rebelconservative

they are outright hostile I'll second that.

who said I wanted your respect? and where did I defend the legitimacy of the Bible...? I made a simple point regarding the need for context generally, and that some language used in the Bible being mistranslated. I was rather surprised by the response tbh. it is not arbitrary to say that culture affects the original intent and our understanding. a liberal, a conservative and an Objectivist may all say "I believe in free speech" but it would be incorrect to assume that the meaning of their statement is the same. the Objectivist believes in free speech, but the liberal and conservative will both have their own qualifications and limitations to that seemingly unequivocal statement. these can only be deduced from looking at context outside the statement. Ayn Rand wrote The Virtue of Selfishness, then spent most of the introduction adding context to that statement, explaining what she meant by 'selfishness' because few people understand the word to mean what she (and the dictionary) knew it means. most people misunderstand Ayn Rand because they don't bother to find out the context behind the soundbites they may see on liberal websites. your mother never taught you to agree to disagree? so what was Stonehenge used for? because I enjoy playing devils advocate did I ever say they were right and the bible held no contradictions and was handed down by God? meow I stand corrected (though I have not had the time to check it in the original greek... ) they literally preserved their bodies because they believed they needed to bury all parts to be resurrected. the fire symbolised the destruction of their body and therefore, the idea that rejecting Jesus meant rejecting the afterlife, meaning no afterlife of any temperature, just nothingness. I am curious, what did I say to lead you to conclude that I was defending their ideology? think? shouldn't you prove it as an Objective reality...? no problem

btw, I'm not a Christian, so I don't take the bible to be anything other than ancient man's attempts to understand the universe. adding context to cherry-picked statements is often necessary to understand something. the fact that the context doesn't fit your preconceived notions does not make it arbitrary. the fact that some people may use this as a strategy to hide from reality has no bearing on the importance of context. and the fact that people disagree on the interpretation of something does not remove all meaning (only one (or none) is correct of course). the fact that we can't be certain of something doesn't mean we should discard it all together - if we did there would be no academic study of history. you seem irrationally averse to doubt, why is that? I don't take a literal view of the Bible in any case. maybe they pray or are filled with the Holy Ghost Spirit or something? btw, the Bible doesn't says gays are evil either (warning: the following sentence is about to discuss a biblical passage and there may be some context, please remove small children and proceed at your own risk), it does say that buggery is an 'abomination' (thus placing it on the moral level of eating shellfish in OT times - though this prohibition was dropped at the Council of Jerusalem during the early periods of the Christian Church). the early Christian Church agreed which Jewish customs to follow and which to reject (lots of politics involved) and it was decided that ritual aspects were not applicable to gentile followers but certain moral aspects (mostly 10 Commandments type stuff) must be followed I am sorry that I don't have the time to research the Greek terms for each and every one of the obscure Biblical passages you provided, I thought two would suffice as examples. and I did say that it was symbolism. the fire refers to a symbolic eternal destruction - as I mentioned, Jews have to preserve the body to be resurrected (no afterlife / heaven if you are cremated) was Jesus talking about a literal samaritan? was their really a prodigal son? not everything is literal if by "real version" you mean the original intent of the passage, I would imagine that, like much history, the "real" version is lost to us now and we are left with various interpretations on the available evidence. remember, the is no Hell in Judaism - it is a Greek concept. it is highly doubtful whether the historical Jesus would ever have made mention of a literal place akin to hades without precedent. God doesn't tell me anything... when I hear the voices I just up my meds... you appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that I'm Christian? they are good questions - I gather that they use different schools of theology to help them determine all of these things. however, as I am not a theologian and would not care to comment on the criteria that they use.

I'm saying that it does not refer to that in the original. you ignored my point regarding mistranslations and errors of interpretation in language. don't forget that you are talking about a translation probably from aramaic to hebrew to greek to latin to olde english to modern english a quick example... if a US army officer told a cadet in training to get to his station, it is possible that this word would be mistranslated into german as bahnhof (as in train station) if the translator (incorrectly) understood that to be the meaning of the original sentence - that the cadet was going to miss his train so he better hurry. if this was then translated into another language and another culture... etc you get the picture. why do you assume that one has to take a literal view of the Bible? Jesus often taught in parables, using symbols etc the term translated as 'hell' there is the greek, 'hades' the term used throughout the old testament to translate the hebrew 'sheol' - a pit, dark place, the grave etc

