Assuming a standard Mac mouse, how would you expect the computer to recognize the difference between a "middle click" paste and a "middle click" select since all the mice have one button located, approximately, in the middle of the mouse?
Oh, maybe you are thinking of emulating another operating system's user interface conventions on the Mac. You could buy a three button mouse and try assigning a macro to the middle button with AppleScript.
Seems like I remember getting a prize in a box of Crackerjacks that showed two separate images on one device depending on the angle from which you viewed it.
At least this guy came up with this idea before monitors are being given away in Crackerjack boxes. As it is, I don't see a whole lot of promise for a device that shares a monitor when an extra monitor is only $50.00.
"A good old "three yards and a cloud of dust" attack won the game."
As the immortal Woody Hayes said in response to a question about Ohio State not passing very often, when you throw the ball, there are only three things that can happen, and two of them are bad.
"Poison gas and bacteriological agents are not worthless militarily. They can kill a large number of troops in a very short time frame. Dirty bombs do not kill anyone quickly except those hit by conventional explosion."
Sure, in a closed room. The problem is, most battles are fought out in the open air which means wind, which means it can blow back on you. Artillery, by contrast, doesn't get blown back on the user and kills more people. In wars, artillery kills more enemy troops than anything else does. There is a reason that poison gas was almost non-existent in WW II. The lessons of the dangers, to the user, of poison gas in WW I far outweighed it's military efficacy and the battlefield conditions in WW II did not include the enemy sitting in a ditch into which one could pour a heavier than air poison gas.
"The Me-163 Komet for example was an interceptor aircraft with a liquid-fuel rocket (not turbojet) engine. It reached a speed of approximately 600 mph (almost 1000 km/h) and had a maximum range of about 80 km."
You don't even need to get that obscure. The V1 was a rocket powered bomb with wings, just like you are describing. I think you are right that they could have delivered it, if they had had one.
"Nobody knew about those properties of radioactive materials in WWII."
Nonsense, read Feynman. They were well aware of the effects of radioactivity. At least one scientist died from radiation exposure in the production of the bomb.
"Bombing strategy was to drop a whole mess of bombs in the general area (we are talking like quare mile here) of your target."
Wrong again. The Norden bombsight was reputed to be accurate enough to drop a bomb within a 100 ft circle from 4 miles. Even if it was only 1/10 this accurate, it would not require a bombing pattern of 1 sq. mile.
"You'd risk a lot less assets, eliminate targets much faster, and save lives (yours at least) and money."
No. The point of an attomic weapon was to terrorize a population into surrender. Same point behind the Blitz. Same point behind firebombing Dresden and Tokyo. These attacks had very little military effect. At the end of WW II, Germany was still producing more fighter aircraft than it had pilots to fly. It still produced V2 rockets and jet aircraft.
"For one thing direty bombs are pretty fucking worthless militarily."
So is poison gas. So are bacteriological agents. That doesn't stop militaries from producing them.
I think you are right. Did you ever hear this English nursery rhyme?
Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief,
Taffy came to my house and stole a leg of beef.
I went to Taffy's house, Taffy wasn't in,
I jumped upon his Sunday hat and poked it with a pin.
A friend of mine and I were arguing about the relative costs of Macintoshes vs. PC's (the eternal debate) and I specced out and priced a Dell and sent him the results. Later that same day he tried to spec and price the same Dell and got a different price.
There is a possibility that he screwed up, but we both assumed that Dell was varriably pricing the computers.
"So it performs better than perfect? How does that work?"
See this little mark labeled P+1? Well, normal solutions only go to P (i.e. Perfect) but our solution goes one more mark for when we need that extra little bit of perfection to really sell the idea.
It woudl make more sense for MS to set up a corporation and let that corporation purchase a significant stake in Red Hat such that it would be able to elect a numbers of members of the board and control an executive position or two. Then systematically dismantle Red Hat from within.
"uses mobile phones to help people meet up with friends "
I think I will patent a process for contacting other people via phone. I'll assign a certain series of say, 7 to 10 digits, to each phone on the network and allow people to contact other phone users by dialing in just this series of digits. I'll make a mint!
Dude, this is Slashdot. The Treo 600 is yesterday's news. And, it was a decent phone, but only a so-so PDA. I didn't buy one specifically because of the 160x160 res and memory card issues.
