'scuse me if I forego quoting large sections of your post in my reply, but it would get pretty long otherwise. It does indeed seem as though we're more in agreement than I'd thought, as you say.
Regarding your first point about disagreement amongst Christians as to how literal the bible is, I'm very much inclined to agree with you. The problem is, pretty much everyone who calls themselves a Christian claims that their interpretation is the correct one, which of course throws up massive contradictions. Given that no one of these groups seems to have a more solid claim to the title of Christianity than any other the only reasonable assumption is that their views are all valid, rendering the whole thing so vague and blurred as to be near useless.
The bible doesn't make the claim of being perfect. In fact, the bible never makes mention of itself
Interestingly I was going to point to Psalms 12:6, but I've been using the KJV so far, which interprets that a little differently and it's hardly fair for me to go changing the rules at this stage. The KJV does, however have this to say in John 10:35: If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; and 2 Timothy 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Of course, biblical inerrancy is circular. If you believe it's always right then it must be right when it says it's always right. On the other hand, if you don't.. well, there's not too much to worry about.
My world remains unshattered.
Believe it or not, I'm not actually out to shatter your world. You seem to be a pretty sane and rational person, and if nothing else you've reminded me that not all Christians are like Kent Hovind or Jack Chick.
Your failure to recognize this suggests an intention to "categorize" me into one of the neat packages of beliefs you've successfully dealt with in the past.
Guilty as charged, and thanks for pointing it out. I'll try to avoid that in the future. As you have probably guessed I have had quite a lot of discussions along these lines with Christians. Unfortunately I seem to encounter the extreme fundamentalists with far more regularity than people like yourself.
On this note, regarding my labelling argments as "Metaphor excuse" or "Translation error excuse", again, these are things I've dealt with so many times it gets to be pretty much a canned argument. A bit like most of the arguments you hear on Slashdot for/against Linux/Windows. I really don't mean it as an attempt to ridicule (and for that matter, I've never had a debate class in my life), but I'll keep that in check too.
However, when you say "Where's the substance", as far as I'm aware I already provided it by pointing out exactly what's wrong with explaining things in the bible as translation errors or misinterpreted metaphor. Again, briefly.. Translation error: if X is wrong, then how can you be sure Y isn't too? Why would an all powerful God allow his word to be corrupted by the efforts of man?
Metaphor misinterpretation: If X is a metaphor, then how can you be sure Y isn't too? Why would an all powerful God communicate the most important message man has ever recieved in such vague terms. How can you be certain you're interpreting the metaphor correctly?
I think "the Bible" contains some word of God, some of devils, and some of men [..]unless God Himself clears things up, no one can claim that they have the correct interpretation
The problem is, what does that actually leave you with? A very vague set of guidelines, and little or nothing that can be taken as reliable evidence for things the bible claims to be fact, many of which are truly extraordinary claims.
If the bible is, as it claims, God's word to his people, then it's a pretty important document. In fact, it's the single most important document that has e
What part of "equal rights" don't you understand? It's not about special recognition, it's about equal rights. The right to marriage, for example.
A married couple pays a damn site less tax than an unmarried couple. Therefore gay couples are forced to pay far more in taxes than an equivalent hetero couple, and as a result have less disposable income. Seeking to fix issues like that is hardly asking for special recognition.
I'm not bashing, or being phobic, or anything, but it's really not surprising you feel that way if you've been taught Christian beliefs/values, etc.
Being Christian is wrong. Logic and reason tell is this. Even a cursory examination of the bible is enough to show that it's full of contradictions and errors, and the values it instills are dubious at best, and downright dangerous at worst.
I am not posting this to be inflammatory or to provoke, so moderators.. use your mod points wisely. This is simply an alternative view that is shared by most atheists.
".. the argument in our society is that underage children aren't able to consent to sex in an informed manner, and that animals aren't able to consent to sex with humans at all."
That is not necessarily true. Male dogs will voluntarily copulate with human women--active participation evidences consent.
Quite right. But the missing keyword here is "informed" Of course, you've no way of knowing that a person giving consent is giving informed consent, but they are actually able to (they can learn about the issues, should they choose to do so) A dog is NOT capable of giving informed consent, because while it may be happy to dive right in (err. bad choice of words) it probably doesn't have a deeper understanding of issues surrounding the acts it's choosing to participate in, some of which may affect it in ways it's unaware of at the time.