these are mistranslated, their original meaning was not "hell" as we understand it today - most Christians are unaware of this, sadly. e.g. you mention Mark 9:48, well the word translated as "hell" in the previous verses (9:43, 9:45, 9:47) is "gehanna" which refers to the valley near Jerusalem which was previously a pagan site and turned into a rubbish dump which was permanently alight. the meaning of the passage, was that to be led astray from Jesus was to be prevented from having a place in the next world. burial is vital for Jews, cremation is NOT an option if you want to have a place in the next world, (after bodily resurrection, not heaven) when there were terrorist attacks in Israel, there were special teams who collect all bodily matter for burial. it is a symbolic cremation, i.e. reject Jesus = no heaven for you. it does not refer to a literal place. other passages used the greek word hades, which was also the word used for the translation of the Old Testament Hebrew word 'sheol' - indicating that this has the same meaning. 'sheol' in the OT refers to a pit, an abyss, the grave, silence. not a place of fire and torment. the meaning is not immediately apparent. we need to remember that the Bible was not written in English and the events occured within the context of 1st century Judaism (which were then subsequently interpretted by 2nd, 3rd and 4th century Greeks/Romans)

isn't this just the ontological argument for God in reverse? the Christian concept of Hell is actually a Greek import, it is not found in the Bible. It is a contradiction within mainstream Christianity, yes, but it is not actually in the Bible. perhaps some Christians do attempt to ignore contradictions in this manner, but you appear to be saying that it is wrong in principle to consider the context of a statement? simple statements, taken out of context, can appear contradictory but when you understand where/when/why it was said, you realise they are consistent (or at least not relevant) Ayn Rand made a lot of collectivist statements in her books which are attributable to her. One could quote Ellsworth Toohey or James Taggart and point out, quite legitimately, that the statement was from the pen of Ayn Rand. Of course, those statements were made in a context of her demonstrating the illogic of collectivism, not support for it. understanding the context is vital, you can not presume someone is wrong on this basis.

and because few people have been taught their religion properly and they have fallen into the intellectual void that is literalism. evolution is not necessarily incompatible with religion - the Catholic Church (eventually) accepted evolution, most Christians in the UK accept evolution as scientific fact and even ancient Jewish sages questioned whether the Creation story was literal (there is Talmud and Midrash on it, plus a reference in Psalms to a 'day' for G-d being thousands of years) and Maimonides said that if science and Scripture are at odds, it is because we have incorrectly interpreted Torah.

I can barely believe that the reporter would indignantly ask "Why are you being hostile?" when he had first lied, then ignored, then distorted, then politicised a simple factual statement about the law. his ability to evade reality is truly remarkable. I am British, I wish we had a few politicians like Alan Keyes! :sigh:

this should not really be that much of a surprise, capitalism developed in part due to Calvinist Protestantism (Max Weber, Protestant work ethic etc) despite the teachings of Jesus espousing certain anarcho-socialist sentiments. also, conservative Christians consider it their duty to help the poor, not governments (they are half right I guess... ).

from reading about Obama and listening to him and his braindead followers prior to the election, I thought you'd be sprinting towards socialism... rather than speeding along in a government-owned Corvette as you are at the moment!

well, we knew Obama was going to be an awful, weak, liberal, socialist President... but I never thought it would get this bad, this quickly. America is the last remaining hope for the world - Britain and europe succumbed to People's State status long ago we can only hope that people will see through this insanity in the end and treat this as one giant teaching opportunity if they don't, then we are doomed... I thought this was good for a slight bit of light relief http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-st...pay-for-unions/ Galt/Taggart 2012

inflation must be bad these days we need a gold standard... true, and I agree with your analogy. I guess partly that they don't want to think, it is too difficult/hard work and they resent you for trying to make them think or because they feel bad about their own ignorance. and partly it is cognitive dissonance, they are probably struggling to combine two contradictory thoughts without the tools analyse either.

