to believe he would know exactly what I needed to hear/see/understand and would make me experience just that thing so that I would believe." Of course this is in direct contradiction to the almost universal basis of religion, namely that mankind has free will and that even the gods do not ursurp that power from individuals. Christianity is especially clear on this subject. God, as described in the Bible, would not use his omnipotence and omniscience to force people to believe.
In that same vein we can conclude that if there were irrefutable concrete proof of miracles then this would be contradictory to the preservation of free will. Faith is a choice to believe in something that has no concrete proof. The excercise of non-meritorious perception, as we call it in certain circles. The merit lies with the object of faith, not the one who believes. It requires humility and acknowledgement of something greater than yourself.
Oh and as for healings mentioned in your last paragraph I will certainly stand by you in discounting anyone who says that they have the power to heal provided by God in this age (the Bible explains this as a matter of fact). However, if you get the chance, talk to someone who works in the medical profession, maybe an oncologist or a ER doctor. They will have some miraculous tales for you. There are things that happen daily that determine the outcome between life and death that people cannot fully explain. If even doctors, with all the training that modern medicine can provide, see what many of them regard as miracles, what is to say that our comprehension of what makes up this world is complete when viewed through the empirical lens?
"All vertebrates have the same neuro-structural problem that humans have
Hmmmm.....
That may explain what happened with the duck.
That aside you should still try the experiment before you make a judgement.
I don't disagree with you on the subject of us being one big family. As a result of my personal experiences I do, however, think that there is more to the human makeup than just the physical component. Whether animals have this component I do not know, I have only experienced it with humans. The duck was definitely different than all the people.
Because of this belief, and a few others, I have the viewpoint that humans occupy a unique position on the Earth. We posess certain characteristics that, in my opinion, require a certain repsonse from us. Whether from evolution or divine providence (or both!) we have inherited a fantastic capacity to control our environemt. With this freedom and ability comes responsibility. Our greater capacity, coupled with humility rather than a superiority complex, should result in a stewardship mentatlity toward the Earth and a responsibility TO and FOR all those family members around us.
Science is not a shield from this sort of thinking. Hiding behind the scientific method and taking jabs at anything you take issue with is silly. The reason? You pointed it out perfectly. You have to have some other mental capacities functioning other than what science can tell you.
Your reason says that there are not any of these supposed things that you made up. Fine, but using only the scientific method you cannot exclude their potential existence.
In addition there is alot of proof of the existence of people like Abraham, Buddah, Jesus, Mohammed, the apostles and disciples, etc. Pulling a self made idea with no supporting historical framework out of your mind is a little different in substance. I find it fascinating that you don't see a difference, in almost a clinical way.
By the way, I should have added to the "silly and biased" the implication of "just as silly and biased as (you view) any religious person." The comparison was implied but not made clear. Overstepping the bounds of the scientific method and using it as justification for proof where there is none is as great (or greater!) a mental malady than believing that something that you have no concrete proof of is real. Faith implies belief in something that you have no proof of, the scientific method implies a systematic method of verificaion of a testable hypotheses. Using the latter in a manner inconsistent with it's own description reveals a depth of either ignorance or hipocrisy that is unfathomable to me.
As an aside, I have a personal fantasy that if/when mankind does discover the ultimate origins of life and the universe they will be stranger and more fantastic than we can possibly imagine. Of course that is just my personal little mental quirk, nothing more.
It is interesting how your "pink, uber-intelligent unicorn/kangaroo hybrids" play right into this pet idea of mine though.
Given that it might be the case I, for one, would welcome our new "pink, uber-intelligent unicorn/kangaroo hybrid" overlords.
"Creationism explanation, for why humans, the pinnacle life-form set above all the beasts, were given eyes architecturally inferior to those of the octopus, is what, exactly?"
Imagine that there is an immaterial portion of the human creature that has as its seat of residence the brain/nervous system. Now imagine that you want to give it a conduit to the outside world. The optic nerve is a direct extension of the brain and is exposed to the world through the window of the eye.
Ever stare into soemone's eyes for a long period of time? Not just mere moments, but an hour or more? Maybe someone who you have a deep personal realtionship with? Try it sometime. Just get really physically close to someone that you know intimately and are compatible with and stare into the center of their pupils for about an hour or two while they do the same. No talking is necessary. In fact I discourage it. You might be surprised at what you find out about them, yourself, and the connection capabilities of humans with simple eye contact.
I truly hope that one day you will be able to experience exactly what I mean by this. It could change your outlook on things in ways that you can't imagine. It can be a usefull tool as well, if you practice it.
So, the reason that animals have different eyes is that they have a different makeup than humans do. The direct exposure of the brain to the outside world is not necessary.
"As science knowledge expands, the cracks between the known parts get thinner and thinner
As of yet science has remained completely silent concerning the authoratative answers for the beginning of life and the creation of the universe. Sure there are ideas, there are conjectures, but no one has been able to do an experiment to duplicate the circumstances in full. Even then, if you can explain where the universe came from, the question remains why did it happen.
These are the "dark places" that all religions spring from. It amazes me how people who profess to understand science so well can speak with such authority about the certainty of the absence of a God of some kind. Science cannot disprove God, in fact, under its own excercise it again remains silent.
As for ID I can understand criticism of that. It has no place in either science, theology, philosophy (except as maybe a humorous footnote), or even Biblical studies. It is just plain stupid no matter how you try to slice it.
Curiously, as I understand the Bible there is nothing in it that disagrees with current scientific knowledge other than the place that humanity has in the structure of evolution. Fortunately for my narrow minded, archaic, and obviously detestable ideas, the people who wrote them 3000 years ago were smart enough to give me a good enough cover story that it continues to be valid and does not contradict any fossil evidence, age of earth problems, etc. to this day. Nice work guys!