Much like somebody who's extremely drunk or high may well consent to something, their consent is not informed as they are not in a good state to make decisions. Having said that though, what exactly constitutes a good state to make decisions is, of course, a tricky subject, with all sorts of factors such as age, education, mental and physical wellbeing, ability to communicate, and so on, entering in to it
So, to summarize... Beauracracy brought Bill's bill to be bull, but Bill's didn't bow to the bigoted bible bashing bishop*, but began a new bill with all the benefits but no bull.
It's all so clear now. (*I know he's not a bishop. Artistic licence, and all that)
I say treat them the same - -that means NO special laws or consideration. Just like everybody else.
Absolutely! Which is why they should be able to get married, and to live and work without fear of discrimination.
As for the marriage issue, I think a lot of people don't understand that marriage is far more than just an indication to society of two people being long term partners. There's a whole shedload of legal implications, such as ability to follow your partner to different places with a career change, or implications for what can be left in the event of your partner's death (especially from a taxation point of view), even implications for access to your partner under certain medical care situations. IANAL, so I can't fill you in on the details.. I'm also referring more to the situation in the UK, but I'm sure it's much the same in the US. Anybody with more legal knowledge care to comment?
Explain to me why 3 men and a cat can't get married but 2 men can? Hint: Cats aren't human. Humans are. Furthermore a cat is incapable of consenting to such a union.
If marriage has got anything to do with ability to reproduce then anybody incapable of reproduction shouldn't be able to marry.
On the other hand, if it doesn't have anything to do with reproduction, then why are you so worried about letting same sex couples marry? If you feel it would devalue "normal" marriages, then you need to take a close look at mariage statistics. They really can't get much more devalued than they already are.
Typical. Here I am, karma pool the size of a planet, and my modpoints ran out yesterday. I'd give you a +1 funny, except I don't have modpoints, and I don't think there's anything funny in life anyways. I'm sorry, did I say something wrong? well excuse me for breathing which I never actually do anyway so I don't know why I bothered to say it oh god I'm so depressed.
All biblical dragon references take place in the book of Revelation, where it is clearly poetic / symbolic. All other instances mention serpents or leviathan (crocodile)
Bzzt, wrong. Isiah 13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.
Furthermore, mentions of serpents or leviathan in the same sentence as dragons doesn't necessarily indicate that they are one and the same thing being talked about. For example:
Deuteronomy 32:33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.
"poison of dragons" and "cruel venom of asps" are effectively given as two seperate things there, and personally, I would find it difficult to confuse an asp with a dragon. Even the wingless variety. But hey, maybe it really IS that vague.. and if it is, doesn't that make basing your life's decisions on it a bit of a bad idea?
Ever heard of poetry? I guess I'm asking too much of a Slashdotter.
Oh! So it's a metaphor! Fair enough. I guess the part about God creating the universe is a metaphor too, and the bit about Jesus dying on the cross.. and being resurrected, and the virgin birth.. and.. well, pretty much everything else really. Thanks! It makes so much more sense now!
This is one of the worst cases to pick for the "metaphor excuse", as it crops up in a large number of places, most of which don't sound in the least bit metaphorical - So if indeed it IS a metaphor, it can then be readily assumed that any other statement in the bible is also a metaphor, and not to be taken literally.
that the mustard seed is the smallest seed,
Teachers tend to gear their lessons to the understanding of the pupils. If Jesus were to have named some, as of then, undiscovered seed that were smaller, would this have helped in any way the point he was trying to make about faith, or would his botany lesson just get in the way?
Wow, that's taking apologetics to the limit. Basically, no matter how wrong it is, it's okay, because it's just an alternative teaching method. You need to look into biblical inerrancy (According to the bible it is THE word of god, and is never wrong, not even in the smallest detail) Also, it's worth noting it's not described as "The smallest seed you'll have seen", or any other such qualifier. It is described literally as being THE smallest seed.
