Shwa

'Witch' was wicked, police say Toronto woman accused of faking witchcraft, bilking veteran lawyer of more than $100,000 Here's the story from the Toronto Star today Almost everyone cheers when a lawyer gets it, but you have to wonder how an intelligent, highly educated man could be so easily duped: Oh, ok that makes more sense. Another interesting part of the story - other that the sidebar listing a few other archaic laws still on the books, is this quote: Yes. Crystal balls, tarot readings, predictions from animal entrails or tea mush - yes. Greed - no. Gotta love TO, something for everyone in the Big Smoke.

Hence the quotes around the word "Christian" and the use of the word "mundane." For sure, including grave and occupation site excavations, pottery and other material culture morphology and other written texts. There are plenty of better sources for information about Gettysburg too, but Shelby Foote's books are useful just the same. But again, as an adaptation to contemporary times IMO. There was no wholesale rejection of Hebrew roots, Son of David, messianic prophecies, etc., and perhaps this just another example of the acculturative aspect of a regional myth system.

Yes, I agree. And very well put Toad Brother, thank you. However, I think that there is quite a bit to be gained from using the Bible as a source text especially since anthropology is such a multi-disciplinary field these days. I doubt that the mundane aspects of eary "Christian" culture was a sudden departure from how previous generations lived, even in the first century AD. So there are still important bits to be gleaned even from the New Testament - not for the sake of building up the validity of someone's religious beliefs, but to allow a more comprehensive regional view of the Middle East as a whole in terms of broad cultural development. Even Lazarus can give us clues as to funerary processes, material culture, religious power structures, etc. that can be comparatively analyzed with other sources outside of the Bible. I think that if there were some corroboration with other regional mythical systems we might see a sort of pattern of myth making or 'borrowing' as a form of social control as well. There seems to be a provenance of sorts for almost all of the Bible stories in early Sumerian texts as well and those are linked with Egyptian cosmology - both early "civilizations." Because of the widespread influence of those texts - from Gligamesh to Judaism, through Christianity to Islam - is there a common myth making/borrowing/telling aspect that has since integrated itself even into the modern social context so that people nowadays - even those that strongly disavow anything to do with those religions - are influenced in their day to day lives or how they form decisions about themselves or others? A sort of inherited cosmological centrism/symbolism (like your sun-Son-halo example) that can be traced even into fairly recent descriptive anthropological literature about cultures remote from the Middle East.

But you are missing the trees for the forest here GH. I am not saying the "Bible as fact." You are. Whether you are for or against that assertion, it is your assertion, not mine. And for a guy who says the Bible is entirely irrelevant, you do seem to have some latent creationist tendencies there. Or so it appears. I kid! I kid! I have already made it clear that the Bible "...is nothing more than a compendium of stories and myths structured to transmit cultural imperatives to future generations." I think any rational anthropologist would tend to agree with that assesment and thus open the door for cultural studies of an ancient people in the very same way that the Three Sisters can provide for ancient Iroquoians. The problem is, you are coming at this whole question with your mind made up about outcomes, you say so yourself: If you close yourself off from resources because they are some ancient text from a long gone past, you are cutting yourself off from some pretty interesting information - from the Sumerians and Gilgamesh, to Ancient Egypt and the hieroglyphs to petroglyphs carved on cliffs in the southeast US thousands of years ago. While the source might be a huge obstacle for you, it isn't for me - anymore than the Tibetan Book of the Dead or the Dresden Codex. They are fascinating glimpses into ancient and not-so-ancient past and the peoples who created and maintained them. As for Lazarus? Well the fun has run its course. I either made my point or I didn't. And if not, well, at least I had some fun. I hope you did too.

Ah. Therein lies the problem. But I must say, for someone who thinks the Bible is irrelevant, you sure do spend a considerable amount of time and energy discussing it. Perhaps deep down you are still undecided.

Poor Mr. Hockey Helmet, trying to gain any kind of credibility at all. Still trying to deny that science can provide any insight into his precious Bible. Feel free to google 'creationists'

Are you saying that literal interpretations of the bible are relevant?

Awesome, simply awesome. Cherry picking I mean. Saying archaeological confirmation to biblical references is post hoc is grossly overstating the plainly obvious. Du-uh. The Bible has been around a little bit longer than modern archaeology there Mr. Hockey Helmet. Archaeology says that indeed a battle was fought at Gettysburg, but you know, it's all post hoc. I mean, Gettysburg, it was in all the newspapers. The problem is that you are a idiot polemicist that has nothing to else to offer, but intellectually deficient quips and boring observations about topics you know almost nothing about. You are the prime example that a little bit of knowledge is a bad thing. What a total idiot. OMG...

