JamesHackerMP

Betsy, you keep dodging our questions every time we question anything you say. It's OK to have an opposing viewpoint on here, just don't dodge all the time. And I know you're going to respond with an ad hominem attack (accuse me of doing the same thing). Please don't. I just had a big lunch. They were not already there. Read a little more about the Big Bang. And you misspelled "Helium". By the way, I thought this thread was supposed to be about the contradictions in the Bible. This subject was covered in your other egregiously-posted thread about "Why trust the bible?" Here's something in the bible I find odd. It gives a list of the descendants of Adam through his surviving children (e.g., not Abel because Cain slew him). But then the flood wipes everyone out except Noah, his wife, and his sons and their families. Why, then are these descendants of Adam and Eve mentioned in the bible? this is something I'm just curious about. It does seem superfluous to mention them if they all cash in their chips on the next page.

Betsy, you've already mentioned the law of thermodynamics, again and again and again. How can we take you seriously when you sound like a broken record? Also, do you believe in evolution? Including humans from more primitive species into Homo sapiens?

See what I mean Betsy? I don't criticize your obvious enthusiasm in your beliefs, but you've already covered that in the other thread. It's like you're trying to barrage your audience with the same information. I don't care that we don't agree, smart people don't always agree; but you're preaching more than discussing. It's kind of like saturation bombing with a bible. But fair enough, if you want to talk contradictions in the Bible, I'll bite. I might have mentioned the discrepancy between Acts and Matthew re the death of Judas. In case I didn't: When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:3-5) But in another source: Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. (Acts 1:18) No mention is made of his hanging himself. Instead, he swells up (footnote says "or swelling up" under "falling headlong") in his stomach and his bowels spontaneously combust. So there's one contradiction. BTW, the use of boldface, larger fonts and different colors isn't helping to advance your argument.

Wait, Betsy, were we not discussing this on another thread? You've started several different threads, on virtually the same day, basically discussing what you were discussing in the thread on why trust the Bible.

Fine, Betsy. We can agree to disagree on the point of the bible and its correlation with science. OK. Is it possible to avoid that for now? I've noticed you've made several different threads here about the Bible, all based on things we've been talking about here, that essentially relate to why one should trust the bible.

I've always been fascinated by Japan. I've read halfway through James Clavell's Shogun; I even took a year of Japanese in high school (they only started offering it my last year). I found on Amazon something called Tale of Genji. Has anyone read this before? If yes, is there a particular translation one could recommend as superior to others? There's like a bazillion of them on Amazon. Assuming I rekindle my study of Japanese, I want to read it in English first. Besides which, it does look pretty cool.

Betsy this is where I am going to bail. If the rest of us are smarter than I was (for sticking around way too long) they'll probably bail as well. You can't argue with someone who calls anyone a fool for disagreeing with her. A Christian version of our friend Altai. I mean....Jesus Christ! (oops)

I still can't agree that the Bible is trying to teach us scientific truths of some sort, or supports them. I stand by my statement that science and religion are matter and anti-matter. That's about as scientific as it gets. Why don't we put that aside for the moment, since we clearly are talking at cross purposes. What about the social and moral rules set down in the OT? Do you really live like that in every way?

That's odd, considering that Tolkien was a devout Catholic. I had read something about that before, though. Might have been on Wikipedia.

well since we've mentioned Hitler...

I find it fascinating how Tolkien includes so many features in his fantasy world that are really like old England. He was after all a professor of Anglo-Saxon language at Oxford. He actually published a translation of Beowulf (I think it was Beowulf). After all, that part with Bilbo and the dragon in The Hobbit was right out of Beowulf. (In modern day literature they call that plagiarism, but if you do it with old literature it's considered ingenious, just ask Shakespeare). LOTR was actually extremely popular on American college campuses in the 60s, especially due to its anti-industrialization and environmentalist aspects. My father said it was the in thing to read it in college back then; a pretty remarkable thing for 1950s English literature to end up being popular with American college kids, then or now, especially as highbrow and anglo-saxony (to invent a word) his English is. We normally have to be forced to read things like Dickens in American high schools. I myself took a course in British literature in high school; but that was optional (I very much enjoyed it). It was so popular that, I think I mentioned above, Harvard Lampoon came out with a parody that is still in print. Speaking of Tolkien's style of prose, his characters tend to talk like each other--with the exception of Sam, since he's akin to being what they would call in the British army a "batman" for Frodo. He has the sort-of "cockney" English, whereas almost everyone else is upper-middle class or even aristocratic in their speech. Yet, it's still somehow egalitarian. After Uncle Bilbo goes away, it mentions something about "the poorer hobbits of Bagshot Row" making out well. So some subjects of the Shire are apparently less rich, but there isn't any actual poverty, per se. There's a social caste system, evident in their speech, but it's not oppressive. As the prologue explains, there is very little "government" in the Shire: a mayor of Michel Delving, and a nominal Thain to hold the "authority" of the King (who was only nominally their king, anyway) who was long gone. Obviously, Tolkien has great respect for non-absolute monarchy (not exactly constitutional, just not absolute). After all, when the last King of Gondor went missing centuries ago, it is said, no one seizes his throne, but holds its authority as a "steward". In the Shire, most of peoples' time is spent growing food and eating it. And smoking pipe weed. (perhaps that's another reason it was popular on our campuses in the 60s and 70s? lol) I was going to mention something about where Tolkien would fit on the political spectrum here, but my roommate just got in with some longbottom leaf. this may take a while.

