Cap'n Refsmmat

It seems to me that finding a ludicrously rare genetic mutation which can provide a cure for HIV is a way of finding a pre-existing HIV cure which could potentially be much cheaper and more effective than cocktails of expensive side-effect-laden chemicals which must be taken for years, often by patients without the financial ability. Understanding the function of that gene would be a huge medical leap. Of course, it would seem that modern medicine focuses on crazy one-shot stunts rather than sustained in-depth research. It seems that way because the only medical trials interesting enough to publish in popular news sources are the stunts. I can't imagine seeing the New York Times having the headline "Ten-Year Medical Trial Shows One Kind of Heart Pump Slightly Better Than Another."

There's a whole lot less law in the New Testament. If you're trying to determine historically what Jesus actually did and said, then yes, the four Gospels contradict each other regularly. The theology is more consistent (largely because nearly half of the New Testament is written by Paul or at least claims to be so) but nonetheless contradictory in a few places; for example, the description of the end times varies somewhat between Mark and Revelation, and John's description of the Passion provided significant impetus for anti-Semetism despite being contradicted by the Synoptics. But it's my impression that a large part of the religious ceremonies and doctrines in Christianity are extra-Biblical; the Catholic Church, for example, derives much of its theology from its various councils, writings, laws, and disputes. Nonetheless, the literal vs. figurative interpretation question is a vast oversimplification. The biggest complaints I have with modern New Testament interpretation by various religious groups is their lack of understanding of the historical context surrounding the writing of the works. You cannot interpret them literally without understanding what they were written to address and why.

What you've just stated is essentially a shortened version of Pauline theology as expressed in the New Testament epistles. This is why faith in Jesus frees you from the "disciplinarian" of the law -- to rely solely on the Old Testament law is impossible. The point of being freed from the law is to make these kinds of arguments unnecessary. Of course, part of the original premise was that the Kingdom of God on Earth was soon to arrive, and so God's rule would be established, rendering debate on the finer points of theological practice worthless. Now we've had to live for two thousand years with uncertain rules.

The largest splits between Christian denominations do not come from issues of Biblical interpretation but doctrines added independently; for example, the Protestant Reformation began partly because of the sale of "indulgences" by the Catholic Church, which is not an issue of Biblical interpretation but of priests basically taking spiritual bribes. Similarly, Presbyterianism exists because of disputes over church leadership and organization. There are of course groups which split because of Biblical interpretation issues, but that doesn't negate the point about the love commandments. As you insisted ewmon do, I read exactly what is there, and it told me that the Old Testament law is no longer binding.

mooeypoo: Your questions have been answered nearly two thousand years ago in the form of Paul's letter to the Galatians, part of the New Testament. Galatians 3: http://www.biblegate...203&version=NIV Also Mark 12: http://www.biblegate...012&version=NIV The Christian theology which discards the strict rules of the Old Testament and their horrible consequences has been established since the writing of the earliest texts of the New Testament. You shouldn't be so quick to judge Christian theology when you have not read what it is founded upon. (That's not to say there hasn't been disagreement; the Ebionites regarded Paul as apostate and strictly followed the law. But they vanished and Paul's teachings were adopted.) Marat: Presumably, divine inspiration protects the many others from the contingent historical forces; surely arranging complex events to result in His goals is not beyond God's powers. Some of the more blatant contradictions can't be explained away like that, but saying "it was protected by God apart from these few bits which were screwed up" is more satisfactory than "well, it's a bunch of stuff jumbled together."

Why should the aether force effect the atomic clock tick -- which is caused by a very fundamental property of the atoms -- but not change how the atoms in the twins behave?

What I mean is that general relativity makes predictions about the outcomes of experiments: what the clocks will say, what measurements will be taken, length contraction, and so on. Would your model make identical predictions, even if your understanding of the situation is different?

Does your model make predictions identical to those of the mathematics of general relativity? How many times would the hearts of those on Earth have beat in the time you were gone?

When you return to Earth, have the clocks on Earth recorded you having been gone for over two years, or for only two seconds?

Yes, it will.

Not really. If the clock is moving at a relativistic velocity, length contraction will change the apparent distances between the Earth, the Sun, and the stars. Is the aether thus locally stationary -- i.e. stationary regardless of reference frame, within some small vicinity? But this is handled just fine in general relativity. Are you proposing a new interpretation of the same effects, or are you proposing a new theory?

Are you suggesting the aether provides some sort of absolute frame of reference which we may compare against? You say "Everything is with respect to the state of the aether", which seems to imply that.

To quote directly from the Einstein page: The GP-B results are explained fully with general relativity, which does not have any "flow" of aether or "aether force." How do the results support aether theory and not general relativity?

This is not true for three reasons: Atomic clocks don't count time by bouncing photons back and forth. They work by exciting atoms which can only be excited at a certain frequency. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST-F1 In the clock's own reference frame, light always travels at the exact same speed, and it will always take exactly the same time for it to travel a given distance. One could easily avoid this by bouncing the light back and forth in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel.

If I recall correctly, you're referring to the bits at the end of Revelation promising punishment for anyone who adds or subtracts from the text. Revelation was written before there was any accepted list of New Testament canon, however, so it's hard to see how the author would intend for that to apply to anything other than the Book of Revelation. That's not to say that it's perfectly reasonable for us to start making stuff up when the Bible isn't clear, of course...

Also it's tricky to consider the disposition of souls from the older bits of the Old Testament, since there's not much about any afterlife at all in them. It's only in the later writings that the afterlife started to show up.

Indeed I do agree.

What is "the IP feature" that worked? The IP.Mobile skin? I haven't made any changes to themes lately, so I'm not sure what would cause a change.

I don't think it generalizes that easily; I've had some professors who give excellent lectures and clearly care, some who don't care, and some who just suck at lecturing. But perhaps that's because our university bases salary decisions partly on course evaluations. There have, in fact, been professors denied tenure due to poor evaluations.

There's no reason to make personal attacks. Please read SFN rule 1.

Pseudorgasms?

Judging by this part: The OP believes that female ejaculation is the One True Orgasm, and any orgasm that doesn't involve it is fake.

clumsygirl: Please see SFN rule 8. You're just posting stuff copied from your blog, and you don't seem interested in sticking around to discuss it here. We'd rather you stick around and respond to comments.

Two points: Would you have a control group? People will get better at the test just because they're taking a similar test twice; you need another group that does no exercise to compare against. There's plenty of research on exercise's effects on the brain already; perhaps you could look it over and try to find something new. http://en.wikipedia...._brain_function (Also, there's no need to post the same thing three times)

Maybe He doesn't, but since we have no way of knowing which fetuses will end in a miscarriage, we have no idea which have souls, and hence killing any is likely killing a soul.