I've got to admit, you've got me on this one. Giants could never really exist. (with links to pages on gigantism)
I'm perfectly aware of the condition of gigantism, but if you think that validates the bible you're very much mistaken. It's a a very rare condition which tends to cause a lot of problems for anyone who has it, including a short lifespan. There is absolutely no evidence for large populations of giants as described in the bible, neither in skeletal records, nor in gigantism (due to it's rareness and adverse impact on health).
"Unicorn" was used by the King James and other translators for the original Hebrew word "reh-ame", which means a wild bull.
Ah! Translation error excuse. As with "metaphor excuse" I can apply this to anything (When it says "God exists", what it actually means is "Don't eat hotdog buns on a tuesday")
Interestingly though, the translators of the KJV decided to use "unicorn" rather than "wild bull", and I'm playing by Christian rules here - KJV is invariably the version I'm requested to refer to in these debates. Again, I direct you to biblical inerrancy (The translators won't screw it up, as they're being directed divine forces)
that bats are birds,
Our modern concept of families, classes, orders, species, etc. Are lines that we have drawn that are most convenient for a scientifically dominated culture. Besides, there are many translation errors in all versions of the Bible. I don't have a greek interlinear (or Hebrew if this is from the OT) on me, but maybe the original word just meant "flying thing", which would be correct -- bats do fly. I would suspect this argument falls apart for the non-anglo readers that use other translations.
Translation error. See above. They've had 2000 years to iron out these damn translation errors, and a vast army of people working on it. You'd think God would be a little more careful with ensuring the world's single most important document remains clear and accurate.
that stars are small objects which can fall fromt the sky and be stamped upon,
Again, this is obvious poetry. According to your logic, a poet that says something like "Love is a rose" is a complete moron, but you are the smart one, because you know that love really isn't a rose.
Only if the poet claimed that everything he said was true and accurate, given to him by a divine source, and to be taken literally. Which is exactly what the bible says. Yet again, see biblical inerrancy.
The bible does not assert that the earth is flat. It asserts that it is round and hangs in the heavens
Circles are flat. Spheres are round. The bible refers to the world as a circle. (At other times it also refers to it having four corners, but that's just it being self contradictory)
It asserts that it is round and hangs in the heavens Actually, according to the Bible the world rests upon pillars/foundations, and doesn't move/is immovable. At least according to Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6, Job 26:11, Job 38:4-6 and several other parts.
It says NOTHING about its location, and it may be the center of the universe. In fact, modern cosmology accepts that any location in the universe has equal claim for "centerhood". Fair enough, I'll give you that, as my inital point was poorly worded. However, the church held to it's geocentric view of the solar system (and indeed, the universe) for a very long time, resulting, as I mentioned before, in Galileo living out the final years of his life under arrest by the church for his heretical views. The church did eventually issue a formal apology by the way. In 1997. Took 300 years, but they got there.
Hares and coneys DO have a multipass digestive system. Please don't sidestep the issue. The bible says they chew the cud, not whether they have multipass digestive systems, and those are not the same thing. Hares and coneys are NOT ruminants, and therefore do not chew the cud - and if you're tempted to cry "Translation error!", let me warn you that's a whole other can of worms in itself.
Giants are Real. we still have them today. I'll assume you're referring to the condition of Gigantism, and not to the ridiculous skeletal construct Dr Dino has on display at his themepark... Gigantism is a rare condition, generally does not promote longevity in those who have it, and is unlikely to have ever occurred in sufficient numbers of people for the whole civilisations of giants which the bible refers to. Care to have a crack at the unicorns and dragons?
The Bible, while not a scientific document (and it does not intend to be one) does hold some VERY accurate, simple scientific truths. While his contemporaries believed the world to be flat (along with science at the time), the prophet Isaiah spoke of "the circle of the earth"
You're asking questions about accuracy of details in the Bible. A document which asserts the earth is flat, at the centre of the universe, and rests on pillars, that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, that hares and coneys chew the cud, that giants and unicorns are real, that bats are birds, that stars are small objects which can fall fromt the sky and be stamped upon, that.. well.. you get the idea. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Maybe we could somehow save the series if we can just reconfigure the subspace sensor array to emit anti-tachyons into the hoojimagig with the ohsoddit and the Ican'tevenbebotheredthinkingupthesetermsanymore.
Still, it could have been...........worse, he COULD have gone to the..............Tony Blair school of...........punctuation, and THAT is something...... I believe deeply and sincerely.