So, until the day that we make a device that can test for the presence of God, and are able to use it at every point in the entire universe and beyond, anyone who places faith in science cannot comment on the existence of God other than to shrug their shoulders. To do otherwise makes you look silly and biased. Furthermore, people that insult, disparrage, or malign those who believe in God look desperate. Maybe they are afraid of what lies in those deep dark cracks?
Religion is a strongly neurochemically addictive entity as it evokes "joyful feelings"
At my church we have hour long teaching sessions. No singing, no dancing, no speaking, no unneccessary movement. Nothing that could be disturbing or distracting to other who want to learn. We take notes like you would in a college class. There is translation from the original languages, historical lessons, categorical classification and comparison, and occasionally a humorous tie in to the material. Above all there is repetetion, repetition, repetetion.
This does not in any way, shape, or form evoke "joyful feelings." It is hard to keep up sometimes with the notes and is definitley difficult material as it is on the level of a doctorate in theology and the ancient languages of the text. We also teach that true spirituality is a process of mental comprehension and thought, seperate from all emotional content. This is the price I pay for wanting to know about the spiritual path I have chosen.
As for arguments about my religion I only really argue about the content of it with people. Many people (even those who profess to believe it) misunderstand, mischaracterize, misquote, or even completely twist what is in the contents. Because of this I try, usually without success, to point people to the proper information. Usually they resist, even in spite of irrefutable evidence.
This is especially interesting in people who should have no vested interest in the subject (non-believers). They seem to be the hardest ones to reach when you show them the facts about what something says that differs from what they think. It seems to me that they should be the easiest to convince, but I guess they have more tied up in their disbelief than one would imagine.
As for my personal reasons for my religion, I am convinced and enamored of the content of character of the central figures. In other words it is all about who those individuals are, the integrity and content of their character, and what they represent. I am so respectful of these principles that were my religion disproved tomorrow I would continue in the same fashon as I do now. The reason? The principles and character of the central figures are universally important in my estimation. The meaning in that case becomes more important than the reality of their existence. Fortunately I have faith and believe in both.
As for the addiction patterns that you speak of I would heartily agree that many people fall prey to this. Any ecstatic expreience related to dancing, singing, "Speaking in tongues," etc. can become a physical manifestation of an altered psychological/neurological state.
It is similar to the "choking game" or other non-drug altered states because it is inducing your body to release adrenaline or endorphins. Addictive to say the least and dangerous in my estimation because it conveys no knowledge and provides no edification while inflating the ego. People believe that their experience is the hallmark of a brush with the divine. In reality it is only a self-induced altered state of consciousness. This makes it very difficult to reason with these people. They see you as an outsider who cannot know anything about their god because you do not express the same outward signs of divine conection(shaking, "speaking in tongues," etc.)
I would be interested to see what other people you have spoken to that display similar characteristics.
"...unless you own the govt, or they owe you billions."
Somehow I think if the government owes you they might just think that a 50c bullet is a good investment with incredible returns.
Now if you owe THEM billions they have a really good reason to keep you alive until you pay them off.
I think it was Donald Trump who one said "If you owe a bank 3 million and you can't pay them they say "You have a problem" but if you owe them 300 million they say "WE have a problem."
I met a guy the other day that makes these things (nano-tubes, buckyballs) for NASA. They are producing them for use in lubricants that can function in the extremes of space and hard vaccum. He owns a lab near my office.
He showed me his hands. Pointing to a finger with a deep scratch that was black at one end, he says "those are buckyballs in the black part." Then pointing to a section of his palm with a buckshot spattering of black spots he says, "these are nanotubes in here."
I kinda freaked a bit and asked him what the long term health ramifications were and he said something to the effect of "ask me in 20 years." ACK!
We talked some more about what he does and he revealed that they even make some buckyballs with other elements doped into them to change their properties. The ramificaions of comtamination by those is truly frightening to me.
The guy is a PHD chemist and is really cool to boot. I sure hope he is ok.
The idea of rationalization is not relevant when the reasons and ideas are in the Scripture. The reason that peple don't live for hundres of years is directly related to the influence of original sin on the genetic structure of mankind. It is transferred from the male parent, as an inheritance from Adam. As for Occam's razor, we are talking about the BIBLE here man! The whole thing fails Occams Razor! Golly!:)
"Maybe you should go back and read your source material before you try to argue about it"
I was unaware that English was the native language of the ancient people of Judah. Let me check my histories real quick. Hmmm...nope, says her it was a form of Hebrew. Wow! That might change things a bit, don't you think?
Sarcasm aside, your point about what the "Bible" says on this is exactly what one would expect from an Atheist (no offence meant there, they just usually have no reason to study what the Bible says, for obvious reasons.) You have absolutely no knowledge of the original languages the Bible was written in. If you ask any Hebrew scholar, or someone who has taken Hebrew classes what the text of Exedous 20:13 says they will tell you the word is murder, not kill.
Also, if you put into google "Exodus 20:13" you will notice that many translations say "Thou shall not kill" and that many also say "You will not commit murder." A brief examination of the sources will lead you to realize that different text comes from different translations. Most of your passages containig the words "Thou" and "shall" or even better "shalt" are from the King James version. Most of the ones saying "You will not commit murder" are from newer translations.
The differnce is marked in many ways, other than just he content of the text. The King James version is rife with anacronistic terms. For instance, the word "visit" in the language of the King James literally means to beat someone up. It means quite the opposite now. It is obvious how this might make it difficult to understand. This is just one of the problems witht he text of the KJV.