I have a Treo 650 and it is a great PDA and a great phone, but it is a sucky still camera and a really sucky video camera. I haven't even bothered trying to listen to music on it or watch movies on it. I do occassionally read a book on it, but I have done that with Palms all the way back.
The camera feature is completely worthless, but the presence of it makes it impossible to take my schedule with me into Federal Court which is the purpose of having the PDA features in the first place.
I would much prefer a unit that combined the two things I want with nothing else: Phone and PDA.
The Treo 650 is big, but I much prefer it's size to the Sony Ericsson t68 I had, and the battery life is phenomenal.
"But the important thing to know is that violating these laws was only a sin because doing so would be diobediance to God, not because they were inherantly sinfull."
And where in the Bible does it explain the difference between "inherently" sinful things and things which are sinful just 'cause God said so.
I will posit that you are expressing an unorthodox view of scripture. I believe the orthodox Christian view is that all sin is disobediance to God and vice-versa. I think orthodox Christians would not accept the notion that there is an absolute morality that exists independent of and without regard to the existence of God. To orthodox Christians, nothing can exist independently of God.
I do know a couple of athiests and some pagans who would agree with you, though.
" Ironically, she appeals to consumer rights and anti-monopoly tactics."
Nothing Ironic about it. She's a whore. She says whatever someone pays her to say. Now, she's being paid by somoene who wants a piece of Apple's action.
"You got it right later on when you pointed out that it does come down to translation and interpretation. But if you are looking for a verse that says it was an angel, try Hosia 12:4. "
I am aware of that verse, however, I was specifically looking for a verse that said it was an angel of the preincarnate Christ. Don't cop out on me.
By the way, that verse says Angel in the KJV, but says "in maturity he wrestled against God" in the New Jerusalem Bible, so it still doesn't make your point. Not to mention that the speaker in Hosea is not praising Jacob, but talking about how he is a sinner, so the oft stated premise that the original verse is an analogy to prayer is even wrong.
"Just because you or someone else who has an elementary understanding of the bible things it might be eluding to it does not make it so."
Who said I have an elementrary understanidng of the Bible, you? I have studied the bible for 25 years. I was raised a Southern Baptist and continued in that faith until I came to understand the Bible. It was my understanding of the Bible that lost my faith for me.
"Every biblical scholar (and yet there are pleanty who are not christian) would disagree with you."
This is a silly statement, since I have quoted you the relevant portions of the New Jerusalem Bible, hence you knew before making it that there are at least some Bible scholars who agree with me, namely the translators of that particular edition. If you don't believe my quote, they are easy enough to verify.
I would also point you to Leviticus 27:26-29, as well as Judges 11:29-40 for further elucidation on this issue. There are more sections of the Bible that deal with this than just those. Also, your theory about this doesn't explain why "dedicating" their children to God was a problem for the Hebrews as we find in Ezekiel. It seems it would only be a problem if they were actually killing them.
"And no you invent what christians interpret this verse to be, it does not refer to the first born being priests. It's a dirrect reference Numbers 3:46-48"
And what are the Levites doing? They are redeeming the first-born of Israel. If you go further in Numbers you will see that God states that just as he took the first-born of Egypt (killed them) all first born, human or animal, belong to him.
Your right you could put whatever "interpretation" on the Iliad or any other work and people would ignore you, so what makes you believe your qualified to put your "interpretation" on the bible, especialy considering its far more difficult that most other works?
Perecisely my point about the Iliad. No one will buy an interpretation that is not related to the plain meaning of the words. However, people buy interpretations of the Bible that have no conenction with the plain meaning of the words, but are based on their then-current notion of what morality is. 3,500 years ago it was not surprising to Abraham that God wanted him to sacrifice his first born son. 3 years ago when some woman stoned her kids to death in Texas by God's command, they put her in jail. Regardless of what Christians think, times change and moral notions, even their own, change with them.
I disagree the Bible is more difficult than other works. Some of the difficulty lies in the fact that people try to reconcile contradictory passages in portions of the compendium that we refer to as the Bible even though these passages were written centuries apart and even by people of different cultures. They are difficult to reconcile precisely because they are irreconcilable. It would be like trying to reconcile the different articles in a volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
What you need to do is read your Bible once with your eyes open and not clouded by layers of gloss you have been given through your life.
One final point you might want to think about in considering human sacrifice in the Bible is this: isn't it a little silly for a Christian to doubt human sacrifice in the Bible since to do so would require him to forget about the sacrifice of Christ on the cross for the sins of the world?
