ewmon

No. Another clue: My two letters are in sequential alphabetical order ... backwards. PS — In the OP, the word "somewhere" means that it also designates a place.

I think the morals came first and then the stories appeared as a learning tool.

I, for one, wasn't talking about age of fertility. Age of consent (ie, adulthood) plays an important role in developing countries (and all countries) where females are married too early, and so, don't get the proper formal education that they deserve, and thus, are denied a career and the ability to live a full and productive life. A girl married off at age 13 has little prospect other than being a baby factory. The situation concerning age of consent is important because it allows the woman to consent to marriage and to choose who to marry — a very basic personal right. Many Christians (I believe the majority of them) "condemn" what they see as sin, and some Christians (whose numbers I believe are rather small — although they can be the loudest ones) condemn the actual LBGT persons. Again, most Christians see a spiritual warfare, not one of flesh and blood. "Love the person, hate the sin" ... this quote is very often used among Christians. It really is that simple. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anything in the quote about consummation of marriage.

Matthew's, Mark's and John's gospels are wide-considered as first-person testimony as they were contemporary followers of Christ; Luke states specifically that he researched and compiled the most complete gospel, and his gospel is definitely not first-hand and is considered hearsay. It can be argued that any non-contemporary historical account is hearsay.* I don't remember anything on consummation in the Bible. As it is, LGBT marriages have pretty much thrown into question the definition of consummation as well as the (reason for) age of consent. If pregnancy cannot result, the age of consent becomes artificial or arbitrary or undefined. Christians do not consider any of the LGBT lifestyles as acceptable for Christians; however, as everyone knows, some churches do accept LGBT people as members and/or officers. Please keep in mind that the vast majority of Christians don't hate or "judge" non-believers. The few that you hear about in the news are the "squeaky wheels" that get far too much attention. *For example, Archimedes supposed stated that Aristarchus wrote a book about a heliocentric (ie, solar) system of the Sun and the planets. But it's all hearsay, and we aren't even sure that Archimedes actually made such a claim. Yet, scientists readily accept this singular historical account as true.

Actually, Christ negated that dietary law. He said that it's not what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean, it's what comes out of your mouth that shows you're unclean.

Can you prove that? without any hearsay I might add... The gospels are recorded testimony that describe Christ as Jewish and mostly don't describe him as violating the Jewish laws, although such an opinion is subjective. According to the gospels, some people, such as the Pharisees, accused him of violating a few of the laws, such as working on the Sabbath (the Jewish holy day of rest) because he had healed someone (which they considered as work) on the Sabbath. It was those kinds of accusations, and more, that led to him being crucified. Christ responded that, if one of their animals had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath, they would have happily pulled it out (which was considered "work"), so how much more important was it that a disabled person be healed?

We don't need merely to suppose that ancient moral stories can affect our modern daily lives in important ways. Here's an actual example from a decision by the SCOTUS on Griggs v. Duke Power Co from Wikipedia: I even used this in a case in which I represented myself. I was in a custody situation regarding my visitations with my children. The parties agreed to a visitation assessment, but the psychologist who was assigned started off very belligerent toward me. I repeatedly asked him to lighten his attitude, or I wouldn't meet with him. He remained belligerent, so as a last resort, I sent him a letter with a copy of the Aesop's Fable about the North Wind and the Sun and I asked him one last time to lighten up. He turned around and wrote a letter to the court and the parties and lawyers about how my inclusion of the fable showed that I wasn't taking him or the court seriously*, and then the parties and lawyers involved treated me with contempt and some even refused to communicate with me. (*On the contrary, I took his negative attitude very seriously!) A couple months passed when, studying law on my own, I happened across Griggs v Duke (and I wasn't even looking for anything with a fable in it). I made a copy of the case and included it in my letter to the court and all the parties and lawyers. I stated in my letter that, if anyone had a problem with me using a fable as a moral lesson, then don't take the matter up with me or with the family court, but with the SCOTUS because they do the same thing. And then everyone began treating me with respect again, and the psychologist was dismissed. And Athena, most assuredly, Biblical principles can be, and are, philosophical. For example: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them" (Matthew 7:12) is very simple and clear and well-accepted.