Re:Not being trollish, but...
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Only thing I miss from Opera in Firefox is the zoom. The Opera zoom is really nice.. it's like zooming a PDF (or.. well.. just about anything else with a proper zoom, really) - everything scales up together. Firefox just changes the font size.
Does anyone know of a Firefox extension that can do this? I've tried Imagezoom, but it doesn't really work too well (particularly scrolling on large images), and anyways, it only zooms up the images seperately
Err.. I hate to break this to you, but almost all produced (i.e. non-live) music these days uses MIDI somewhere along the line. It's been a long time since MIDI equated to the chip soundbank on a Soundblaster 16 card
No, this is quite different to Sharp's approach. Sharp's tech has one screen split into two halfs. One half is aimed at your left eye, the other is aimed at your right. This allows you a full range of depth by altering the horizontal displacement between corresponding pixels on the left eye/right eye images. Basically this tech is quite similar to how anaglyphs or magic eye images work.
The tech in TFA on the other hand has two screen where one is literally, physically behind the other. The depth is actually there, like two cardboard planes one in front of the other. The downside of this is you only ever have two flat planes at fixed depths - you cannot achieve a full range of depth between the two.
The Richard Cheese version is ace For those not familiar with Cheese, he's a guy who takes songs such as NIN's "Closer", Dead Kennedy's "Holiday in Cambodia" and Prodigy's "Smack my Bitch Up" and turns them into a sort of mellow cocktail lounge/elevator music type of thing. Highly recommended
Slashdot Mirror
'scuse me if I forego quoting large sections of your post in my reply, but it would get pretty long otherwise. It does indeed seem as though we're more in agreement than I'd thought, as you say.
Regarding your first point about disagreement amongst Christians as to how literal the bible is, I'm very much inclined to agree with you.
The problem is, pretty much everyone who calls themselves a Christian claims that their interpretation is the correct one, which of course throws up massive contradictions.
Given that no one of these groups seems to have a more solid claim to the title of Christianity than any other the only reasonable assumption is that their views are all valid, rendering the whole thing so vague and blurred as to be near useless.
The bible doesn't make the claim of being perfect. In fact, the bible never makes mention of itself
Interestingly I was going to point to Psalms 12:6, but I've been using the KJV so far, which interprets that a little differently and it's hardly fair for me to go changing the rules at this stage.
The KJV does, however have this to say in John 10:35: If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
and 2 Timothy 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Of course, biblical inerrancy is circular. If you believe it's always right then it must be right when it says it's always right. On the other hand, if you don't.. well, there's not too much to worry about.
My world remains unshattered.
Believe it or not, I'm not actually out to shatter your world. You seem to be a pretty sane and rational person, and if nothing else you've reminded me that not all Christians are like Kent Hovind or Jack Chick.
Your failure to recognize this suggests an intention to "categorize" me into one of the neat packages of beliefs you've successfully dealt with in the past.
Guilty as charged, and thanks for pointing it out. I'll try to avoid that in the future.
As you have probably guessed I have had quite a lot of discussions along these lines with Christians. Unfortunately I seem to encounter the extreme fundamentalists with far more regularity than people like yourself.
On this note, regarding my labelling argments as "Metaphor excuse" or "Translation error excuse", again, these are things I've dealt with so many times it gets to be pretty much a canned argument. A bit like most of the arguments you hear on Slashdot for/against Linux/Windows. I really don't mean it as an attempt to ridicule (and for that matter, I've never had a debate class in my life), but I'll keep that in check too.
However, when you say "Where's the substance", as far as I'm aware I already provided it by pointing out exactly what's wrong with explaining things in the bible as translation errors or misinterpreted metaphor. Again, briefly..
Translation error:
if X is wrong, then how can you be sure Y isn't too?
Why would an all powerful God allow his word to be corrupted by the efforts of man?
Metaphor misinterpretation:
If X is a metaphor, then how can you be sure Y isn't too?
Why would an all powerful God communicate the most important message man has ever recieved in such vague terms.
How can you be certain you're interpreting the metaphor correctly?