I've just started reading the Virtue of Selfishness, so I am no expert, this is just my personal reflections on what I have read. in the Objectivist Ethics Ayn Rand discusses the necessity of thinking for our survival (you can read it for yourself here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...ctivist_ethics) here is what I got from it - higher animals perceive reality to a certain extent, learning certain tasks which they perform automatically (hunting, hiding etc) i.e. that is a rabbit >> kill and eat the rabbit. There is no thought process, it is an automatic response. but Man has conciousness, we do not react automatically, there is a thought process, we need to develop concepts to survive - to make fire, build shelter etc. However, some people refuse to think, these people, the ones you are talking about, have sunk to a subhuman status because they refuse to use/acknoweldge their consciousness and do act, almost, automatically and without thought. I guess they get by on a combination of peer mimicry, tradition and rote learning. they do not question their existence, but they have the intelligence to be able to use machinery; they don't ask why, but they are able to sell shoes or manage other people who sell shoes. do lions need to use thought to catch antelopes? they don't. it is automatic. see it, hide, get close, pounce, chase, kill, eat, sleep. even more complex social arrangements are exhibited in the animal kingdom and they are also automatic, animals often attack in packs, surrounding their prey. when you consider that this level of 'cooperation' exists in the animal world, it is not difficult to see how it works in the human world, even those who do not think have a much higher level of intelligence. I guess it is a matter of learned behaviour, the process of socialisation into a group makes certain behaviours automatic, e.g. going to watch a sporting event one might shout, cheer, swear, jump up and down, behaviours one would not be expected to exhibit in a theatre. you do not think about it, you just do it, it is automatic. perhaps this a good analogy: I have no real concept of how my laptop works, how my internal modem sends information to the wireless router etc until the information ultimately ending up at your house - but I am skilled at using computers because the people at Microsoft have developed an operating system that is relatively easy to operate. just my 2 cents...

are you suggesting that the fact that it is issued a business operating on behalf of the govt. makes this any more palatable?

at times it feels like we are witnessing the final stage of an epic battle between "1984," "Atlas Shrugged" and "Brave New World" for the title of "The Most Prescient Work of Fiction of the 20th Century"

Before Sunrise Before Sunset Pi Cube The Chorus (Les choristes) The Dinner Game (funniest film ever, french)

perhaps I misunderstood your aims. are you referring to the government establishing someone's age for the purposes of law? i.e. can this person vote, are they over 18? or, did a couple break the law when having sex because one of them is underage? if so, then the birth certificate is surely sufficient? no? or are you referring to businesses needing to verify people's age before legally being able to supply them with liquor etc? if so, then why would the government get involved? the owner can choose to sell it or now. as there is a risk, the ownerwould establish their own standard (e..g. no wrinkles, no booze) or they would accept id from established, trust-worthy companies who produce id's for people.

the government taking on the evils of "monopoly power" ... do these people have no concept of irony...?

there are lots of options - home-schooling (and its pedagogically anarchic cousin, unschooling) charity-run schools / religious schools scholarships to private schools on-the-job training / learning a trade apprenticeships sponsor-a-child charity payment schemes local group of friends from the area getting together for group-home school sessions teachers choosing to work four days in a private school and then one day pro bono in poor area community centres... etc and if education was genuinely opened up to the market, you would probably see the development of the tele-schooling market, where kids watch prepared lessons at home, or e-schooling, getting lessons online. with low overheads, these would be really cheap I sincerely doubt the situation could be any worse than government-run establishments that are half-day care, half-p.c. indoctrination camp...

but the government provides each registered child with a birth certificate, confirming their date of birth, and therefore, their age.

there are many ways a private fire department could work. it could be different in every area, there could be competition amongst fire services as others have suggests, some may have a monopoly and serve the whole area, this could be a paid for by a service subscription or it could be a universal, charity service funded by private donations if that is what people chose to do. a private fire service could easily work and to anyone who says it wouldn't be fair, just point out that they could put their hand in their pocket and give to a charity fire service. your question has shown one of the biggest problems with governent interventions into the market - people quickly lose the ability to imagine life without it. your kids may one day look at you puzzled that you think that cars could be produced by anyone but government. there is no right to books and public libraries hurt the market, agreed, but a private library could be a viable concept (look at the success of video rental stores). I am sure many people would be willing to pay some kind of monthly subscription, or small cost per book, to have access to a vast range of titles - I am sure it would work in a big city. or if I go to a (private) library, I can rent the book for $1 and spend the $7 on a cup of coffee and a danish etc. also, I'm not sure that the publishing market would be that much bigger without libraries as not everyone is willing/able to spend some much money on a load of books that they could get much more cheaply from a library. this is happening somewhere in London http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Rar...ategory=UK+News

thank you for admitting that you have selected an arbitrary point for the sake of convenience. however, you should be aware that a baby can survive as an independent being after around 21 weeks, maybe earlier, maybe later - it depends on the child. should the mother be forced to have a c-section/induced birth at this point if she no longer wants to carry on with the pregnancy? firstly, the woman is not "enslaved," she willingly took part in the acts that created the child - why do you ignore that? secondly, what if there are no volunteers? is the mother not then obligated to care for the child she created? thirdly, as babies can survive after around 21 weeks, should the mother be forced to have a c-section/induced birth and let volunteers look after the child? yes