"And it was not God himself that wresled with him, it was an angle of a preincarnate christ."
Yeah, sure, just quote me the verse where it says that. Aren't you supposed to be explaining to me, pursuant to my original post, how a non-believer could read the Bible and understand what is to be takern literally and what is not?
Your approach seems to be that, regardless of the words, such as "saw God face to face," the Bible only means what you say it means. Frankly, that doesn't give me very much comfort.
By the way, I used the quotes from the King James version because: a) it is easy to pull up on the internet and cut and paste from since the copyright has expired; b) it tends to be the "authoritative" version to non-Cathloic Christians. I prefer the New Jerusalem version myself. It is a well done, scholarly, translation. It was approved by the Catholic Church as being an accurate translation, though I suspect most fundamentalist Protestants would not like it. I'll tell you, the language in the New Jerusalem Bible doesn't get any better for your point of view, and, in fact, makes it more clear what is being said.
Here are the two quotes about human sacrifice from the New Jersusalem Bible:
Do not be slow about making offerings from your abundance and your surplus. You will give me the first-born of your children; you will do the same with your flocks and herds. for the first seven days the first-born will stay with its mother; on the eighth day you will give it to me. Exodus 22:28
And for that reason I gave them laws that were not good and judgements by which thy could never live, and I polluted them with their own offerings, making them sacrifice every first-born son in order to fill them with revulsion, so that they would know that I am Yahweh. Ezekiel 20:25.
By the way, these aren't the only two places in the Bible that talk about human sacrifice, just the two that I have been referring to. I realize that Christians like to interpret the Exodus verse as meaning to make the first born priests, but that contradicts the business about the first born animals, unless you think that animals can be priests of Yahweh. Also, it contradicts the strict rule that priests only come from one tribe: Aaron's.
Again this comes down to interpretation (and I would argue, deliberate mis-interpretation) rather than actual words. I could put whatever "interpretation" I wanted on the Iliad or any other piece of mythology, for that matter. What is so special about the Bible? Other than the dirty parts, I mean.
"Congrats, you've found the skeptics annotated bible, and learned to parrot everything they post without actualy putting any though into its validity. You are blinded by faith, just not a faith in God or christianity."
My my, you fundies get all bent out of shape when anyone questions your religion, don't you? You will recall that this was exactly the response I said I always got when discussing these topics. It is nice to see that you are keeping in rude step with your co-religionists.
"And where does this say to sacrifice your first born? It doesn't thats your suggestion."
No, if you had any knowledge of the Bible you would know that phrase is used repeatedly in admonitions against just such acts in connection with "pagan" dieties.
Examples:
Murder of Children Forbidden: (not my topic heading, but I took all these quotes from an anti-abortion site to avoid retyping them, not a "skeptics" site)
Lev 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Lev 20:4-5 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
2 Ki 16:3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel.
2 Ki 17:17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
2 Ki 21:6 And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
2 Ki 23:10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.
2 Chr 33:6 And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Ezek 16:20-21 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?
Ezek 20:26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.
Ezek 20:31 For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, even unto this day: and shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be inquired of by you.
Obviously, the anti-abortionists conveniently leave out the original Exodus 22:29 instruction from Yahweh to his people to sacrifice their first born children to him.
"You have some serious issues with dislexia or are just reading the wrong book if what you found was any of those things. The only example that I can even say you mearly took it out of context was Jacob wrestled God, and even then he wasn't hit in the crotch, thats your addition. If you willing to just make stuff up on the spot your only deluding yourself."
Spoken like a true Christer-fundie.
Here are the quotes straight from King James's version of the Holy Book:
Human Sacrifice
Exodus 22:
[29] Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.
[30] Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.
Ezekiel 20:
[25] Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;
[26] And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.
Jacob Wrestling God
Genesis 33:
24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.27 And he said unto him, What [is] thy name? And he said, Jacob.28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.29 And Jacob asked [him], and said, Tell [me], I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore [is] it [that] thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.31 And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh.32 Therefore the children of Israel eat not [of] the sinew which shrank, which [is] upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank.
I guess in reading these things you have to understand what the language means, but seeing "God face to face" seems pretty obvious. "Hollow of the thigh" means groin.
In the Ezekiel quote above, "to pass through the fire" means sacrifice there and many other places in the Bible. It should be obvous that "openeth the womb" means give birth, probably specifically the first time.