Newer translations consider modern English a better way to help the reader understand what is actually said in the original languages. Keep to the newer translations and you *might* have a better understanding of what the Bible says, as it is written in the language that you think you are reading. The KJV looks suspiciously like the English of today but it is not. In addition, the newer translations have vastly better soruce material than the KJV. A study of cannonicity and manuscript evidence might be interesting for you, if you are concerned at all with Christian history and the content of the Bible.
As for the commands of God, just consider that God is the standard by which all things are measured. True morality is only available through God. His commands are good because it is inconsistent with his character to do anything else. God is nothing if not consistent.
I would also postualte that one of the major problems with the structure of the religion-led violence in the middle east is the fact that they do not posess a structure of systematic theology. The figures that the people rely on to interpret the text are those people who are able to amass a certain measure of influence. In those societies the people who attain those level of influence happen to be ruthless, vicious, and brutal. Therefore, without some systematic theological system as a check on their interpretations, they use the text as another tool to augment their power and influence, and as a weapon to strike their enemies.
It all somes down to the basic model of subjugation. If you eliminate the freedom and happiness of your people they will yearn for violence. The smart rulers realize that this violence dosen't have to be directed at the ones who are doing the opressing, just at anything at all. Find a convenient scapegoat and your people will latch onto it as the focal point of their hatred. The more the leaders opress, subjugate, and degrade them the more hatred they have to direct at their target. Think of it like a pressure cooker with a tiny hole in the side. The higher you turn up the heat and pressure more violent the reaction out of the hole.
The Bible has an answer for you on this. It actually describes the genetic degeneration of the human species over time due to the influence of original sin on the human body. For the early humans interbreeding with sibling partners did not result in genetic defects.
Consider the scenario of Adam and Eve. Every child they had was a brother or sister. Now also remember that they and their children lived for over 500 years. Also add to the mix that there were no genetic problems resulting from interbreeding between siblings due to the robust genetic qualities of the early humans.
Why would it be wrong then? If something is wrong because it hurts people (birth defects) and you remove the "hurt" is it still wrong? If something is required to prevent people of a certain type from hurting themselves and other people do not have that same weakness is it right to declare it wrong for both types of people?
As for the "current set of rules" idea. Have you ever read the Bible? Ever hear of "The Law" or "The Abrahamic Covenant" or "The Mosaic Law?" How about "The New Covenant?" In this case God did exactly what you say is the roots of "fundamentalist violence and fanaticism," namely he changed the rules for what was permissible and what was not.
Actually, the roots of "fundamentalist violence" are people who believe that their god wants them to kill other people and that they will be rewarded for it. The Bible says no such thing. In fact, it doesn't even say "thou shall not kill" as you misquote. It says "You will not commit murder" which is entirely different.
To condemn a religious text because it has changes in it that reflect the needs at a certain time in the world's history is to declare that if there is a God He can't think and act in regard to the natural changes of the world.
Times change, people change, needs and necessities change. One of the principles of God as presented in the Bible is that he provides for mankind. As our needs change He continually finds ways to provide for us that are consistent with His character.
I am not trying to flame here, but what you are saying is that because you disagree with his ideas you cannot get past your own bigotry to enjoy admittedly good writing.
My beliefs are pretty "out there" myself and I learned at an early age to accept entertainment and knowledge from many different sources, even those who are opposed to my beliefs. The secret is to consider the material in its own light and realize that diversity of viewpoints is a good thing to be exposed to. Without diversity of viewpoints it is impossible to evaluate your own viewpoint without catastropic myopia.
If it is a novel/movie you are dealing with, enjoy the characters and the story. When you are done, if you are so inclined, deconstruct the novel in light of the writer's opinions to see if there are any agendas included, or characters that you think are embodiments of certain virtues, etc. Even more fun is to group those people who you consider to be "religious fanatics" and evaluate how they fare against their "non-fanatical" brethren. In this way you can derive even more pleasure from the work of someone who you intensely disagree with than from someone you have no opposition to.
Oddly enough I have found information about Card that I find even more disturbing than the religious beliefs you point to. This is what I am refering to. Regardless, it won't stop me reading his novels.
Art is art. The only person hurt by you not being able to enjoy his novels is you.
That prohibition did not occur until hundreds of years AFTER the flood. Read the chapter summaries in teh Bible for goodness sake man.
What you are saying is like trying to force everyone in today's world to abide by 14th century social customs. It's a history man, keep up with the dates.
It is unfortunate that is is so easy to take the Bible out of context and out of time frame by almost a thousand years and no one notices the discrepancy except people who study the Bible. Everyone is just ready to take it on faith that the Bible is contradictory.
The really funny part? You look like an idiot to anyone who can look at a Gideon Bible in a hotel room and see the dates writen in the "chapter" summary for Genesis and Deuteronomy.
I know it is in vogue to poke fun at and ridicule the Bible, however, there are Bible geeks out there. Your comments only betray in you a basic misunderstanding of the concepts of the Bible, nothing more. For goodness sake man, even if the Bible is completely false in every respec it is internally consistent in this respect because of the time between the flood and the prohibition of incest. Take a closer look at the dates and you will understand what I mean.
As for the Tower of Babel, do you have any idea what it represents and it's repercussions for today? Even if it was not a real thing (I believe it is) it still describes a basic concept and mystery of the modern world. Can you guess what it is?
Nationalism.
Have you ever wondered what mankind could accomplish if everyone in the world worked together for the same goal? Have you ever considered the things that we could do if we all spoke the same language and had the same cultural background and all had the same ideas about achievement? Why can't we all get together on the same page and realize our potential as a collective and solidified race? Why can't we achieve the Star Trek-like unity we all dream about? These concepts are explored in the Bible very early. However, it looks like you missed the point of those lessons in your fervored attempts to attack and belittle the Bible.
