View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Dusty

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 650
|
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i saw it. it was okay. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dogen

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 11274 Location: PDX
|
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty wrote: |
i saw it. it was okay. |
I loved the movie. It was straight-forward, gave you tons of information (way too much to retain) and went beyond the typical "scare you and leave you hanging", it gives advice and resources for reducing your own impact on the atmosphere. Plus it addresses the myth that there is any controversy what so ever among scientists, and it suggests that if you write your senator and they don't act that you run for senate.
All in all, I thought it ought to be seen by everyone. _________________ "Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
WheelsOfConfusion

Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 14324 Location: Unknown Kaddath
|
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are generally very good reasons for not including various apocrypha as canon, some of them showing more obvious signs of late authorship and conflicting with the established gospels (not that the ones we do have don't share those problems to a degree). Unfortunately it was fashionable in the day to write action adventures and secret origin stories for religious figures, and so much of them are pure embellishment.
As to global warming, I really should have to tell everyone that there is a scientific consensus on the issue, yes? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Major Tom

Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 7564
|
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change"...
..."less" than 100%, my bet on the reference.
i'm so glad christie whitman dissappeared, she had convictions and aboLUTEly no balls. worst sellout in my recent personal recollection. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Sam

Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 11230
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:57 am Post subject: nyuck nyuck nyukc |
|
|
Quote: | A House committee will examine accusations that political appointees in the Bush administration edited government reports on global warming to raise the level of uncertainty about research that points to a human cause. |
The answer for five hundred is "Yes."
I actually love these exercises, because they involve watching a group of well-paid, corn-fed white boys in Congress dick around for
days
and
days
over an evident truth. Trying to figure out if -- oh, who knows, if it's okay to say that a cigar is a cigar? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
E-boy

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 1552 Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I never said their weren't. Although biblical scholars generally accept that orthodox christians made more textual changes to the New testament than the gnostics and other groups did. Which isn't to say that the gnostics are free of sin in this department either. Pardon my terminology.
Protestant biblical scholars have turned textual study into a real science. Their analysis techniques have even been used for taxonomic analysis.
WheelsOfConfusion wrote: | There are generally very good reasons for not including various apocrypha as canon, some of them showing more obvious signs of late authorship and conflicting with the established gospels (not that the ones we do have don't share those problems to a degree). Unfortunately it was fashionable in the day to write action adventures and secret origin stories for religious figures, and so much of them are pure embellishment.
As to global warming, I really should have to tell everyone that there is a scientific consensus on the issue, yes? |
_________________ "Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima". |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dusty

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 650
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
E-boy wrote: | I never said their weren't. Although biblical scholars generally accept that orthodox christians made more textual changes to the New testament than the gnostics and other groups did. Which isn't to say that the gnostics are free of sin in this department either. Pardon my terminology.
Protestant biblical scholars have turned textual study into a real science. Their analysis techniques have even been used for taxonomic analysis.
WheelsOfConfusion wrote: | There are generally very good reasons for not including various apocrypha as canon, some of them showing more obvious signs of late authorship and conflicting with the established gospels (not that the ones we do have don't share those problems to a degree). Unfortunately it was fashionable in the day to write action adventures and secret origin stories for religious figures, and so much of them are pure embellishment.
As to global warming, I really should have to tell everyone that there is a scientific consensus on the issue, yes? |
|
so you're saying it can be seen as part of their religion to alternate what is originally known to be true. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
E-boy

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 1552 Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
No that's not what I'm saying. Early christians weren't generally anymore literate than anyone else and initially there were few, if any professional scribes about. Early greek manuscripts were also written withoutspacesorpunctuation like that. Many accidental errors crept in, and many other "corrections" were made by well meaning scribes. The reason the orthodox christians made many changes they did (when they made them intentionally) was often to do what they thought of as clarifying passages they felt they knew the meaning of but other sects interpreted differently. For example, in the oldest texts of the new testament scholars have there are NO explicit references to Jesus being divine. Nor with the exception of one rather cryptic passage is there any discussion of the holy trinity. You can see where wording was changed in many places to support Jesus's divinity (many early sects did not believe he was divine). In passages where mary and joseph were originally referred to as his "parents" the wording has been changed. Now it's Jesus's mother and joseph.
There are so many different variations of the new testement that there are literally more of them than there are actual words in the entirety of the new testament. Biblical scholars of textual analysis do a pretty good job puzzling together a semblence of what may have been originally written.
One of the reasons these studies exist to begin with was that when all these variations were first discovered the catholic church siezed the opportunity to rub in the the protestants faces that their belief in the word of god (IE the scriptures as the inviolate word of god) was unpracticeable if no one knew what the words were and that the only way to maintain true belief was through the apostolic traditions of catholocism.
I think the protestants response to that was rather brilliant. So brilliant, that as I said earlier their techniques are even used in taxonomy. _________________ "Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima". |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dusty

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 650
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
theres no way im retaining any of that at 5:30 in the morning. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
MsFrisby

Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 3966 Location: a quiet little corner of crazy
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty wrote: | theres no way im retaining any of that at 5:30 in the morning. |
Then.
Don't.
Comment.
Or, hey! I have an idea! Come back and read it when you are alert! The forum medium easily allows for this! _________________ A person's character is their destiny. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
WheelsOfConfusion

Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 14324 Location: Unknown Kaddath
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
E-boy wrote: | No that's not what I'm saying. Early christians weren't generally anymore literate than anyone else and initially there were few, if any professional scribes about. |
Not only that, but even scribes were sometimes taken to fabricating entire stories whole-cloth simply because there were questions about the figures that people wanted answers to. And let's not forget that "historians" of the time were more often pressured into making good stories than in making accurate histories. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
E-boy

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 1552 Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good call wheels. The story about "Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone" with Jesus and the pharisees (SP?) Isn't in any of the older new testament manuscripts. It's thought it was a remnant verbal tradition that was later included (either accientally or intentionally) by scribes. The evidence supports a possible case of it being a mistake as one of the first manuscripts the story appears in has it written as a note in the margin. A later scribe might possibly have viewed this as an error or note.
One of my favorite quotes from "Misquoting Jesus" is a note written by a scribe who'd found a passage an earlier scribe had "Corrected". I can't remember the exact wording now, but he left a note to the effect of "Thy scoundrel, thy knave! DO NOT CHANGE THE WORDS!" So not all scribes were so liberal in tinkering. This, of course, was in a much later era in which professional scribes were employed. _________________ "Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima". |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|