I've read the Bible a few times, and although I don't remember him explicitly saying anything about homosexuality, Christ was a Jew who adhered to the Jewish scriptures (what's called the Old Testament) which explicitly prohibit homosexuality. So, unless Christ said that the Old Testament was wrong about homosexuality or that it had been misinterpreted one way and should be interpreted another way, the Old Testament stands as is. It's not as though Christ came along and rewrote the Jewish scriptures, or trashed them and started fresh.

Cults are generally viewed as engaging in one or more of the following behaviors: Isolate their followers physically, emotionally, intellectually and socially from the general public Prohibit their followers from considering alternative perspectives or opinions Engage in punishments of a physical and/or psychological nature Involve sexual relationships with the leaders Require followers to give all their wealth and property to the leaders Change their ideologies over time from the mild to the bizarre Demand allegiance to their leaders rather than to their ideologies

Okay, now I understand. The words "comes into play" sounded like consequences to me; it sounded like something would happen "when there are bigots getting in the way".

However, I'm still waiting for an answer on what you called "homosexual love" and how it differs from generic, platonic love.

This sounds exactly like the homosocial "romantic friendship" that I mentioned earlier. Okay, so what is "homosexual love" really, and how does it "come up" when bigotry is involved? Or are we obliquely hinting at homosexual solidarity in the presence of someone who disagrees with homosexuality? In that case, then it's based, in part, on latent sexual attraction — homosexual lust — lying dormant under the homosexual's special definition of one person's platonic love for another. If gay people don't "gay park their cars" (ydoaPs's own words), then why talk about "gay parking" where "gay" is meaningless except in the presence of someone who does not accept homosexual lust.

Then what do you mean by "homosexual love"?

Okay, so you're saying that "homosexual love" is not "homosexual lust", but you also seem to be saying that it's not "romantic friendships", "bromance" or "man-crush" (because I already offered those to you). Well, you got me, you are in an area that I don't recognize as generally known. I can only guess at perhaps "homosexual courtly love" or "homosexual limerence" or "homosexual compersion", but I think I'm wrong on all three. So, let's look at a dictionary's definition of love. love n. 1. a deep and tender feeling of affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or persons 2. an expression of one's love or affection [give Mary my love] 3. a feeling of brotherhood and good will toward other people 4. a) strong liking for or interest in something [a love of music] b) the object of such liking 5. a) a strong, usually passionate, affection of one person for another, based in part on sexual attraction b) the person who is the object of such an affection; sweetheart; lover 6. a) sexual passion b) sexual intercourse 7. Tennis a score of zero 8. Theology a) God's tender regard and concern for all human beings b) devotion to and desire for God as the supreme good, that all human beings have 9. Mythology a) Cupid, or Eros, as the god of love b) Rare Venus I mistook your expression "homosexual love" to be love in the sense of #5a and/or 6a. But now you seem to say that's not what you meant. The only other meaning here that seems to fit is in the sense #1 a deep and tender feeling of affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or persons. However, this is a very generic/basic sense of "love", and I don't see how "homosexual" qualifies it in any way. For example, as you use the word "love" here, how does your "homosexual love" differ from "love" in the sense of #1 as shown above.

The Nephilim also lived around that time as the offspring of humans and beings not from the line of Adam. Thus, a relative of Cain of some uncertain genetic distance (ie, consanguinity), and not necessarily Adam's daughter (aka Cain's sister). Genesis 6:1–4