I think "the Bible" contains some word of God, some of devils, and some of men [..]unless God Himself clears things up, no one can claim that they have the correct interpretation
The problem is, what does that actually leave you with? A very vague set of guidelines, and little or nothing that can be taken as reliable evidence for things the bible claims to be fact, many of which are truly extraordinary claims.
If the bible is, as it claims, God's word to his people, then it's a pretty important document. In fact, it's the single most important document that has e
What part of "equal rights" don't you understand?
It's not about special recognition, it's about equal rights. The right to marriage, for example.
A married couple pays a damn site less tax than an unmarried couple. Therefore gay couples are forced to pay far more in taxes than an equivalent hetero couple, and as a result have less disposable income.
Seeking to fix issues like that is hardly asking for special recognition.
if gays are allowed to get married legally, do citizenship rules apply? Could a foreigner marry someone from the U.S and obtain citizenship?
Sure, why not? If that's how it works for different sex marriages, why would it be any different for same sex?
I'm not bashing, or being phobic, or anything, but it's really not surprising you feel that way if you've been taught Christian beliefs/values, etc.
Being Christian is wrong. Logic and reason tell is this. Even a cursory examination of the bible is enough to show that it's full of contradictions and errors, and the values it instills are dubious at best, and downright dangerous at worst.
I am not posting this to be inflammatory or to provoke, so moderators.. use your mod points wisely. This is simply an alternative view that is shared by most atheists.
" .. the argument in our society is that underage children aren't able to consent to sex in an informed manner, and that animals aren't able to consent to sex with humans at all."
That is not necessarily true. Male dogs will voluntarily copulate with human women--active participation evidences consent.
Quite right. But the missing keyword here is "informed"
Of course, you've no way of knowing that a person giving consent is giving informed consent, but they are actually able to (they can learn about the issues, should they choose to do so)
A dog is NOT capable of giving informed consent, because while it may be happy to dive right in (err. bad choice of words) it probably doesn't have a deeper understanding of issues surrounding the acts it's choosing to participate in, some of which may affect it in ways it's unaware of at the time.
Much like somebody who's extremely drunk or high may well consent to something, their consent is not informed as they are not in a good state to make decisions.
Having said that though, what exactly constitutes a good state to make decisions is, of course, a tricky subject, with all sorts of factors such as age, education, mental and physical wellbeing, ability to communicate, and so on, entering in to it
So, to summarize...
Beauracracy brought Bill's bill to be bull, but Bill's didn't bow to the bigoted bible bashing bishop*, but began a new bill with all the benefits but no bull.
It's all so clear now.
(*I know he's not a bishop. Artistic licence, and all that)
I say treat them the same - -that means NO special laws or consideration. Just like everybody else.
Absolutely!
Which is why they should be able to get married, and to live and work without fear of discrimination.
As for the marriage issue, I think a lot of people don't understand that marriage is far more than just an indication to society of two people being long term partners. There's a whole shedload of legal implications, such as ability to follow your partner to different places with a career change, or implications for what can be left in the event of your partner's death (especially from a taxation point of view), even implications for access to your partner under certain medical care situations. IANAL, so I can't fill you in on the details.. I'm also referring more to the situation in the UK, but I'm sure it's much the same in the US.
Anybody with more legal knowledge care to comment?
Explain to me why 3 men and a cat can't get married but 2 men can?
Hint: Cats aren't human. Humans are.
Furthermore a cat is incapable of consenting to such a union.
If marriage has got anything to do with ability to reproduce then anybody incapable of reproduction shouldn't be able to marry.
On the other hand, if it doesn't have anything to do with reproduction, then why are you so worried about letting same sex couples marry?
If you feel it would devalue "normal" marriages, then you need to take a close look at mariage statistics. They really can't get much more devalued than they already are.
Typical. Here I am, karma pool the size of a planet, and my modpoints ran out yesterday.
I'd give you a +1 funny, except I don't have modpoints, and I don't think there's anything funny in life anyways.
I'm sorry, did I say something wrong? well excuse me for breathing which I never actually do anyway so I don't know why I bothered to say it oh god I'm so depressed.
All biblical dragon references take place in the book of Revelation, where it is clearly poetic / symbolic. All other instances mention serpents or leviathan (crocodile)
Bzzt, wrong.
Isiah 13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.