I don't think we're going to make any headway arguing with Betsy; we probably should have realized ten pages ago that she isn't interested in a discussion. There are some people who, when you disagree with them, take it personally. And since she thinks she has God on her side that makes it worse. If she wants to sit in a corner agreeing with herself the whole time, so be it. I won't be a part of that. She already started another thread where all but one of the posts were from herself, basically talking to herself the whole time. Never argue with a fool or a drunk. Maybe it's the communion wine, who knows.

I feel a bit like Frodo myself (little guy but ballsy), except that I didn't live with a dirty old uncle who likes to celebrate joint "birthday parties".

That's the best kind of story, isn't it? Especially since I'm only 5'5" myself, and I like clarity.

Maybe there is one with a halo over a smiley face? Tres appropeau, n'est-ce pas? You know something I am curious about regarding the interpretation of the Bible? The Old Testament is the Jewish Canon---why do so many Christian clerics go around interpreting it for everyone like they're actually rabbis? Has anyone bothered to ask a rabbi what it means to the people who are actually the same religion as the divinely inspired authors what wrote it?

LOL They're on a quest to throw a magic ring into a volcano to destroy it. (It is actually a lot better than I make it sound.)

You'd think, lol. Actually, my knuckles are starting to hurt! The Mother Superior of the Convent of the Visitation of Maple Leaf Web is at it with the yard stick again! (Anyone who went to Catholic school would know what I'm talking about, e.g., yard sticks and nuns, lol)

I'm sorry Betsy, who died and appointed you Pope? I think you've done a pretty good job of derailing it yourself. I respect the fact that other people have a different view than me. However, you don't have to present your own views with such smugness. That won't spread the word of Jesus Christ, the good news, or save souls. It only turns people off. When making an argument, especially a religious one, it's best to keep in mind that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. You're trying to shove pseudo-scientific arguments down our throats, and when we have the awful temerity to disagree with you, we're either idiots or somehow un-Christian. And on that note: Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your own eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:3-5)

Been reading The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien. Anyone else read this? I'm at the beginning of book 6 (vol. III, The Return of the King) where Sam is trying to rescue Frodo. I have also been reading Bored of the Rings by Harvard Lampoon. It is hilarious as long as you've read LOTR. (I hope I didn't start this thread earlier, but I checked and it doesn't look like I did. I've been meaning to start a discussion about this.)

Yeah, but if you sneeze it'll literally throw you out into Martian orbit, or beyond, right?

I have indeed.

How much would a tiny little Martian colony cost to maintain? or even to land a man on Mars in the first place?

A space elevator on Mars would certainly be a good point, try it there before we can try it here. I agree the elevator may actually be more than a century off. Then again, some people said the same thing about space travel or a lunar landing, that it was decades away from 1961, and yet we did it within eight years. Not saying it's going to be that fast, but once atomic power (or weapons) were considered impossible. It would be the ultimate engineering achievement of course. How many of those land-able rocket boosters have landed successfully? What's the batting average so far? I'm pretty impressed with the knowledge of space travel floating around here. I'm glad I put this thread out. Much better than arguing about the bible or US foreign policy at this point lol.

I watched a program on Netflux about building a space elevator. There are some who believe that the technology will exist within the next 30 years, maybe less. They're working on a strong fiber or material to use. The whole thing sounnds ridiculous, but here's the thing: chemical rockets are very inefficient for getting people into space. Only a handful of people, and cargo, at a tiime, with a price tag that goes into the millions for every rocket/capsule, more crap floating in low Earth orbit, and other effects of chemical rocket launches. No way we'll become a truly spacefaring society until we can get at least several thousand people (differnt people not just the same over and over again) off the surface of the Earth each year. IN the meantime, they need to develop reusable space planes, smaller than the Shuttle (which was extremely gosh darned expensive) that can take off horizontally, that don't leave any of the aforementioned crap floating in orbit. That would be a helpful first step. Then some more technology directed at self-sufficiency for a lunar or martian colony. Can't keep going back and forth to Earth every time you need more Tang.

Any thoughts on a space elevator? Think that'll happen in our lifetimes?