Oh well, it seems that you are just another person who pays more attention to what they can "disprove" than to what they can learn. This is not too uncommon these days.
Out of sympathy and love I recommend a song to you...It is a stepping stone for some... a stumbling block for others. It is called "Socrates the Python." Check it out. Hopefully you will realize that there is wisdom beyond your understanding in many things (not only the Bible), and that in our day and age all you have to do is read with an open mind and you can posess the potential for enlighenment beyond what all of our predecessors have had as the have not had access to all the texts that we can posess with a ridiculously minimal effort.
The key, though, is an open mind that is ready to recognize knowledge and truth. Without that even the wisdom of the ages passed from Buddah himself would be worthless.
God dosen't do holy wars. He just wipes out the entire population of the world except for a few couples (the flood), or he instantly destroys ~200,000 warriors in a single incident (Senacherib), or makes huge rivers of blood the size of the Amazon river(Gog and Magog revolution) from the people who oppose him.
Holy wars are for the silly human powermongers like militant Islamists and Republicans in the grip of the "moral majority."
Slashdot Mirror
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_bomb for the definition of a phosphorous bomb.
It clearly says "Phosphorus bombs are bombs filled with the element phosphorus."
Wouldnt that make this an "elemental weapon" and not a chemical one?
Even meriam webster defines chemical weapons as a mixture. Phosphorous isn't a mixture actually. Quite the opposite.
"So far, fewer than 150 people worldwide have been infected with HN51"
It would be better to say that "there have been fewer then 150 confirmed cases of NH51 in humans worldwide."
There could be countless thousands (maybe more?) who have the virus present in their system but have not become seriously sick. Maybe the reason that it is so fatal is that it exploits a genetic problem that not everyone has.
Given that situation the true mortality rate could be much lower. Currently there is no way to tell.
"if they are guilty what do we have to fear from putting them in front of a judge and jury?
Under these circumstances this is akin to saying, "If you are innocent you have nothing to fear from invasion of your privacy."
Discovery is an important part of a legal case in the USA. Both sides trade information and the case proceeds.
I think that the government dosen't want to endure that process, specifically, handing over their evidence to a legal team that represents potential enemies of the USA. It could contain things like informats names, methods of gaining intel, or information regarding the enemy that the emeny does not know the USA posesses. If the person is definitely guilty you can be assured that there is something about how the government knows this or how they captured this person that they do not want the enemy to know all the details of.
The situation is almost intractable. No one in the world community will trust a US military trial, and the US will not subvert its own security through the court system when it is not forced to.
The result is that some people get released to their own governments and other people will be there for a long, long, long time.
With MIR the fungus/mold was on the inside of the spacecraft. It traveled up with the microbe filled meatbags that the MIR was designed to provide a habitat for.
As for treating the mold/mildew/fungus, we have the same problems even on Earth. The chemical vulnerabilities that the mold cell has are similar to those of human cells. Because of this it is difficult to treat any kind of fungus infection in humans without hurting the human as well.
For instance, most anti-fungal treatments are so toxic that they are closely monitored by a physician when administered. Consider Lamisil. It is a common drug proscribed for fingernail and toenail fungus. Taking this drug can cause permanent liver and kidney damage even if taken in properly proscribed doses. Even then, it takes months of treatment to get the proper effects beause at the active dose it is killing the fungus as a very slow rate. Any higher and the toxicicity to the patient reaches levels that can be very dangerous for them.
As for the ISS it probably already is "infected" with mold spores. They are inside and on the people who come up there. If the conditions are right they will start to grow inside the thing. I would think that maintaining proper temperature and humidity would help to combat this, however, as these simple organisms are hardy and insanely well adapted to growing just about anywhere I will assume that even the ISS will eventually need to be scrapped in a similar manner as the MIR.
How is it sexist to reveal someone's sex in a news story? I am sure that everyone who was involved in the situation knew without a shadow of a doubt that the person was female. The coworkers, the story writer, the parents of the coworkers probably as well, all knew that she was a "she." I even bet that the woman in question would proudly declare that she is a woman if asked. Why should the jornalist hide it? Is it not a fact? Is it not part of identifying with the person in the case?
/end anti-sexism rant
Maybe the writer did it to try to generate some sympathy, maybe the writer did it to tug at the heartstrings fof other women who feel that they have been unfairly condemned for similar activity?
Maybe you feel is is sexism because you connect "complaining" and "female" or the subject of "undesirable characteristics" and "female" metally and feel that this one, single, insignificant case disparages all females and they need to be protected from the depredations of journalists everywhere? Of course that raises the question, do you hold women in such low regard that you think that something like this (mentioning that they are female!) will harm them irreperably?
However, have you considered that maybe the woman in question had something that was legitimate and valid to say? Maybe she was the only person who would stand up to the management and tell them the truth about what their sorry organization. Judging from the other posts about this company they probably needed some outspoken vocal criticism from within. The neutrality of the statement dosen't speak to the content of the complaints. However, when making an accusation of sexism it is best to assume the worst, right? It's sexist because the writer is trying to attach some invalid form of action and methodology of thought to the female persona, right?
Sorry, but whan I see a simple declaration of fact that is obvious to anyone who witnessed the events in question referred to as "sexist" or "rascist" it makes me question the individual making the claim. She made no attempt to hide her sexual identity, why should anyone else?
Or do you think it would be more proper to say a "nondescript individual having no discernable external sexual identificaion, nor bearing any resemblance to any racial group that you could identify was unreliably reported to be possibly saying things at their workplace that someone might possibly construe as complainig." Ahhh, fact filled journalism at it's finest. Strawmen and sarcasm aside, a woman is a woman, a man is a man, and it's a fact, a detail, not a sexist manifesto, to mention it.