Furthermore, mentions of serpents or leviathan in the same sentence as dragons doesn't necessarily indicate that they are one and the same thing being talked about. For example:
Deuteronomy 32:33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.
"poison of dragons" and "cruel venom of asps" are effectively given as two seperate things there, and personally, I would find it difficult to confuse an asp with a dragon. Even the wingless variety.
But hey, maybe it really IS that vague.. and if it is, doesn't that make basing your life's decisions on it a bit of a bad idea?
and rests on pillars,
Ever heard of poetry? I guess I'm asking too much of a Slashdotter.
Oh! So it's a metaphor!
Fair enough.
I guess the part about God creating the universe is a metaphor too, and the bit about Jesus dying on the cross.. and being resurrected, and the virgin birth.. and.. well, pretty much everything else really.
Thanks! It makes so much more sense now!
This is one of the worst cases to pick for the "metaphor excuse", as it crops up in a large number of places, most of which don't sound in the least bit metaphorical - So if indeed it IS a metaphor, it can then be readily assumed that any other statement in the bible is also a metaphor, and not to be taken literally.
that the mustard seed is the smallest seed,
Teachers tend to gear their lessons to the understanding of the pupils. If Jesus were to have named some, as of then, undiscovered seed that were smaller, would this have helped in any way the point he was trying to make about faith, or would his botany lesson just get in the way?
Wow, that's taking apologetics to the limit.
Basically, no matter how wrong it is, it's okay, because it's just an alternative teaching method.
You need to look into biblical inerrancy (According to the bible it is THE word of god, and is never wrong, not even in the smallest detail)
Also, it's worth noting it's not described as "The smallest seed you'll have seen", or any other such qualifier. It is described literally as being THE smallest seed.
I've got to admit, you've got me on this one. Giants could never really exist. (with links to pages on gigantism)
I'm perfectly aware of the condition of gigantism, but if you think that validates the bible you're very much mistaken. It's a a very rare condition which tends to cause a lot of problems for anyone who has it, including a short lifespan. There is absolutely no evidence for large populations of giants as described in the bible, neither in skeletal records, nor in gigantism (due to it's rareness and adverse impact on health).
"Unicorn" was used by the King James and other translators for the original Hebrew word "reh-ame", which means a wild bull.
Ah! Translation error excuse.
As with "metaphor excuse" I can apply this to anything (When it says "God exists", what it actually means is "Don't eat hotdog buns on a tuesday")
Interestingly though, the translators of the KJV decided to use "unicorn" rather than "wild bull", and I'm playing by Christian rules here - KJV is invariably the version I'm requested to refer to in these debates. Again, I direct you to biblical inerrancy (The translators won't screw it up, as they're being directed divine forces)
that bats are birds,
Our modern concept of families, classes, orders, species, etc. Are lines that we have drawn that are most convenient for a scientifically dominated culture. Besides, there are many translation errors in all versions of the Bible. I don't have a greek interlinear (or Hebrew if this is from the OT) on me, but maybe the original word just meant "flying thing", which would be correct -- bats do fly. I would suspect this argument falls apart for the non-anglo readers that use other translations.
Translation error. See above.
They've had 2000 years to iron out these damn translation errors, and a vast army of people working on it. You'd think God would be a little more careful with ensuring the world's single most important document remains clear and accurate.
that stars are small objects which can fall fromt the sky and be stamped upon,
Again, this is obvious poetry. According to your logic, a poet that says something like "Love is a rose" is a complete moron, but you are the smart one, because you know that love really isn't a rose.
Only if the poet claimed that everything he said was true and accurate, given to him by a divine source, and to be taken literally. Which is exactly what the bible says. Yet again, see biblical inerrancy.
The bible does not assert that the earth is flat. It asserts that it is round and hangs in the heavens
Circles are flat. Spheres are round. The bible refers to the world as a circle. (At other times it also refers to it having four corners, but that's just it being self contradictory)
It asserts that it is round and hangs in the heavens
Actually, according to the Bible the world rests upon pillars/foundations, and doesn't move/is immovable. At least according to Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6, Job 26:11, Job 38:4-6 and several other parts.
It says NOTHING about its location, and it may be the center of the universe. In fact, modern cosmology accepts that any location in the universe has equal claim for "centerhood".