you would be killing a human life, yes, but that does not mean it should be illegal. self-defense is a valid reason to kill someone, even though they still have a right to life. it is regrettable, certainly, but you can not force the woman to support the life that she is not responsible for. you can not force the woman to support the life that she is not responsible for. just like you can not force me to support you, I am not responsible for you. if you die because I didn't support you, it is not murder. no, because if the woman dies, so does the foetus in all cases. if the foetus was able to survive, it would be possible to perform a c-section and get the baby out. life in jail for the doctor and the mother, the same as for any premeditated murder. I don't see how this is consistent with our legal system. so at what point does one become human then...? because eggs and sperm are not human, they contain half of the genetic material that, in conjunction with the other half, is capable of creating human life. so spermacide is not murder, because sperm is not a developmental stage of human life. and the pill just prevents ovulation, it doesn't harm the egg. it is absurd to say that it is not human life. it is one of the first stages of human development, subsequent stages will be newborn, infant, child, pre-adolescent, adolescent, adult, senior etc... if it is not human, what kind of life is it? I am getting tired of asking this question, but here we go again. at what point does one become "human" in your eyes? I really don't have the time or energy to bother answering any more posts that fail to address this question.

you are confusing the issue. a woman retains the right to decide what to do with her body in either case. when she consents to sex, she decided to do that, she decided to welcome millions of sperm into her body, she decided to run the risk that a child would be created. when a woman did not consent to sex that conceived a child, she did not consent to the child being in her body and she can not be forced to support that life, even though the foetus has a right to life. just as I can not expect you to support me, even though I have a right to life, the woman should not be expected to support the foetus since she was not responsible for its creation. it is moral, just and rational because it is based on her responsibility (or lack) for the creation of the child in the first place. if she bears no responsibility for something, she can not be held accountable. since the woman who consented is responsible for the creation child, (her volitional actions led to its creation), she must be held accountable and forced to respect the child's right to life since the woman who did not consent is not responsible for the creation of the child, she can not be held accountable and can not be forced to carry the child to term. I think I have stated on a number of occasions that their intentions are completely irrelevant. the precautions they were taking reduced, but could never eliminate, the possibility that a child would be created. it is not about intention, or enjoyment, it is about their volitional actions. as I stated above, I may fire a gun on my property, at a target on my tree, which has a 10ft wall behind it. If I miss the target and the bullet ricochets off the tree and hits you in the leg, I am responsible for that - even though it was not my intention to shoot you. so, just to be clear, my position is that they do not have the right to end human life simply because their precautions failed. if they REALLY did not want children, then they have two options, sterilisation or abstinence. just like if I REALLY don't want to pay your medical expenses, I have two options - only firing blanks on my property or not firing my gun on my property at all.

so at which point do you become human? a foetus is human, it is one of the earliest stages of human development. it is not a different species, as in your bacteria example. so what is life? is it "life" in the second trimester? why not in the first trimester? is it "life" in the third trimester? why not the second? is it "life" one second after navigating the birth canal? why not one second prior to that journey? is it "life" when it is able to say its first word? does "ga ga" count? it is not analogous at all, no life with rights is created whilst falling off a bike. abortion is not "medical treatment," it is not a couple of aspirin and a sling, it is the destruction of human life in one of its earliest stages. even if you think the foetus has no rights, you should understand that difference. I don't see any analogy here. if anything, you have it the wrong way around. the foetus is the new business and the existing business is the woman, the existing businessman has no right to kill his competitor because they are threatening his sales. also, do you not think that parents have a responsibility for their (born) children? what about when it is much more than a group of cells? say 10, 20, 30 weeks? is there an obligation then? you are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. I have nothing against birth control whatsoever and the State has no right to prevent it being sold, people are free to use it to reduce the chances of becoming pregnant. if they want to use the pill, three condoms, an IUD and the rythym method, good luck to them! however, if their method of birth control fails, then the woman has to carry the child to term. and if they ever do make a 100% effective birth control, then of course it should be legal (it should reduce the number of abortions afterall) I am sure you are aware of the mechanics of human sexual intercourse, so you should understand that by consenting to sex, the woman invited millions of sperm into her body. the equivalent if she was actively trying to conceive is that she would have fluffed the cushions and made some tea as well. again, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that sex = trying to conceive. what I am saying that there is possibility of conception if you have sex - regardless of the protection used. that is quite a significant difference. I may fire a gun on my property, at a target on my tree, which has a 10ft wall behind it. If I miss the target and the bullet ricochets off the tree and hits my neighbour in the leg, I am responsible for that - even though I was not trying to shoot at him and took some preventative measures.