No, I don't have a reading problem, but, then, I am not blinded by "faith" either.
""If you look at the original Hebrew, the word translated "day" in Genesis has the same meaning as if I said "In my fathers day, automobile fuel was 35 cents a gallon"."
Have you looked at the "original Hebrew" version of Genesis?
Have you ever known anyone who had looked at the "original Hebrew" version of Genesis?
Can you point to any place where there exists an "original Hebrew" version of Genesis?
I'll give you a hint, the word "Genesis" isn't Hebrew.
"If you are neither a Roman Catholic nor a Fundamentalist, your lack of an "absolute" authority means that you are left to rely on your own judgement to decide what you believe, and given the deeply flawed nature of human judgement, that's a precarious position to be in."
I disagree that lacking an absolute authority is problematic. I have always believed that I have a responsibility to be in the best position to make decisions for myself.
I disagree also that Catholics and Fendamentalist Christians have absolute authorities. I think they both give lip service to absolute authorities, but, if you think about it, if they really believed in them, there would be no Protestants, just all Papa-loving Catholics.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, maybe you are thinking of emulating another operating system's user interface conventions on the Mac. You could buy a three button mouse and try assigning a macro to the middle button with AppleScript.
but its English hasn't improved much.
At least this guy came up with this idea before monitors are being given away in Crackerjack boxes. As it is, I don't see a whole lot of promise for a device that shares a monitor when an extra monitor is only $50.00.
As the immortal Woody Hayes said in response to a question about Ohio State not passing very often, when you throw the ball, there are only three things that can happen, and two of them are bad.
Sure, in a closed room. The problem is, most battles are fought out in the open air which means wind, which means it can blow back on you. Artillery, by contrast, doesn't get blown back on the user and kills more people. In wars, artillery kills more enemy troops than anything else does. There is a reason that poison gas was almost non-existent in WW II. The lessons of the dangers, to the user, of poison gas in WW I far outweighed it's military efficacy and the battlefield conditions in WW II did not include the enemy sitting in a ditch into which one could pour a heavier than air poison gas.
There is a difference between not having a capability and not using a capability.
You don't even need to get that obscure. The V1 was a rocket powered bomb with wings, just like you are describing. I think you are right that they could have delivered it, if they had had one.
Nonsense, read Feynman. They were well aware of the effects of radioactivity. At least one scientist died from radiation exposure in the production of the bomb.
"Bombing strategy was to drop a whole mess of bombs in the general area (we are talking like quare mile here) of your target."
Wrong again. The Norden bombsight was reputed to be accurate enough to drop a bomb within a 100 ft circle from 4 miles. Even if it was only 1/10 this accurate, it would not require a bombing pattern of 1 sq. mile.
"You'd risk a lot less assets, eliminate targets much faster, and save lives (yours at least) and money."
No. The point of an attomic weapon was to terrorize a population into surrender. Same point behind the Blitz. Same point behind firebombing Dresden and Tokyo. These attacks had very little military effect. At the end of WW II, Germany was still producing more fighter aircraft than it had pilots to fly. It still produced V2 rockets and jet aircraft.
"For one thing direty bombs are pretty fucking worthless militarily."
So is poison gas. So are bacteriological agents. That doesn't stop militaries from producing them.
Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief,
Taffy came to my house and stole a leg of beef.
I went to Taffy's house, Taffy wasn't in,
I jumped upon his Sunday hat and poked it with a pin.
There is a possibility that he screwed up, but we both assumed that Dell was varriably pricing the computers.
Anyone know if this is Dell's practice or not?
applaud for something that happened 6 months ago.
that IBM would give a code name to its PPC processor that is the same as Intel's trademarked name for a processor it ships?
does anyone else think it is strange to put a "Top 100" list in alphabetical order rather than in reverse numeric order based on the rating given?
See this little mark labeled P+1? Well, normal solutions only go to P (i.e. Perfect) but our solution goes one more mark for when we need that extra little bit of perfection to really sell the idea.
It woudl make more sense for MS to set up a corporation and let that corporation purchase a significant stake in Red Hat such that it would be able to elect a numbers of members of the board and control an executive position or two. Then systematically dismantle Red Hat from within.
I think I will patent a process for contacting other people via phone. I'll assign a certain series of say, 7 to 10 digits, to each phone on the network and allow people to contact other phone users by dialing in just this series of digits. I'll make a mint!