A better question is what about this person being a female immediately inspires you to think that it is sexism when someone mentions her sex? I have never heard such comments when the person in question is a man. Ever.
Torture of the kind that you see on TV dosen't work well.
There are other methods that work quite well. For instance: dilating the eyes with drugs, propping the subjects eyes open , and then directing an absurd amount of light into the eyes will break most people down quickly.
There are other methods that can gain the subjects acquiesence with very little mess and few lasting marks (on the outside).
"can survive under the light of rational inquiry when all the information is on the table"
I am curious to know what you understand about the content of the Bible itself. By this I do not mean the circumstances of its writing, but the topics, themes, and viewpoints discussed by the authors. Without this information you do not have "all the information on the table" so to speak. Why is the content important, you might ask, when you have so thoroughly convinced yourself that the Bible must be false in so many respects due to the times of writing? It just so happens that there are certain parts of the Bible that describe psychological phenomena in unique ways. If you are familiar with these concepts you can see if they are correct with respect to understanding and predicting human behavior. This by no means proves the existence of God, only that some passages have redeeming valuse and are not filled with lies, as you seem to think.
As for "showing you the beans" that is really up to you. Again, there is nothing I could say that would convince you. The Bible even says this explicitly. You want beans? To paraphrase some eastern religions "enlightenment cannot be given, you must find it yourself."
"What is the strongest, by far, tool we have for learning?
Religion has never been a tool for learning. Especially when couched in the terms that follow this statement in your post. The religion that you speak about is more akin to government than anything else. It is method of attaining power and controlling people. The Bible speaks about this when it describes a valid form of government. To simplify it for you (the concept of valid Biblical government would probably take 40 hours or so of teaching to understand at a basic level) the Bible says that a properly functioning government provides freedom for the people that live under it. The actions that you describe are condemned within the pages of the Bible itself. What you discribe is the action of power hungry people who are unafraid to use religion to subjugate people.
As for "consistently, reliably, and repeatedly produces positive results"...what about the nuclear weapons? Sarin gas? Weaponization of biological toxins and pathogens? Those are positive?
And as for "religion is a system that consistently has to modify itself"
I will definitely agree that "religion" has modified itself over time. However, as someone who studies orthodox Christianity from the original languages, one of our most interesting studies is that of where historical peoples have used the Bible for justfication of beliefs that do not even appear in the Bible. Reading from the Greek and Hebrew and studying the passages intently is quite rewarding. If you posessed knowledge of the type and quantity that I do you might be suprised to know just how much of what people throw around as "Christian dogma" is incorrect, incomplete, or just flat wrong.
A little secret: The Bible describes "religion" as a systematic tool designed by Satan to maintain control of the world. Spirituality or Christianity as a state of being is what is encouraged by the Bible. Sure, from your viewpoint it's completely off the deep end to even consider things in these terms, however, as I see it the things that you have described as undesirable, abhorrent, and repulsive about religion are expected. You see them as expressions of the Bible, though, while I see them as deviations or perversions, even complete denials, of the Bible's content.
It makes an easy scapegoat to blame religion. However, I blame people. Even in the absence of religion you get things like the rape of Nan King or Pol Pot's reign of terror. People will continue to do hideous things, with and without the influence of religion. Blaming a book dosen't help. Hiding behind the morally neutral tool of science won't help either.
"Truth is what is." Truth is what is true, regardless of whether you can perceive it or not. Science is a tool for allowing humans to put th
The purpose was not to validate the existence of anyone. I just mentioned Mohammed (again) to encourage some diversity in the conversation. You seemed a bit fixated on just Christian mythos, ignoring the Islam and Bhudda reference.
Regardless of any of the points that you are arguing I wouly hope that you would see the obvious circumstancial evidence for the existence of these people to be somewhat more valid than a pink genius marsupial. You seem to be arguing that it is not, which, again, makes me curious in a clinical way.
As for irrefutable proof that any person has performed miracles, well, I would bet you ten to one odds that if I had done one on live television in front of the whole world last night, today everyone would be trying to figure out what trick was used to do it. With that in mind, I am sure that a couple of thousand years intervening and not being right there yourself can't help the situation.
The intent behind your arguments reminds me of what I hear atheists say on a regular basis: "If God wanted me to believe he would know exactly what I needed to hear/see/understand and would make me experience just that thing so that I would believe." Of course this is in direct contradiction to the almost universal basis of religion, namely that mankind has free will and that even the gods do not ursurp that power from individuals. Christianity is especially clear on this subject. God, as described in the Bible, would not use his omnipotence and omniscience to force people to believe.
In that same vein we can conclude that if there were irrefutable concrete proof of miracles then this would be contradictory to the preservation of free will. Faith is a choice to believe in something that has no concrete proof. The excercise of non-meritorious perception, as we call it in certain circles. The merit lies with the object of faith, not the one who believes. It requires humility and acknowledgement of something greater than yourself.
Oh and as for healings mentioned in your last paragraph I will certainly stand by you in discounting anyone who says that they have the power to heal provided by God in this age (the Bible explains this as a matter of fact). However, if you get the chance, talk to someone who works in the medical profession, maybe an oncologist or a ER doctor. They will have some miraculous tales for you. There are things that happen daily that determine the outcome between life and death that people cannot fully explain. If even doctors, with all the training that modern medicine can provide, see what many of them regard as miracles, what is to say that our comprehension of what makes up this world is complete when viewed through the empirical lens?
What about Mohammed?
"All vertebrates have the same neuro-structural problem that humans have
Hmmmm.....
That may explain what happened with the duck.
That aside you should still try the experiment before you make a judgement.