I do! I do! And I won't google either. I promise!

A challenge from an idiot would trend towards being an idiotic challenge don't you think? But, wait, he has asked a question. Shhhhh. Let's see what he has to say, I can't wait.

For what purpose? I have already given you the question, the method and a workable hypothesis, are you not capable of applying that science to the bible at all or do you need someone to do the work for you? Here, try one of these links from Arizona State University's ArchNet resources: http://archnet.asu.edu/topical/Selected_Topics/Biblical%20Archaeology/institution.php Go through the links and choose one of the resources and see if they are sufficiently objective enough for you to see that science can use the Bible as a source of information. I dunno about the U of Jerusalem, but hey, you might find they are objective enough. Once you have selected a site, get back to me.

OMG, how stupid are you? Stupid or drunk or both? Have another one Mr. Hockey Helmet you're actually entertaining in a sort of tragic foot-meets-banana-peel way . Please, do go on...

Point (A) is completely relevant to the questions posed, method and original hypothesis as demonstrated by the use of the Three Sisters. Fairly straight forward too. If you fail to comprehend that, well, that's not my problem.

So let me guess: you have never heard of anthropology, ethnology, archaeology, etc. Or you're just an idiot. Gathering from your recent postings there is more evidence for the latter.

Right. "pantsed" Uh-huh. Good one. The chinstrap is loose on your hockey helmet there big fella.

Nope. Carefully read point (A). So you could get some insight into the method that would be divorced from your apparent overriding anti-bible/religion bias/polemic.

See point (A) from my previous post. See point (A) from my previous post. Really, I think sluggish is the best description. Eventually you'll 'get it' if you think hard enough about it, but I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath.

How so? I am part of "all" and I don't see how their attitudes are any more or less 'out in the open.' They present their case with the weight of their side of the argument, as imperfect as it is. The counterpoint side also has imperfections, but much, much less weight. And considering how widespread the notion of Global Warming is, the weight of the argument has gathered a sweeping momentum within our society. At this point whether Global Warming is a reality or not is entirely beside the point, in the minds of the decision makers, it already is. There is no way anyone spouting off obscure or minor details is going to derail the momentum. That debate is over. It has been for quite some time. If you really want to make your case, hang a couple of banners on the West Block of the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa. That will get you some attention. The only thing left is to debate the cost. And is it worth the money to clean up our environment, our air, our lands, etc.? What are the cost-benefits of changing over our energy systems, etc. It would seem to me that plenty of energy has been wasted on a long dead debate when the real consequences of that 'weight' is starting to bear on the economics of our society. Perhaps that is the point Rex Murphy was trying to get at?

"left wing brain storm" You made yourself completely irrelevant and out of touch before the period was typed on the end of your first sentence. Good for you.

A: I am on topic. No it wasn't: B: I posed the question. There is nothing in that question that says anything would be proven or that the bible was provable because that would be poor science, if science at all. However, you injected your needy prejudice so I used the story of the Three Sisters to illustrate point (A) above. What "boggles the mind" is how sluggish your intellect is "really." I am not here to prove your beliefs or disbeliefs. If you want to claim that the scientific method - or any other method - can be used to prove your disbelief, go ahead, show us your work. Can't? Yeah, I knew you could not do it.

Do what?

Yes we must be suspicious because the people monitoring the stations and the good folks that compile the data are completely unaware of the microclimates in urban areas. Or the microclimates in sheltered areas, or other areas that have some mitigating geographic factor that create microclimates such as Shangri-la or caves. Are there any monitoring stations in caves? Because I would disregard that data because it might be biased towards dampness, darkness or rockiness. If they predict the future climate to be damp, dark and stalagmitey we know they got the data from monitoring stations in caves. Yeah I noticed that when the ice melted in my glass of pop, the whole room cooled down quite a bit, except for the spot near the fireplace, which was pretty much the rest of the room. Which would lead me to conclude that since iceburgs "are all over the place" the ones near active volcanoes probably wouldn't cool things down too much. But check with your friend to see if that makes sense.

I dunno, is it?

To get back to your question... yes Rex Murphy should be allowed to present his views on climate change. His is commentary based on opinion and I do not see how it is represented by anything more. If he admits that his experts are not climate scientists, but investment bankers or oil lobbyists or whatever, only the very stupid would confuse his opinion with fact. The CBC employs Don Cherry. Do they fact-check everything he tees off on? No. Rex Murphy is more entertainer than real news guy. Kind of like Rick Mercer, but much uglier and less funny.

It is. The PAN-AM Games are amateur sports and are the result of (mostly) privately funded athlete training. The various levels of government will be partners, along with big business, to facilitate the games including grassroots things like jobs, tourism, infrastructure improvements, etc.