mooeypoo

Yes, but dating delivers entirely different satisfactions than just sex. Also, sex with someone you know (as in, intimacy and not just pure act of "sex") can feel ever more fulfilling than just the act itself. That's what I mean when I separated the two; I see what you're saying, I just think the comparison between short-term dating and prostitution (in your sub topic) is very out-there. Why lying? Heartbreak could also come if you both have intention to stay with one another and then, eventually, things just don't work out. If you're honest in your expectations, and for the both of you it's a comfortable arrangement - to be a 'this is good for now' sort of thing, then I see no problem with it. What I see more often is when people are NOT honest with one another - one person expects more than the other - and that can lead to a lot of problems and to heartbreak. But if both people know it? I see no problem with it. Of course, cheating is cheating; if you're in a relationship and your "deal" is to be exclusive (even as a "it's not forever" thing) then you should not go off with another person without first ending things with your current partner. But again we go back to communication and honesty. If all sides are honest, there are many more successful "arrangements" and relationship types than the 'regular' monogamy we seem to define as the "norm" in our society. ~mooey

You're the one going in circles, Earthling. I don't see what the problem is to provide proof; surely, you have some, judging by the claims you're making. You keep refusing to bring evidence, and then act surprise when we have a problem with your statements. The burden of proof is yours because you're making the claim that is not proven. I think you should go over our rules of what you're supposed to do to support your own theory, and start cooperating back with us. ~mooey

I don't know that I see the comparison? I mean, prostitution is for sex-only. No emotional attachment; not even first-names, really. It's a one-time sexual encounter, and nothing more. Dating - short or medium or long-term - involves getting to know one another and mixing emotions in. Even if you know that you're dating without the desire to "settle down" or something, the mere idea that you're taking the time to spend time with someone else other than just the sex of it (even if sex is PART of the interaction) makes it completely different than prostitution. How's it anywhere similar? Relationships depend on communication. If you communicate your desires and the fact that you don't know (or know that you don't want) a long-term relationship, it's not unethical. If you lead your partner on, then it doesn't really matter what you lead them on with or on what subject, really, does it? Emotional fraud is fraud whether the relationship is long or short. If you're open about the fact that your partner's hatred for fishing means you will not marry, and despite this honest revelation your partner still desires your company, then I don't see it as immoral. If you lie, then it's immoral for the lie of it.

Well, it's that time... the Physics GRE. Yikes. I'm very worried about this exam, but I need to start studying for it; I have a few books at home that I found as "recommended books" for practice questions, and I plan to do a whole bunch of questions... but I was wondering if anyone has any recommendations or advice on how to study for the exam? It's just just solving problems, it's a timed exam, and I understand that it has a few goals that arent' just memorization... ? So.. PhD/Masters in Physics, you've been through it... how bad is it? any advice? how should I tackle this? Thanks! ~mooey

Just for the record here, what everyone call the "Old Testament" is, in its most original form we found, written in hebrew/aramic mix. I spent 12 years studying this version in those languages (not in the English translation, which is already quite heavily interpreted). My confusion isn't about which book to follow, since I don't follow either book; my confusion is about the claims made by Christians about which book to follow. I received a remark that I was condescending; I want to apologize for that - I didn't meant to be. I'm very confused about this whole thing, and my emphatic way of trying to make my point (admittedly, with EMPHASIS that might SOUND like YELLING ) was only meant to try and deliver my point to be as clear as I can make it. I should remember that CAPS are used online for yelling rather than emphasis. So I apologize if I sounded condescending, that wasn't my intent at all. I am, quite simply, confused. There are quite a lot of contradictions and I don't quite see the way out of them into some sort of consistency. ~mooey

Cap'n, I'm sorry, I truly don't get it. If that's the case, why read that "man shall not lie with another man" part at all. It's just "love thy neighbor." And yet, Christians DO read it and treat it as law, and use it to say that homosexual behavior is wrong. So.... it's not exactly shrunk into "love thy neighbor" is it? Yes, but they usually get back to that "original" verse. Fair enough. I'll pick up one of those and try to read it. Maybe it will make more sense.

No they're not. You have a whole set of rules saying how you should and shouldn't act with your family, your wife, your friends, with God, how to consider "crimes" against another and against "nature" (or god) etc etc etc. The ritualistic laws I can understand,but there are quite a LOT of laws that aren't ritualistic and are ignored by Christians. That's picking and choosing. It's inconsistent. If you say "a man shall not lie with another man... " thing is still valid, then the whole 5 chapters before and after it - all talking about rules of families and conduct, not rituals - should be valid too. That goes for the rule saying that a child that disobeys his parents is to be stoned to death. But that's clearly immoral, yes? So it's ignored. that's my point. There's either an external way of defining morality (and picking the moral laws to obey) or the bible *is* the moral standard, and then you are either OBEYING the laws consistently or you don't. Either the entire chapter of "a man shall not lie with another man.." is to be followed, or none of it should be. All of it speaks of laws of conduct, not laws of rituals. I read some of the NT, but admittedly not all of it, and much of it was a bit confusing to me; I'm used to reading religious texts in terms of contextual analyses, so NT is a bit different. I do plan to get to it again, though. ~mooey

