God: Benevolent or Malevolent?

Somehow earlier this dwelled on Judas, but the point is Jesus blended into a crowd very well. So if there were cars back then, I'd think the car would be nice, but also one that would not stick out.

 

Was he not one of many travelling preachers in the day, known as 'sons of god'?

 

In the 17th century, based on a question raised by the Bishop of Quebec, the
Roman Catholic Church ruled that the beaver was a fish (beaver flesh was a part of
the indigenous peoples' diet, prior to the Europeans' arrival) for purposes of dietary
law. Therefore, the general prohibition on the consumption of meat on Fridays
during Lent did not apply to beaver meat. The legal basis for the decision probably
rests with the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, which bases animal
classification as much on habit as anatomy. This is similar to the Church's
classification of the capybara, another semi-aquatic rodent.
Beaver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bizarrely, there was debate among Celtic clerics as to whether otter flesh was
fish or meat, determining whether or not it could be eaten at Lent; and the
Carthusian monks of Dijon, who were forbidden to eat meat, ate otter as they
classed it as a fish!
Trees for Life: Mythology and Folklore of the otter

Just for fun, Google weird or funny religious laws. What a hoot!

Hamlet:
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.

Rosencrantz:
My lord, there was no such stuff in my thoughts.

Hamlet, Act II. Scene II

+1

 

One of my co-workers thought that Jesus probably would have had a school bus (or similar transport) to take his twelve disciples, his Mom, and Mary Magdalen from place to place.

 

It was not his physical appearance, but his speech and behavior that made him stick out.

 

Only some whales ("whalebone whales") have baleen. They first take a mouthful of sea water, then they lower the baleen and force the water out through it. Then they swallow what remains on the inside of the baleen. It does not prevent large things from entering. Other whales have teeth and eat big stuff. The sperm whale eats giant squid at unimaginable depths. So any whale that's large enough could swallow a man. The problem comes when they spit him up on land after he's been digesting in their stomach for several days. He'd be a drowned, dead, half-digested lump of meat.

But as in any fantasy story, one must suspend disbelief in order to enjoy the story. Whether it's the Starship Heart of Gold, faster-than-light "warp" drive, or Jonah surviving inside the belly of the fish, it's only a problem if you believe it to be true.

 

P.S. Melville was primarily familiar with the sperm whale, whose oil was especially valued for its pleasant smell when burned in lamps, and whose spermaceti was extremely valuable. He was aware of several other, less-desirable species. But he believed the blue whale to be a myth. Men of the sperm whale fishery looked down their noses at the sailors who went after "lesser" species.

 

PBS made a nice show on the whaling industry. Growing up, I had been a fan of Moby Dick. I read Nathanial Philbrick's "Heart of the Sea" (the sinking of the whaleship Essex that inspired Moby Dick). The story of the Essex is even more dramatic: it was sunk by a whale and then the survivors had to try to survive on lifeboats in the open Pacific. This series chronicles the whole industry. It reached it's peak in the 1850s: when American whalers were numerous and had to spend more months at sea to find the dwindling populations of whales. The American whaling industry colapsed when the petroleum industry took off (kerosene distillation was invented in the 1850s).

The show is American Experience: Into the Deep: America, Whaling and the World

It's available for streaming on Netflix (probably also Itunes, Amazon, Hulu....anyone else I'm missing )

 

Well, since he is so popular here at priuschat, I would like to think he would have one of these D4500 CT Hybrid Commuter Coach | Motor Coach Industries

 

I had earlier asked Chuck if he supports teaching religious doctrine as alternative science. Did I miss his answer ?

 

^ I think what you missed was his tactful avoidance of a lure into a worthless, go nowhere argument.

 

Tactful avoidance
:rofl:

 

IOW he was unwilling to say whether or not he favors using taxpayer money and a government institution to teach one particular religion to children in a science class, which would both violate the Constitutional separation of church and state, and weaken education by misrepresenting science to children.

The question is a controversial one, though it should not be, and it is extremely relevant to the quality of education in the U.S. and the war on science presently being conducted by a small but well-funded group of religious fundamentalists.

Many of the first white settlers to the U.S. were fleeing from religious persecution: Powerful sects imposing their religion on weaker sects. Thus it was that religious people demanded that the Constitution include what Jefferson later called a wall of separation between church and state, so that they could worship in peace in their own way without government interference. What we see now are fundamentalists who want to return to the old European model of using government to impose the dogmas of their own sect on everyone else. One of their tactics is the teaching of their sect's dogmas in science class.

This should be of concern not only to secularists, but to all religious people who want the freedom to worship in their own way rather than having to follow someone else's dogma.

Teaching creationism in science class is part of a well-funded and highly organized campaign to impose one particular religious ideology on the nation as a whole. It is vitally important that everyone who believes in religious freedom oppose it.

Nobody here has to answer the question if they don't want to.

But asking the question is relevant and is a legitimate part of an important national debate.

I oppose the teaching of religious dogmas in science class as if they were somehow scientific.

I support teaching comparative religion, in classes whose stated purpose is to teach and inform students about the beliefs of a variety of religions so they can better understand the diversity of religious beliefs in the world, without any attempt to indoctrinate them into any particular religion, or convince them of the superiority of any one religion.

And I challenge everyone here to answer the question as well.

 

Keep religion out of science class, whether its christianity, islam, or judaism. If someone wants to learn about a religion's specific creation myth, offer up a class on religions of the world or world literature.

 

One thing not included in your otherwise accurate and informed post is the power used by the whites coming into the lands was always including the eradication of the indigenous population's beliefs... most often by force and education programs...

I totally agree it ain't science... but that is a problem with academia and presentation as much as it is a regional one... there isn't enough time to teach the little heads full of mush that the "white buffalo woman" and the teachings of Moses are of equal validity.

 

That wasn't 'education', that was genocide. Europeans didn't so much discover North America as destroy it.

Not to discount the wisdom of science, but humans seem to have lost the ability to live with the land, and now see only money.

But you don't need a skinny white boy telling you that, do you, Bob?

 

^ Money is the state religion of America.

 

Money is the global religion.

 

Jesus had a problem with people worshiping money - he threw out the money changers.

He also used some hyperbole and said a camel (today he might say big rig) could go thru the eye of a needle easier than a rich man go to Heaven. My take is a rich man obsessed with his possessions.