I have a Treo 650 and it is a great PDA and a great phone, but it is a sucky still camera and a really sucky video camera. I haven't even bothered trying to listen to music on it or watch movies on it. I do occassionally read a book on it, but I have done that with Palms all the way back.
The camera feature is completely worthless, but the presence of it makes it impossible to take my schedule with me into Federal Court which is the purpose of having the PDA features in the first place.
I would much prefer a unit that combined the two things I want with nothing else: Phone and PDA.
The Treo 650 is big, but I much prefer it's size to the Sony Ericsson t68 I had, and the battery life is phenomenal.
And where in the Bible does it explain the difference between "inherently" sinful things and things which are sinful just 'cause God said so.
I will posit that you are expressing an unorthodox view of scripture. I believe the orthodox Christian view is that all sin is disobediance to God and vice-versa. I think orthodox Christians would not accept the notion that there is an absolute morality that exists independent of and without regard to the existence of God. To orthodox Christians, nothing can exist independently of God.
I do know a couple of athiests and some pagans who would agree with you, though.
Nothing Ironic about it. She's a whore. She says whatever someone pays her to say. Now, she's being paid by somoene who wants a piece of Apple's action.
I am aware of that verse, however, I was specifically looking for a verse that said it was an angel of the preincarnate Christ. Don't cop out on me.
By the way, that verse says Angel in the KJV, but says "in maturity he wrestled against God" in the New Jerusalem Bible, so it still doesn't make your point. Not to mention that the speaker in Hosea is not praising Jacob, but talking about how he is a sinner, so the oft stated premise that the original verse is an analogy to prayer is even wrong.
"Just because you or someone else who has an elementary understanding of the bible things it might be eluding to it does not make it so."
Who said I have an elementrary understanidng of the Bible, you? I have studied the bible for 25 years. I was raised a Southern Baptist and continued in that faith until I came to understand the Bible. It was my understanding of the Bible that lost my faith for me.
"Every biblical scholar (and yet there are pleanty who are not christian) would disagree with you."
This is a silly statement, since I have quoted you the relevant portions of the New Jerusalem Bible, hence you knew before making it that there are at least some Bible scholars who agree with me, namely the translators of that particular edition. If you don't believe my quote, they are easy enough to verify.
I would also point you to Leviticus 27:26-29, as well as Judges 11:29-40 for further elucidation on this issue. There are more sections of the Bible that deal with this than just those. Also, your theory about this doesn't explain why "dedicating" their children to God was a problem for the Hebrews as we find in Ezekiel. It seems it would only be a problem if they were actually killing them.
"And no you invent what christians interpret this verse to be, it does not refer to the first born being priests. It's a dirrect reference Numbers 3:46-48"
And what are the Levites doing? They are redeeming the first-born of Israel. If you go further in Numbers you will see that God states that just as he took the first-born of Egypt (killed them) all first born, human or animal, belong to him.
Your right you could put whatever "interpretation" on the Iliad or any other work and people would ignore you, so what makes you believe your qualified to put your "interpretation" on the bible, especialy considering its far more difficult that most other works?
Perecisely my point about the Iliad. No one will buy an interpretation that is not related to the plain meaning of the words. However, people buy interpretations of the Bible that have no conenction with the plain meaning of the words, but are based on their then-current notion of what morality is. 3,500 years ago it was not surprising to Abraham that God wanted him to sacrifice his first born son. 3 years ago when some woman stoned her kids to death in Texas by God's command, they put her in jail. Regardless of what Christians think, times change and moral notions, even their own, change with them.
I disagree the Bible is more difficult than other works. Some of the difficulty lies in the fact that people try to reconcile contradictory passages in portions of the compendium that we refer to as the Bible even though these passages were written centuries apart and even by people of different cultures. They are difficult to reconcile precisely because they are irreconcilable. It would be like trying to reconcile the different articles in a volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
What you need to do is read your Bible once with your eyes open and not clouded by layers of gloss you have been given through your life.
One final point you might want to think about in considering human sacrifice in the Bible is this: isn't it a little silly for a Christian to doubt human sacrifice in the Bible since to do so would require him to forget about the sacrifice of Christ on the cross for the sins of the world?
Yeah, sure, just quote me the verse where it says that. Aren't you supposed to be explaining to me, pursuant to my original post, how a non-believer could read the Bible and understand what is to be takern literally and what is not?