How do you pick which is "nitty gritty" and which isn't? And for that matter, is the ten commandments "nitty gritty" or are they supposed to be followed? 'cause Christians only follow PART of them, too. It's very confusing. Jews argue that as well. There's a concept that if something is done to save a life, it is okay to do it on the Sabbath even if otherwise the same act would have been "illegal" on the Sabbath. That, for example, is how religious jewish Doctors work in the ER on Sabbaths, but might not work in a private clinic on a Sabbath. One is saving lives, the other can wait for after sabbath. That's not all that different... and yet, Jews still keep the Sabbath in general since it *is* in the 10th Commandments. Christians don't. So...... are the 10 commandments just a "recommendation"? were they changed with the NT? If so, why are modern-day Christian seemingly so adamant in pushing them into everywhere, including the courts and all that? They're not following the 10 commandments! I don't get it. So Old-testament rules are moot? Why are Christians refering to them when they feel like it, then? "A man shall not lie with another man" etc - that's OT quote. It's used as the main reason against homosexuality. There are many other such examples. What's up with that? Is the OT only there to predict Jesus but its rules are no longer valid or... is it pick-and-choose laws? Seems utterly inconsistent to me. ~mooey

You decide by your religion, apparently. I agree with you, Marat, as I said before I personally don't take any text as my ultimate command; I have quite a few philosophers I appreciate, and most of them I find point of agreement and points of disagreement with. I think the best way to become (and remain) an ethical individual is to continously question your own morals and their source. But this particular debate is about Christianity, so we focus on the Christian texts; the Christian believers go by particular texts, not the Tibetan Book of the Dead. We therefore analyze that one. Feel free to open a new discussion comparing other books, by the way... that sounds like it could be an interesting debate. We should try and get back on topic, though, we all seem to have strayed from it a bit, partly my fault, I was trying to understand why the insistence on literal reading when half the literal meanings are ignored... seemed like an inconsistent claim to me. Capn, I still have a few problems with the fact that the NT is supposedly making the OT's laws irrelevant; if that's the case, why are Christians so adamant about the Ten Commandments? Those are from the Old Testament, clearly. So... these were still relevant,but the rest isn't relevant anymore? I find this whole claim extremely confusing. If the OT's laws are no longer at play, then ALL of them aren't at play. Otherwise, there must be a consistent claim to figure out which of them Christians are supposed to follow and which not. Also, if that's the case, why do Christians hold the OT dear ALONGSIDE the NT at all and not just replace it completely with the NT? ~mooey

But don't these things happen with the New Testament too?

But many christian denominations interpret some of the biblical texts differently. I give again an extreme example for the sake of the arguemnt (but there ARE less extreme ones) - of Fred Phelps. He goes by the absolute literal translation. Is he wrong? Some Christians believe in capital punishment (biblical 'eye for an eye') while others do not ('do not kill'), etc. The point is that the Bible (both NT and OT) are FILLED with contradictions. Whoever follows these texts MUST at some point pick and choose what to interpret and what to skip, or they must obey everything and conduct some rather unethical conduct (see phelps again in this one). Phelps, btw, still has a whole bunch of "commandments" he DOES NOT follow. You simply CAN'T follow the biblical texts entirely because of the multitude of contradictions. Who picks and chooses then? Who's right?

I don't go by the literal interpretation of the bible. I don't go by the symbolic interpretation of the bible, either. In fact, I don't go by the orders of any particular book, for that matter. However, when someone claims that a particular book contains particular orders that are supposedly ethical, I think it's fair to examine that claim in light of the entire text. That is, if someone decides they go by the bible, then they should answer to *everything* the bible says - good and bad. If it's symbolic, they should be able to give a definitive answer as to why a certain denomination's symbolism is better than the other's. Capn, I see what you're saying, but then, let me ask you this - why is it that despite this text we still have multiple Christian denominations, each with obviously a slightly different "take" on how to read the bible, and which of the rules in it they should obey?

! Moderator Note Please keep this debate civil and without remarks that contribute to nothing other than derail the thread into personal attacks. You all know this already.

You were told, twice before, that reopening a closed thread is against the rules. You were further told, twice before, that the ONLY way for you to reintroduce your theory is with proper mathematical concepts and/or EVIDENCE to support your claim, since there were - twice before - debates about everything else surrounding that idea. Debates that showed the flaws of it. There is no evidence in your renewed attempt to reopen the closed thread. We don't expect you to come up with a peer reviewed journal article for your pet theory. We do expect, however, that after two attempts with multiple-page threads where your theory was picked apart, you will come up, at the VERY LEAST, with what we've asked you to do. You seem to have nothing new, specially not what was required of you. Read our rules again, and stop reopening a closed thread. ~mooey