I don't disagree with you on the subject of us being one big family. As a result of my personal experiences I do, however, think that there is more to the human makeup than just the physical component. Whether animals have this component I do not know, I have only experienced it with humans. The duck was definitely different than all the people.
Because of this belief, and a few others, I have the viewpoint that humans occupy a unique position on the Earth. We posess certain characteristics that, in my opinion, require a certain repsonse from us. Whether from evolution or divine providence (or both!) we have inherited a fantastic capacity to control our environemt. With this freedom and ability comes responsibility. Our greater capacity, coupled with humility rather than a superiority complex, should result in a stewardship mentatlity toward the Earth and a responsibility TO and FOR all those family members around us.
Nice point actually.
Science is not a shield from this sort of thinking. Hiding behind the scientific method and taking jabs at anything you take issue with is silly. The reason? You pointed it out perfectly. You have to have some other mental capacities functioning other than what science can tell you.
Your reason says that there are not any of these supposed things that you made up. Fine, but using only the scientific method you cannot exclude their potential existence.
In addition there is alot of proof of the existence of people like Abraham, Buddah, Jesus, Mohammed, the apostles and disciples, etc. Pulling a self made idea with no supporting historical framework out of your mind is a little different in substance. I find it fascinating that you don't see a difference, in almost a clinical way.
By the way, I should have added to the "silly and biased" the implication of "just as silly and biased as (you view) any religious person." The comparison was implied but not made clear. Overstepping the bounds of the scientific method and using it as justification for proof where there is none is as great (or greater!) a mental malady than believing that something that you have no concrete proof of is real. Faith implies belief in something that you have no proof of, the scientific method implies a systematic method of verificaion of a testable hypotheses. Using the latter in a manner inconsistent with it's own description reveals a depth of either ignorance or hipocrisy that is unfathomable to me.
As an aside, I have a personal fantasy that if/when mankind does discover the ultimate origins of life and the universe they will be stranger and more fantastic than we can possibly imagine. Of course that is just my personal little mental quirk, nothing more.
It is interesting how your "pink, uber-intelligent unicorn/kangaroo hybrids" play right into this pet idea of mine though.
Given that it might be the case I, for one, would welcome our new "pink, uber-intelligent unicorn/kangaroo hybrid" overlords.
"Creationism explanation, for why humans, the pinnacle life-form set above all the beasts, were given eyes architecturally inferior to those of the octopus, is what, exactly?"
Imagine that there is an immaterial portion of the human creature that has as its seat of residence the brain/nervous system. Now imagine that you want to give it a conduit to the outside world. The optic nerve is a direct extension of the brain and is exposed to the world through the window of the eye.
Ever stare into soemone's eyes for a long period of time? Not just mere moments, but an hour or more? Maybe someone who you have a deep personal realtionship with? Try it sometime. Just get really physically close to someone that you know intimately and are compatible with and stare into the center of their pupils for about an hour or two while they do the same. No talking is necessary. In fact I discourage it. You might be surprised at what you find out about them, yourself, and the connection capabilities of humans with simple eye contact.
I truly hope that one day you will be able to experience exactly what I mean by this. It could change your outlook on things in ways that you can't imagine. It can be a usefull tool as well, if you practice it.
So, the reason that animals have different eyes is that they have a different makeup than humans do. The direct exposure of the brain to the outside world is not necessary.
"The eyes are the window of the soul."
"As science knowledge expands, the cracks between the known parts get thinner and thinner
As of yet science has remained completely silent concerning the authoratative answers for the beginning of life and the creation of the universe. Sure there are ideas, there are conjectures, but no one has been able to do an experiment to duplicate the circumstances in full. Even then, if you can explain where the universe came from, the question remains why did it happen.
These are the "dark places" that all religions spring from. It amazes me how people who profess to understand science so well can speak with such authority about the certainty of the absence of a God of some kind. Science cannot disprove God, in fact, under its own excercise it again remains silent.
As for ID I can understand criticism of that. It has no place in either science, theology, philosophy (except as maybe a humorous footnote), or even Biblical studies. It is just plain stupid no matter how you try to slice it.
Curiously, as I understand the Bible there is nothing in it that disagrees with current scientific knowledge other than the place that humanity has in the structure of evolution. Fortunately for my narrow minded, archaic, and obviously detestable ideas, the people who wrote them 3000 years ago were smart enough to give me a good enough cover story that it continues to be valid and does not contradict any fossil evidence, age of earth problems, etc. to this day. Nice work guys!
So, until the day that we make a device that can test for the presence of God, and are able to use it at every point in the entire universe and beyond, anyone who places faith in science cannot comment on the existence of God other than to shrug their shoulders. To do otherwise makes you look silly and biased. Furthermore, people that insult, disparrage, or malign those who believe in God look desperate. Maybe they are afraid of what lies in those deep dark cracks?
Religion is a strongly neurochemically addictive entity as it evokes "joyful feelings"
At my church we have hour long teaching sessions. No singing, no dancing, no speaking, no unneccessary movement. Nothing that could be disturbing or distracting to other who want to learn. We take notes like you would in a college class. There is translation from the original languages, historical lessons, categorical classification and comparison, and occasionally a humorous tie in to the material. Above all there is repetetion, repetition, repetetion.
This does not in any way, shape, or form evoke "joyful feelings." It is hard to keep up sometimes with the notes and is definitley difficult material as it is on the level of a doctorate in theology and the ancient languages of the text. We also teach that true spirituality is a process of mental comprehension and thought, seperate from all emotional content. This is the price I pay for wanting to know about the spiritual path I have chosen.
As for arguments about my religion I only really argue about the content of it with people. Many people (even those who profess to believe it) misunderstand, mischaracterize, misquote, or even completely twist what is in the contents. Because of this I try, usually without success, to point people to the proper information. Usually they resist, even in spite of irrefutable evidence.