Your approach seems to be that, regardless of the words, such as "saw God face to face," the Bible only means what you say it means. Frankly, that doesn't give me very much comfort.
By the way, I used the quotes from the King James version because: a) it is easy to pull up on the internet and cut and paste from since the copyright has expired; b) it tends to be the "authoritative" version to non-Cathloic Christians. I prefer the New Jerusalem version myself. It is a well done, scholarly, translation. It was approved by the Catholic Church as being an accurate translation, though I suspect most fundamentalist Protestants would not like it. I'll tell you, the language in the New Jerusalem Bible doesn't get any better for your point of view, and, in fact, makes it more clear what is being said.
Here are the two quotes about human sacrifice from the New Jersusalem Bible:
Do not be slow about making offerings from your abundance and your surplus. You will give me the first-born of your children; you will do the same with your flocks and herds. for the first seven days the first-born will stay with its mother; on the eighth day you will give it to me. Exodus 22:28
And for that reason I gave them laws that were not good and judgements by which thy could never live, and I polluted them with their own offerings, making them sacrifice every first-born son in order to fill them with revulsion, so that they would know that I am Yahweh. Ezekiel 20:25.
By the way, these aren't the only two places in the Bible that talk about human sacrifice, just the two that I have been referring to. I realize that Christians like to interpret the Exodus verse as meaning to make the first born priests, but that contradicts the business about the first born animals, unless you think that animals can be priests of Yahweh. Also, it contradicts the strict rule that priests only come from one tribe: Aaron's.
Again this comes down to interpretation (and I would argue, deliberate mis-interpretation) rather than actual words. I could put whatever "interpretation" I wanted on the Iliad or any other piece of mythology, for that matter. What is so special about the Bible? Other than the dirty parts, I mean.
My my, you fundies get all bent out of shape when anyone questions your religion, don't you? You will recall that this was exactly the response I said I always got when discussing these topics. It is nice to see that you are keeping in rude step with your co-religionists.
"And where does this say to sacrifice your first born? It doesn't thats your suggestion."
No, if you had any knowledge of the Bible you would know that phrase is used repeatedly in admonitions against just such acts in connection with "pagan" dieties.
Examples:
Murder of Children Forbidden: (not my topic heading, but I took all these quotes from an anti-abortion site to avoid retyping them, not a "skeptics" site)
Lev 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Lev 20:4-5 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
2 Ki 16:3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel.
2 Ki 17:17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
2 Ki 21:6 And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
2 Ki 23:10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.
2 Chr 33:6 And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Ezek 16:20-21 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?
Ezek 20:26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.
Ezek 20:31 For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, even unto this day: and shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be inquired of by you.
Obviously, the anti-abortionists conveniently leave out the original Exodus 22:29 instruction from Yahweh to his people to sacrifice their first born children to him.
"Try reading the rest of
Spoken like a true Christer-fundie.
Here are the quotes straight from King James's version of the Holy Book:
Human Sacrifice
Exodus 22: [29] Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. [30] Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.
Ezekiel 20: [25] Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; [26] And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.
Jacob Wrestling God
Genesis 33: 24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.27 And he said unto him, What [is] thy name? And he said, Jacob.28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.29 And Jacob asked [him], and said, Tell [me], I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore [is] it [that] thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.31 And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh.32 Therefore the children of Israel eat not [of] the sinew which shrank, which [is] upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank.
I guess in reading these things you have to understand what the language means, but seeing "God face to face" seems pretty obvious. "Hollow of the thigh" means groin.
In the Ezekiel quote above, "to pass through the fire" means sacrifice there and many other places in the Bible. It should be obvous that "openeth the womb" means give birth, probably specifically the first time.
No, I don't have a reading problem, but, then, I am not blinded by "faith" either.
Have you looked at the "original Hebrew" version of Genesis?
Have you ever known anyone who had looked at the "original Hebrew" version of Genesis?
Can you point to any place where there exists an "original Hebrew" version of Genesis?
I'll give you a hint, the word "Genesis" isn't Hebrew.
Other than that, you might have a point.
I disagree that lacking an absolute authority is problematic. I have always believed that I have a responsibility to be in the best position to make decisions for myself.
I disagree also that Catholics and Fendamentalist Christians have absolute authorities. I think they both give lip service to absolute authorities, but, if you think about it, if they really believed in them, there would be no Protestants, just all Papa-loving Catholics.