Yes. Obama Cares. So soooo much, about cleaning up the oil spill. This is why the Coast Guard stopped the oil sucking boats against the wishes of the governor of Louisiana.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379
UPDATE: Fox News said the boats are working again.
10 comments:
Hey SJ! I'm gonna hijack this post if you don't mind :) I did write a bit on our original conversation, but I thought it was only fair to comment here too :)
Okay...
Halachical: I knew that! Well, I didn't know what it was called, but I knew about the law. Back during the Stone Age and I was a young 15 year-old my friends teased me that I needed to find a "nice Jewish boy" to date (of course that led to marraige and babies later on...).
My Reform friends just thought it would be cool and that the kids would be multifaith (I was Christian at the time). My Conservative friends said that I would have to convert so that the kids would be Jewish as "the children are what the mother is.."
I actually like that :)
So is your family Orthodox? I can understand not wanting to tell a Jewish family that you've accepted Christianity, but if they are Orothdox! Eeep.
QUOTE: Also, I view Christianity as the first time jews revolted against strict religion with the idea that being a good person is basically enough. /QUOTE
I agree. Jesus' message was amazing and radical and called for people to rise up against the old system.
And I whole heartily agree that being a good person is *enough*. Just wish people would remember that...and that good people are not of just one faith *sigh*.
I get the secular thing... at the end of the day I am a Secular Humanist: I put my faith in science, rational thought, and logic.
See? People of differing ideas can still have things in common.
My family is not religious, so maybe I'd just get some jazz. It wouldn't be armageddon like if my family was orthodox.
Umm, as for archaeology and the exodus (from the convo on your blog), there isn't perfect proof but there's enough to form a correlation i.e Ipuwer papryus leiden 344, chariot wheel in red sea, papryus scroll called "Brooklyn 35:1446," among other things.
That just reminded me of some findings in regards to the death of the "first born" and the Red Sea, etc.
But I won't bore you with it...I tend to get archaeologcially nerdy with this stuff and I tend to forget that non-arch folks don't get a buzz from research :p
The thing is the ancient Egyptians never recorded defeats.
But that's not enough reason to go wholly with what the OT says happened.
So one side doesn't feel the need to record a small group of slaves escaping, and the other side wants their adventure to freedom to sound as dramatic and daring as can be...after all, they have to sell the reason why Moses is The Guy to Follow.
Doesn't that sound a bit one sided? If we accepted history to be only the version of one side, imagine how screwed up our world view would be.
Science has brought balance to the story, and it's been long over due.
Ancient Egypt is hardly an objective source for study. For a people who don't record defeats, getting all busted up by a god of a slave people is not exactly going to be front page news.
Going to Egyptian records or somethin like that for confirmation of the Exodus is more or less tilting at windmills, so the best we can do is correlate facts with biblical claims, and I do believe such a correlation exists.
Here is a good page that skims through the Bible and archaeology (not necessarily with just the exodus though). http://www.ucg.org/booklets/BT/bible-archaeology.asp
Sorry, I know I am slow to respond...it's been pretty busy around here. And gosh, I am tired!
I'll check the link and get back to you. I promise! :)
Although the article is interesting it is by no means scientific for it has the ultimate agenda to convert the unbelievers:
"In view of the real evidence, the doubter might do well to reconsider his position and commit his life to serving God. If he waits until every tiny issue is resolved in his own mind, he might ignore or reject a call from God Himself. He could be depriving himself of the blessings available to those who have committed themselves to learning and following God's way of life."
This statement discredits the whole lot.
Truly scientific study (in this case archaeology) does not go into an observation with already the answer in mind. The flaw in this method is that all facts will be *made* to fit the hypothesis when, in fact, a true scientist does the opposite.
It's much like taking a square peg (hypothesis) and ramming it to fit into a round hole (facts). With enough force and will the peg will fit, but there will be huge gaps.
No matter, it fits and that's all that matters, right?
However, the correct way to proceed is to really look at the round hole, observe that the square peg does not fit in the space, discard peg and find the square peg that does fit properly.
Biblical archaeology is viewed with skepitism because it deserves it. The methods used are not of the scientific method and often time the conclusions are ridiculous.
Years ago (and I wish I still had the links) I found "evidence" purported by an Biblical archaeologist who claimed he found the ark.
His evidence: parts of an old wooden boat that had iron nails and DNA testing that confirmed animals were in the boat.
That was it!
So...iron nails were used by Noah during the Stone Age, huh? And his ark was the only boat in the entire history of mankind that was wooden and transported animals?
And the final nail (ha) in his coffin was that he alluded that the DNA found was of fur found in the boat....cause fur had viable DNA (not to mention survives) after how many thousands of years?!
Give me a break.
Sorry, SJ, but as one who is pursuing archaeology as a profession, you have to give me something more than people playing dress up as archaeologists.
On a related note (and one that you might find odd): If the area wasn't so darn dangerous I would LOVE to dig in that whole area. The difference between me and the biblical archaeologists is that I would not be there to prove or disprove anything (as a scientist testing a hypothesis isn't to prove or disprove but to observe), but rather just want to see what there is.
That whole are and the history fascinates me.
>> Although the article is interesting it is by no means scientific for it has the ultimate agenda to convert the unbelievers:
I don't see a logical connection between the truthfulness of the data and a religious agenda.
If you see something as untrue, by all means, criticize, but don't be like, religious agenda = automatically false.
And yes, I'm sure there's hacks on the religious and secular sides of the archaeology spectrum.
The problem is, I have no way of telling if the date presented is false or not. With a religious aganeda so blantant every claim made would have to be gone over with a fine toothed comb.
Post a Comment