This is especially interesting in people who should have no vested interest in the subject (non-believers). They seem to be the hardest ones to reach when you show them the facts about what something says that differs from what they think. It seems to me that they should be the easiest to convince, but I guess they have more tied up in their disbelief than one would imagine.
As for my personal reasons for my religion, I am convinced and enamored of the content of character of the central figures. In other words it is all about who those individuals are, the integrity and content of their character, and what they represent. I am so respectful of these principles that were my religion disproved tomorrow I would continue in the same fashon as I do now. The reason? The principles and character of the central figures are universally important in my estimation. The meaning in that case becomes more important than the reality of their existence. Fortunately I have faith and believe in both.
As for the addiction patterns that you speak of I would heartily agree that many people fall prey to this. Any ecstatic expreience related to dancing, singing, "Speaking in tongues," etc. can become a physical manifestation of an altered psychological/neurological state.
It is similar to the "choking game" or other non-drug altered states because it is inducing your body to release adrenaline or endorphins. Addictive to say the least and dangerous in my estimation because it conveys no knowledge and provides no edification while inflating the ego. People believe that their experience is the hallmark of a brush with the divine. In reality it is only a self-induced altered state of consciousness. This makes it very difficult to reason with these people. They see you as an outsider who cannot know anything about their god because you do not express the same outward signs of divine conection(shaking, "speaking in tongues," etc.)
I would be interested to see what other people you have spoken to that display similar characteristics.
"...unless you own the govt, or they owe you billions."
Somehow I think if the government owes you they might just think that a 50c bullet is a good investment with incredible returns.
Now if you owe THEM billions they have a really good reason to keep you alive until you pay them off.
I think it was Donald Trump who one said "If you owe a bank 3 million and you can't pay them they say "You have a problem" but if you owe them 300 million they say "WE have a problem."
Same thing.
I sure hope they are not toxic.
I met a guy the other day that makes these things (nano-tubes, buckyballs) for NASA. They are producing them for use in lubricants that can function in the extremes of space and hard vaccum. He owns a lab near my office.
He showed me his hands. Pointing to a finger with a deep scratch that was black at one end, he says "those are buckyballs in the black part." Then pointing to a section of his palm with a buckshot spattering of black spots he says, "these are nanotubes in here."
I kinda freaked a bit and asked him what the long term health ramifications were and he said something to the effect of "ask me in 20 years." ACK!
We talked some more about what he does and he revealed that they even make some buckyballs with other elements doped into them to change their properties. The ramificaions of comtamination by those is truly frightening to me.
The guy is a PHD chemist and is really cool to boot. I sure hope he is ok.
The gasp is one of dismay because deep down, really deep down, somewhere near the cockels probably, we KNOW that this is all Canadas fault.
The idea of rationalization is not relevant when the reasons and ideas are in the Scripture. The reason that peple don't live for hundres of years is directly related to the influence of original sin on the genetic structure of mankind. It is transferred from the male parent, as an inheritance from Adam. As for Occam's razor, we are talking about the BIBLE here man! The whole thing fails Occams Razor! Golly! :)
"Maybe you should go back and read your source material before you try to argue about it"
I was unaware that English was the native language of the ancient people of Judah. Let me check my histories real quick. Hmmm...nope, says her it was a form of Hebrew. Wow! That might change things a bit, don't you think?
Sarcasm aside, your point about what the "Bible" says on this is exactly what one would expect from an Atheist (no offence meant there, they just usually have no reason to study what the Bible says, for obvious reasons.) You have absolutely no knowledge of the original languages the Bible was written in. If you ask any Hebrew scholar, or someone who has taken Hebrew classes what the text of Exedous 20:13 says they will tell you the word is murder, not kill.
Also, if you put into google "Exodus 20:13" you will notice that many translations say "Thou shall not kill" and that many also say "You will not commit murder." A brief examination of the sources will lead you to realize that different text comes from different translations. Most of your passages containig the words "Thou" and "shall" or even better "shalt" are from the King James version. Most of the ones saying "You will not commit murder" are from newer translations.
The differnce is marked in many ways, other than just he content of the text. The King James version is rife with anacronistic terms. For instance, the word "visit" in the language of the King James literally means to beat someone up. It means quite the opposite now. It is obvious how this might make it difficult to understand. This is just one of the problems witht he text of the KJV.
Newer translations consider modern English a better way to help the reader understand what is actually said in the original languages. Keep to the newer translations and you *might* have a better understanding of what the Bible says, as it is written in the language that you think you are reading. The KJV looks suspiciously like the English of today but it is not. In addition, the newer translations have vastly better soruce material than the KJV. A study of cannonicity and manuscript evidence might be interesting for you, if you are concerned at all with Christian history and the content of the Bible.
As for the commands of God, just consider that God is the standard by which all things are measured. True morality is only available through God. His commands are good because it is inconsistent with his character to do anything else. God is nothing if not consistent.
I would also postualte that one of the major problems with the structure of the religion-led violence in the middle east is the fact that they do not posess a structure of systematic theology. The figures that the people rely on to interpret the text are those people who are able to amass a certain measure of influence. In those societies the people who attain those level of influence happen to be ruthless, vicious, and brutal. Therefore, without some systematic theological system as a check on their interpretations, they use the text as another tool to augment their power and influence, and as a weapon to strike their enemies.
It all somes down to the basic model of subjugation. If you eliminate the freedom and happiness of your people they will yearn for violence. The smart rulers realize that this violence dosen't have to be directed at the ones who are doing the opressing, just at anything at all. Find a convenient scapegoat and your people will latch onto it as the focal point of their hatred. The more the leaders opress, subjugate, and degrade them the more hatred they have to direct at their target. Think of it like a pressure cooker with a tiny hole in the side. The higher you turn up the heat and pressure more violent the reaction out of the hole.