The ultimate effect of religion and philosophy is behavior control (and not a reward in heaven etc, which is only the carrot). Being a fundamentalist Christian, I know that we believe that non-believers are sinners but believers have the "true" choice of not sinning, and a so-called "believer" who continues to sin repeatedly, consistently, habitually and/or as a lifestyle is not a believer, but a hypocrite. People who have read the Bible know that those who only "talk the talk" and can't "walk the walk" aren't believers. Evidence the phony televangelists like Jim Bakker. Does moral conduct enter into the issue? Do you really want me to invoke Godwin's law? Christ quoted in Matthew 5:21-22 (below) is quite broadly, almost universally, held by Christians to apply to all (physical) sin. That is, whatever feeling or thought that causes a sinful action is also sin. That's why lusting after someone not your spouse is a sin. That's what the 10th Commandment is all about — coveting (ie, desiring) things that aren't yours. So there you have from both the Old and New Testaments. And by "homosexual love", I'm sure you do not mean, for example, the close, same-gender, homosocial "romantic friendships" common and unremarkable in the West until the end of the 19th Century as evidenced between Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed. Nowadays we might call them "bromances" or "man-crushes". After I became a Christian, I shared close, long-term living arrangements (even sleeping arrangements) with several other men (none of whom were Christian), including three homosexuals (one of whom made a pass at me). Of those men, two of them are like brothers to me: one is straight (and curses like a sailor), and the other gay. I would gladly, and without a second thought, go the extra mile for either of them. Last but not least, let me quote Ephesians 6:12, which is very well known among Christians: So, let me reiterate probably the Christian principle that should be of the most relevant concern for non-believers: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but ... against the spiritual forces of evil In other words, we don't hate sinners or wish them ill (as it would be a sin for us to do so). Our struggle is against spiritual forces of evil, and we must, and do, label as "sin" that which is sinful, whether it is deeds, words, thoughts or feelings.

Okay, mooeypoo, go for it, and we want a SmarterThanThat blog on it complete with your own video

No, the Bible says that there were other people living at that time.

One news show said that he (mis)applied Christ's teaching to "treat others as you treat yourself". However, Biblical and Christian teachings are unambiguous on the sin of homosexuality and that the Golden Rule does not ameliorate this sin. Of course, much to the dismay of some of Obama's detractors, this also means that he's not Muslim either. Not only don't the vast majority of Muslims (much more than Christians) reject/ban same-sex marriage, they also reject/ban homosexuality and bisexuality and marrying outside their religion. I think, in the end, it can be said that Obama is Obama, and that he doesn't fall neatly into any of these categories. I think he said it because he could get away with saying it because he's running against a Mormon, who most Christians see as a (Christian) cult. He was being political.

Interesting.... the injected water may also produce two other effects: 1) add to the mass of the air flowing through the engine, and 2) increase the thermal efficiency of the engine by using the heat to expand into steam. I suspect that both effects on their own would increase the thrust, resulting in an increase in the engine's static rating, and thus, hover ceiling (although by how much I don't know).

The force of gravity on the mass of the airplane won't change appreciably with altitude, but the density of the air (which also depends on the weather), and the amount of fuel that burns with it, is the main factor that determines how much thrust engines can produce as shown by the thrust "map" below. Keep in mind that, for example, "hovering" that might occur at 12km at high speed mostly allows the drag to slow the plane very quickly without requiring any energy-dumping maneuvers. You'll start to drop, but you have some altitude to spare at 12km, besides all you want to do is suddenly drop back in level flight, then you're back flying like an airplane again. As for actual hovering, I suspect that you can't do that at any appreciable altitude. This webpage suggests that its "hover ceiling" is about 5,000ft/1,500m.

In addition to irritating me, the eerie background music on the video fails to add anything of a scientific or intellectual nature to the video — only emotional — and so it shows me not to pay too much attention to the video. Anyone ever see a 9-11 video with eerie background music added? Of course not, the real thing is scary enough all by itself.

Perhaps the show's writers took liberties with sulfa drugs source Also, sulfur compounds, such as sulfur dioxide ("rotten eggs") and thiols/mercaptans (skunk spray, the odorants added to [otherwise odorless] natural gas, garlic, cabbage, etc), evoke alarm in humans, indicating that sulfur compounds can be harmful to us (and, if us, why not viruses too?). I'm thinking that, with the shells of viruses being made of proteins, shouldn't there be lots of natural chemicals that would damage them?

Some people say I never amounted to anything. And some actually say that I'm of no account. I'm also two kinds of measurements, but be careful how I'm spelled, Because you could be off by a factor of 1.85×10¹². And just to put a twist in things, I'm also somewhere. Hmm ... What am I?

Their MSDS ???