Seems to me you're looking for ways to find people who agree with you, rather than understand that while you might be "the only Christian" (I doubt that), it's actually you're the only Christian of that particular standpoint and particular way of reading the bible. Christianity is not a unified belief. There are many kinds of Christians. If you go and read the religious texts, you either say that you follow them literally -- in which case read the original texts and at least accept the horrible messages that exists in them -- or you say you go by symbolic pick-and-choose messages, in which case you should acknowledge that your pick might not be the other's choose. You can't play both hands here. Fred Phelps would disagree. So would the Christians in the crusades. So would the Christians in the Salem Witch trials. The fact a religion evolved with the times (sometimes despite the religion itself, having no CHOICE but to evolve with society) doesn't mean the underlying beliefs are irrelevant or aren't there. If you claim that Phelps, btw, is a "bad christian", then surely you should set a clear argument for what makes a Christian "good or bad"? He's going by the absolute LITERAL laws of both the OT and NT; so if that's wrong, what's the right way? (Don't get me wrong, I think Phelps is a bad HUMAN BEING. I do think, however, that the fact he's going by the literal word should WORRY Christians, and the fact that most of them shove him aside as if he has nothing to do with their religion is worrisome. You can't be a moral society without acknowledging what WRONG can come from the implications of your own texts.) At the very least, acknowledge it. I didn't ask you to read MORE than there, I asked you to read WHAT's there. Beating up a child that's being rude is THERE. It's very CLEAR there, too, not just a euphemism or a symbolic story. It's a clear command. Don't read "between the lines", ewmon, it's enough you read the lines. You can't go and say that you should pick and choose, either, without making it either consistent that the bible is NOT trustworthy as a whole or at least acknowledge that your pick and choose isn't others' pick and choose. If it's symbolic, it's up for interpretation, even interpretations you dislike. ~mooey

Other than being an interesting philosophical point (which I tend to disagree with, but if we shall argue about it, it should go on its own thread in philosophy) how is it (a) helpful to reality at all? and (b) explain what we *see* happening? We see time dilation, we check for it under various circumstances (not just a single experiment we put our trust in) and it's all been, so far, perfectly consistent with how we currently define time. So, if an alternative definition is proposed, it should at the very LEAST explain the phenomena the current theory explains, and then propose further advantage. Seems to me, the proposed idea not only doesn't explain anything, it's also practically useless. It cannot be used, gives no ability to predict or test upon. Why would we consider replacing a working theory that provides predictions that WORK with an idea that has nothing to predict, complicates our understanding and explains nothing? ~mooey

And my point was that there's no meaning to movement without time. There's no meaning for "change" without defining a change in WHAT. A movement is a change in placement through time; if I change quickly from one point to another, I move "fast". If I change slowly from one point to the other, I move slow. 30mph.. 40mph... how many miles do I displace in one hour. How do you use movement at all, ever, without the concept of time. All you seem to be saying in your above post is that the perception of time is relative. Great, I might agree with that, but that doesn't mean time is an illusion in general, does it? for it to have a different perception, it must exist. So.. which is it?

They're just being synchronized, so they can be external to the physical system, like you want them to be.

Double-post deleted. Go here for the active topic on the same subject.

(emphasis by me) We do use such devices. Atomic clocks do that, and they consistently show that you're wrong.

Isn't that a contradiction? If time is a definition/label, then it exists. As a label. You may want to revise your statement from "time is an illusion" to "we should re-examine the current definition of time", as you seem to not ELIMINATE time but rather suggest an alternative definition for it. That said, I am not sure I understand what you mean in "constant change". Change of what?

You asked us to analyze the mathematics of your contraption. We did, and your replies were increasingly condescending. We'd love to discuss the viability or "coolness factor" of any new ideas, but we'd just rather be aware in advance that we're talking with someone who already knows the math or operations of it, and not try to explain and get "graded" for our answers. Just an idea, here. ~mooey

There's a problem with this original Hebrew verse, it's a bit vague. That's not surprising - much of the biblical text is somewhat vague, which is why we usually read it in context and the way to appreciate the meaning of certain words is done by comparing them to other places where they appear where the meaning is perhaps easier. In this case, the vagueness of this verse comes mainly due to the part "yet no harm follows". Logically speaking, you would expect that this means the children are not harmed; hence, this is a live-birth. However, all the analyses I found about this verse speaks of a miscarriage. The key is not just "no harm" but rather the "further" --> No further harm. Further than what was already done. Further than the abortion. Notice the followup verse, by the way: "If harm follows..." - meaning, if the woman died as well. The first part speaks of what happens when the child dies. The second what happens when the child and woman die. All that said, I would be EXTREMELY careful relating to single words in a *TRANSLATION*. That is, the fact you see "miscarriage" in a verse in English does NOT mean the original hebrew/greek/aramaic said that. The translation results in giving the sentences and words meaning already, and eliminates their original vague nature. You're talking semantics AFTER they're interpreted rather than the semantics of what could be closer to the original. And finally, ewmon, I would be extremely careful to say that anyone should follow the bible and then go at it literally. There's a verse in this very chapter that says a woman who was rape should be married to her rapist who can never let her go. It's one of many orders whose ethics is, to say the least, questionable. I would beware of following biblical laws literally. ~mooey

Being honest about your intentions when you post the video will be a good start. People will be less annoyed with your message that way. ~mooey