Knowing that Mel Gibson has many of the same beliefs are you going to boycott all of his movies?
The Bible has an answer for you on this. It actually describes the genetic degeneration of the human species over time due to the influence of original sin on the human body. For the early humans interbreeding with sibling partners did not result in genetic defects.
Consider the scenario of Adam and Eve. Every child they had was a brother or sister. Now also remember that they and their children lived for over 500 years. Also add to the mix that there were no genetic problems resulting from interbreeding between siblings due to the robust genetic qualities of the early humans.
Why would it be wrong then? If something is wrong because it hurts people (birth defects) and you remove the "hurt" is it still wrong? If something is required to prevent people of a certain type from hurting themselves and other people do not have that same weakness is it right to declare it wrong for both types of people?
As for the "current set of rules" idea. Have you ever read the Bible? Ever hear of "The Law" or "The Abrahamic Covenant" or "The Mosaic Law?" How about "The New Covenant?" In this case God did exactly what you say is the roots of "fundamentalist violence and fanaticism," namely he changed the rules for what was permissible and what was not.
Actually, the roots of "fundamentalist violence" are people who believe that their god wants them to kill other people and that they will be rewarded for it. The Bible says no such thing. In fact, it doesn't even say "thou shall not kill" as you misquote. It says "You will not commit murder" which is entirely different.
To condemn a religious text because it has changes in it that reflect the needs at a certain time in the world's history is to declare that if there is a God He can't think and act in regard to the natural changes of the world.
Times change, people change, needs and necessities change. One of the principles of God as presented in the Bible is that he provides for mankind. As our needs change He continually finds ways to provide for us that are consistent with His character.
BUY USED BOOKS.
I am not trying to flame here, but what you are saying is that because you disagree with his ideas you cannot get past your own bigotry to enjoy admittedly good writing.
My beliefs are pretty "out there" myself and I learned at an early age to accept entertainment and knowledge from many different sources, even those who are opposed to my beliefs. The secret is to consider the material in its own light and realize that diversity of viewpoints is a good thing to be exposed to. Without diversity of viewpoints it is impossible to evaluate your own viewpoint without catastropic myopia.
If it is a novel/movie you are dealing with, enjoy the characters and the story. When you are done, if you are so inclined, deconstruct the novel in light of the writer's opinions to see if there are any agendas included, or characters that you think are embodiments of certain virtues, etc. Even more fun is to group those people who you consider to be "religious fanatics" and evaluate how they fare against their "non-fanatical" brethren. In this way you can derive even more pleasure from the work of someone who you intensely disagree with than from someone you have no opposition to.
Oddly enough I have found information about Card that I find even more disturbing than the religious beliefs you point to. This is what I am refering to. Regardless, it won't stop me reading his novels.
Art is art. The only person hurt by you not being able to enjoy his novels is you.
"Yet incest is a sin according to Deuteronomy:"
That prohibition did not occur until hundreds of years AFTER the flood. Read the chapter summaries in teh Bible for goodness sake man.
What you are saying is like trying to force everyone in today's world to abide by 14th century social customs. It's a history man, keep up with the dates.
It is unfortunate that is is so easy to take the Bible out of context and out of time frame by almost a thousand years and no one notices the discrepancy except people who study the Bible. Everyone is just ready to take it on faith that the Bible is contradictory.
The really funny part? You look like an idiot to anyone who can look at a Gideon Bible in a hotel room and see the dates writen in the "chapter" summary for Genesis and Deuteronomy.
I know it is in vogue to poke fun at and ridicule the Bible, however, there are Bible geeks out there. Your comments only betray in you a basic misunderstanding of the concepts of the Bible, nothing more. For goodness sake man, even if the Bible is completely false in every respec it is internally consistent in this respect because of the time between the flood and the prohibition of incest. Take a closer look at the dates and you will understand what I mean.
As for the Tower of Babel, do you have any idea what it represents and it's repercussions for today? Even if it was not a real thing (I believe it is) it still describes a basic concept and mystery of the modern world. Can you guess what it is?
Nationalism.
Have you ever wondered what mankind could accomplish if everyone in the world worked together for the same goal? Have you ever considered the things that we could do if we all spoke the same language and had the same cultural background and all had the same ideas about achievement? Why can't we all get together on the same page and realize our potential as a collective and solidified race? Why can't we achieve the Star Trek-like unity we all dream about? These concepts are explored in the Bible very early. However, it looks like you missed the point of those lessons in your fervored attempts to attack and belittle the Bible.
Oh well, it seems that you are just another person who pays more attention to what they can "disprove" than to what they can learn. This is not too uncommon these days.
Out of sympathy and love I recommend a song to you...It is a stepping stone for some... a stumbling block for others. It is called "Socrates the Python." Check it out. Hopefully you will realize that there is wisdom beyond your understanding in many things (not only the Bible), and that in our day and age all you have to do is read with an open mind and you can posess the potential for enlighenment beyond what all of our predecessors have had as the have not had access to all the texts that we can posess with a ridiculously minimal effort.
The key, though, is an open mind that is ready to recognize knowledge and truth. Without that even the wisdom of the ages passed from Buddah himself would be worthless.
God dosen't do holy wars. He just wipes out the entire population of the world except for a few couples (the flood), or he instantly destroys ~200,000 warriors in a single incident (Senacherib), or makes huge rivers of blood the size of the Amazon river(Gog and Magog revolution) from the people who oppose him.
Holy wars are for the silly human powermongers like militant Islamists and Republicans in the grip of the "moral majority."
Makes me cringe too...
Think of the LANDING!