Fair enough, I'll give you that, as my inital point was poorly worded. However, the church held to it's geocentric view of the solar system (and indeed, the universe) for a very long time, resulting, as I mentioned before, in Galileo living out the final years of his life under arrest by the church for his heretical views.
The church did eventually issue a formal apology by the way. In 1997.
Took 300 years, but they got there.
Hares and coneys DO have a multipass digestive system.
Please don't sidestep the issue. The bible says they chew the cud, not whether they have multipass digestive systems, and those are not the same thing.
Hares and coneys are NOT ruminants, and therefore do not chew the cud - and if you're tempted to cry "Translation error!", let me warn you that's a whole other can of worms in itself.
Giants are Real. we still have them today.
I'll assume you're referring to the condition of Gigantism, and not to the ridiculous skeletal construct Dr Dino has on display at his themepark...
Gigantism is a rare condition, generally does not promote longevity in those who have it, and is unlikely to have ever occurred in sufficient numbers of people for the whole civilisations of giants which the bible refers to.
Care to have a crack at the unicorns and dragons?
I'm the guy in the red pendleton shirt just behind the narrow door in your favourite bar, baby.
The Bible, while not a scientific document (and it does not intend to be one) does hold some VERY accurate, simple scientific truths. While his contemporaries believed the world to be flat (along with science at the time), the prophet Isaiah spoke of "the circle of the earth"
Circle != Sphere.
And just for good measure, here's another 200-odd science facts according to the Bible
Yes!
Oh, wait.. did you say "hamsters"?.. no, sorry, I was thinking "minature giant space hoppers"
Never mind, then
You're asking questions about accuracy of details in the Bible. A document which asserts the earth is flat, at the centre of the universe, and rests on pillars, that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, that hares and coneys chew the cud, that giants and unicorns are real, that bats are birds, that stars are small objects which can fall fromt the sky and be stamped upon, that.. well.. you get the idea. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Maybe we could somehow save the series if we can just reconfigure the subspace sensor array to emit anti-tachyons into the hoojimagig with the ohsoddit and the Ican'tevenbebotheredthinkingupthesetermsanymore.
Still, it could have been...........worse, he COULD have gone to the..............Tony Blair school of...........punctuation, and THAT is something...... I believe deeply and sincerely.
Only thing I miss from Opera in Firefox is the zoom. The Opera zoom is really nice.. it's like zooming a PDF (or.. well.. just about anything else with a proper zoom, really) - everything scales up together. Firefox just changes the font size.
Does anyone know of a Firefox extension that can do this? I've tried Imagezoom, but it doesn't really work too well (particularly scrolling on large images), and anyways, it only zooms up the images seperately
Err..
I hate to break this to you, but almost all produced (i.e. non-live) music these days uses MIDI somewhere along the line. It's been a long time since MIDI equated to the chip soundbank on a Soundblaster 16 card
The main thing that got me was Darth Vader waggling his finger at everyone like a primary school teacher chastising a naughty kid.
But then, I'm not too well versed in the working of the Star Wars universe (only seen the original 3 movies).. maybe that's just how he is?
The only thing the enemy would need to employ to completely overwhelm and undermine this army of nerds would be..... a female.
Wow! That's awesome...
They sell plans for a chronological time reflector.
Can you imagine?! Chronological time!
No, this is quite different to Sharp's approach.
Sharp's tech has one screen split into two halfs. One half is aimed at your left eye, the other is aimed at your right. This allows you a full range of depth by altering the horizontal displacement between corresponding pixels on the left eye/right eye images.
Basically this tech is quite similar to how anaglyphs or magic eye images work.
The tech in TFA on the other hand has two screen where one is literally, physically behind the other. The depth is actually there, like two cardboard planes one in front of the other.
The downside of this is you only ever have two flat planes at fixed depths - you cannot achieve a full range of depth between the two.
You can get them for the PC. I've got a pair of EDimensional ones.. They work wonders on GTA:VC
The Richard Cheese version is ace
For those not familiar with Cheese, he's a guy who takes songs such as NIN's "Closer", Dead Kennedy's "Holiday in Cambodia" and Prodigy's "Smack my Bitch Up" and turns them into a sort of mellow cocktail lounge/elevator music type of thing. Highly recommended