Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The point that I would stress in the analogy is that no matter what a person may order, it virtually always arrives on your plate in a different condition than what was advertised on the menu. For example, the steak is shown on the menu as being plump and juicy but on the table it's on the dry side, or the salad that is crisp and green in the pictures is browning on the edges when it's placed in front of you.
You can take it in a lot of directions. Back in the kitchen, the chef has to work with souse chefs that may oppose him and try to change the recipe as it is being cooked. And we haven't even gotten to the bill...
The core analogy is old and I don't remember where or when I first heard it. I am paraphrasing and possibly adding a tiny bit of original thought, but I could not in good conscience claim it as truly mine.I want cafeteria style platform plank selection!
An analogy to explain what I dislike about the two party system and why even a third party doesn't necessarily fix it.Imagine going into a restaurant and ordering a steak with a salad and baked potato. The waiter tells you that the steak only comes with soup instead of salad. If you want a salad, you have to order the fish. But the fish comes with fries, not a baked potato. It gets worse. He will take your order now, but until all the orders are in he can't tell you if they will be serving what you asked for. They will only serve the most popular order. Even then, the cooks may change it so it only vaguely resembles the description in the menu. If you want a different menu selection, you are welcome to try to interest some of the other diners to band together and order it, but you will likely come up short and be disappointed.
Well, to begin with, there should be another test. If there is, I think it is quite likely that it will end there with nothing found. But it bugs me that the first test was done by people who appear to be legitimate researchers, so I would entertain the possibility that it will come back positive. If it came back positive, I would say that is enough to support the theory unless someone comes up with proof of plants that produced nicotine and cocaine and were available to the Egyptians. Simply put, until the test is corroborated, I think the people presenting the theory are grasping at straws, because it is plausible but not very likely. If the test are corroborated, then I think the skeptics using an unknown plant desired by the ancients but allowed to go extinct as their plausible but not very likely explanation. At that point I would say the skeptics would be grasping at straws and yes, I would place the burden of proof on them.
I am unaffiliated (UNA is the designation on my voter registration) with any party, socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I have almost no one to vote for, but plenty of people to argue with. ;DI also would love to see a third party, though I suspect that would just give me the choice of the lesser of three evils instead of two. I forget who said it (Vonnegut?) but a cynic is someone who laughs at the world to keep from crying...
The thing that bothers me most is the central issue is the validity of the drug test, which can be redone. If it turns out to really be positive, then IMO the doubters need to step up and get more proof that coca and tobacco or other sources of the same ingredients existed somewhere in Africa or EurAsia earlier and went extinct. I have a hard time with that line of reasoning; if they existed and were used for their effects, it seems unlikely they would have gone extinct. They probably would have been cultivated. I am less than optimistic about a second test showing positive results, but the people who did the first one seem to have enough credentials that I don't think it should be dismissed as a hoax out of hand.
There are lots of theories. There is even a reverse migration theory, as a significant number of lowland sites in Bolivia were abandoned roughly coincident with an ice shelf breaking into the sea and potentially flooding the place and also roughly coincident to when civilization started picking up steam in the Mid East about 8000 years ago. When I watch a slickly produced special on cable, I want to believe every one of the passionate scientists presenting their theories. But they rarely if ever have concrete evidence and often explain away an awful lot of conflicting evidence. Common themes in ancient myths (like the flood story central to the reverse migration theory) are awfully hard to ignore. I think one or more of the competing theories is probably correct, but how can we possibly sort them out now?BTW, I have a hard time with the drug one mostly because it seems like they would have brought back more than cocaine and cigarettes, though I guess it is possible that even back then addicts might have spent all their butter and egg money on that...
I notice Sarah Palin is planning a rally with Glenn Beck.
Yeah, an MLK rally which will also be attended by King's neice and other black conservatives. How can that be?!? Beck, Palin, and all conservatives are supposed to be racist. ::)
Can you say "photo op"?
I live in what used to be roughly the edge of the suburbs and have seen many nearby farms bulldozed into new developments. I thought they were all happily cashing in (and many were/are) but I read an article about a few that were pretty much forced to because they can't afford the property taxes. The land was appraised for what it could be used for instead of what it was being used for; a pretty major disconnect in how property is taxed. It's even worse when a city gets overbuilt or housing sales are down for other reasons; developers aren't looking for new properties unless the price is low. So the owners end up having to sell below the tax value because of the tax value. Something is very wrong with that logic…
Ok, they had cedars in Lebanon, but it was still pretty much desert everywhere though. It is not like the environment in Israel has degraded significantly in the last 2500 or so years. Israel was only flowing with milk and honey because of the Jordan River. That's not really much to brag about. Desolate is a good word to use for even fertile land in the middle East. The wonder is that civilization started there at all, much less three major religions.
Perhaps civilization was aided by organized religion - laws of nations did not survive regime change the way that church doctrine does. There was some sense of a "law of the land" even outside of recognized borders; a structure under which wrongdoers could be prosecuted.
It is especially tricky in a forum like this. It would be very difficult to leave the Catholic Church out of any serious discussion of the Middle Ages. But I will try to refrain from interpreting scripture and just stick to events as we know them in history. My answer to the original question remains the same – I don't think the statement is correct. I think that religions with many followers sprang up in other places.
I had a Christian upbringing and I have the greatest respect for the stories of my tradition. They teach values that I wish more of us had, myself included. But learning about the history of the Bible and being exposed to a greater world view of other cultures and traditions, I don't think truth is franchised exclusively anywhere. If you think I am wrong, you are certainly welcome to pray for my salvation. But lets not beat it to death here, please. I understand and respect your faith. Let's talk history.
It says nothing about what you believe or who you worship.
What about all those passages in the Gospel of John? "I am the way...no man comes to the Father except through me"Seems pretty clear that Jesus was saying who to worship and also clear on what happens to those who don't.
I probably should have know better than to wade in, but...That often quoted passage was in response to a question from Thomas about how they would find Jesus after he left. If you look at the conversation instead of lifting the single response (which wasn't even the first response) out of context, the meaning seems to be that the disciples should seek God and they will find Jesus there. IMO, translation and lifting out of context make that sound like a proclamation when it really wasn't. You could even take it a step further and using the context interpret it to say that all who seek the Creator will find Jesus there.
The old story goes something like this…Reporter: "What will you do, now that you have won the lottery?"Farmer: "Just keep farming until the money runs out."The other story is how mobile American society has become. How many people today live within 20 miles of where the previous 3 generations are living or did live? It used to be very common. There are a lot more families that have that many generations of farming or a trade passed down, but not in one spot.
Yes, this is probably one of the top 3 discussion topics that often generate more heat than light (who you worship, who you vote for, who you sleep with)…A few points...If we are going to talk origins, I think it might be very appropriate to lump together the "big 3" mono-theologies as they do share origins. Using the adjectives "organized" and/or "recognized" in front of the word "religion" is not redundant. Neither is inherent. Stick guy has religion and if his neighbors start praying the the stick, so do they even if there is no doctrine.Now I will venture into dangerous territory and say it seems possible that the monotheists could all be right or at least close enough to receive the promised reward. The only place in the Bible where Jesus very explicitly explains what judgement day is like in in the "Sheep and the Goats" passage in Matthew 25. It says nothing about what you believe or who you worship. It's all about how you treat your fellow man.And now going full circle if the geography of the origin defines religions for his discussion, then I would have to agree that the primitive religions don't have a single place of origin. But the really fascinating thing about them is how similar the stories of these religions are, even when they had no contact between the people who started different ones.
