An example of law based on religion

[Athans]

now your just being stupid on purpose.

i said i pulled Bs and As in school. i didn't pull Cs. in fact in one of my last classes the teacher had to grade me separate from the rest of the class due to the fact i was throwing her curve off. i have problems with spelling and grammar but i dont play stupid like you just did. oh and never try to put curse words in my mouth again i dont use them.

one more thing, i do not like being called or implied i am stuped just because i disagree with you or in this case you disagree with me and the bible. you dont like the bible thats fine.

lol now I feel stupid. When you first said bs I thought maybe you were saying a Bachelors of Science, which is abbreviated B.S. I was confused because I wasn’t sure what a C.S. would be. See why decent grammar is at least important?

You are the one that started it saying that “universities are liberal breeding pools.” If you have never been to a university, who are you to talk?

I am providing facts. You are only stupid if you ignore them. If you understand them and you still want to believe what you believe, that is fine, but shouldn’t one at least do the research themselves instead of believe everything someone in a Church told them? Can’t you think for yourself? If you do believe what I say, how does that change your faith? How does that change what you think of God? The only thing I changes is your belief that Gays should be stoned.

I don’t dislike the Bible. I actually love the Bible. It is an interesting piece of literature and an important book in history. If I didn’t like it or thought it was garbage why would I be studying it? I would love to make a living studying the Bible. I wouldn’t do that if I thought it was stupid.

[Athans]

However I may interpret it? Listen, with all due respect, I am getting sick of you trying to 1 up me. If my interpretation, which I have gotten from experts in the Hebrew language and Ph.Ds, is incorrect to your limited knowledge, why don't you provide me with the correct interpretation. While you do that, why don't you provide me with your credentials in the Hebrew language or at least cite your sources. Why don't you put some names next to your explanations instead of stuff you found on Google.

Thanks for the link but I know perfectly well the context of Leviticus. I even know what the scribes thought of Leviticus. I know this from looking at samples of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Leviticus Rabbah, which explains line by line exactly what scribes thought of each verse in there.

But that is besides the point. None of you can answer what "as with a woman means." You know how I know you can't answer that? Because Ph.Ds can't. But apparently everyone else knows what it means.

If you are just trying to be nice, I apologize, but you seem to be constantly trying to undermined me. I am not really interested in your posts because I have a number of professors and books that I can ask or look back on to get any info I missed. If you actually cited source instead of saying “this is a common view among theologians,” I might be more interested. Because 1, what theologians exactly? And 2, theologians are philosophers, not historians or experts on the Bible. I will take a Biblical Scholar any day.

If you want to be helpful to me, and not just help those who cannot form an argument themselves, point me towards a scholarly book. I am always willing to buy a book in my field of study.

I do not need a remark in every thread I post in because you are a strong believer in God. I respect that and nothing I have said, or will ever say, disproves God or looks down on those who believe in it.

If you are really trying to be helpful, PM me next time and stop putting on a show for other forum members.

Edit: Spelling

[+Paranoid Android]

However I may interpret it? Listen, with all due respect, I am getting sick of you trying to 1 up me.

Wow, I really think you misunderstood what I said. My point in saying "however you may interpret it" was not disparaging to you, it was simply acknowledging that there was a discussion going on about different ways we can understand the phrase in question. And regardless of what the result of that discussion was, then even if it was a reference to homosexuality it could not be used as a reason to say that God hated homosexuality and thought it an abomination - the rest of my post was thus an expansion of that comment to show from the text exactly why it could not be used as a blanket statement to condemn homosexuality.

Does that clarify? Because believe it or not, I am not trying to "1 up" you. I am simply sharing thoughts on a discussion forum, just like you are.

If my interpretation, which I have gotten from experts in the Hebrew language and Ph.Ds, is incorrect to your limited knowledge, why don't you provide me with the correct interpretation. While you do that, why don't you provide me with your credentials in the Hebrew language or at least cite your sources. Why don't you put some names next to your explanations instead of stuff you found on Google.

First, I did not use google to get my information. My sources are more varied than a search engine. I guess it's understandable in today's world where everyone can feel like a "google scholar", but I did not grow up with Google and find a lot of information from books rather than just the internet.

Second, this is an informal discussion board, there is no rule that requires me to cite sources unless I directly copy-paste content or ideas from another author. The information about the Hebrew word to-ebah is more or less common knowledge and can be found all over the place (the source I probably got it from was the New Bible Dictionary, 3^rd Edition by I H Marshall, A R Millard, J I Packer, and D J Wiseman (these four being the Consulting Editors, there are more authors and sources within the dictionary itself). The rest of the information within that post was a personal study I did into Leviticus 18 and was sourced solely from the context of the Bible and my personal knowledge of history.

edit: To add in some links about the authors in question: I. Howard Marshall - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._Howard_Marshall

Alan Millard - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Millard

J I Packer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._I._Packer

Donald Wiseman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Wiseman

Thanks for the link but I know perfectly well the context of Leviticus. I even know what the scribes thought of Leviticus. I know this from looking at samples of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Leviticus Rabbah, which explains line by line exactly what scribes thought of each verse in there.

But that is besides the point. None of you can answer what "as with a women means." You know how I know you can't answer that? Because Ph.Ds can't. But apparently everyone else knows what it means.

If you are just trying to be nice, I apologize, but you seem to be constantly trying to undermined me. I am not really interested in your posts because I have a number if professors and books that I can ask or look back on to get any info I missed. If you actually cited source instead of saying “this is a common view among theologians,” I might be more interested. Because 1, what theologians exactly? And 2, theologians are philosophers, not historians or experts on the Bible. I will take a Biblical Scholar any day.

What makes you think I was replying solely for your benefit? Other people read this forum as well. It's interesting that you say you aren't really interested in my posts, but expect me to take interest in yours. As I said, this isn't a formal board and doesn't require formal sources, except of course when you draw directly from another source (this isn't a university-style board which requires every claim you make to be backed up by scholars in that field of study - if I were to submit this to a university course, I would naturally require to look into it and cite specific authors who support the claim, but the fact is I don't have to submit it to a university). Primarily, the view I suggested was arrived at simply by my study of Leviticus 18 and knowledge of history, so I can't really point you towards a specific name (try Marshall et al, that I mentioned above, they share some of my views on this). But when I have had the chance to speak to theologians (academics who actually study the Bible, not simply pastors and such) they have generally confirmed this information - one of the Jews on here, a university lecturer named here as mklsgl has confirmed this to be one of the primary interpretations in Judaism also.

If you want to be helpful to me, and not just help those who cannot form an argument themselves, point me towards a scholarly book. I am always willing to buy a book in my field of study.

I do not need a remark in every thread I post in because you are a strong believer in God. I respect that and nothing I have said, or will ever say, disproves God or looks down on those who believe in it.

If you are really trying to be helpful, PM me next time and stop putting on a show for other forum members.

You really think I'm doing this to put on a show, Athans? I don't visit every thread on these boards, so unless we both are extremely lucky to visit the exact same threads as each other and equally lucky to respond, I highly doubt that I remark on every thread you post in. Please stop generalising simply because you don't like me posting to you.

This is an open discussion board, and you'd do well to remember that. Remember that when people post, they aren't just posting to you, but for the benefit of everyone (hence the term "PUBLIC message board"). Danielost was under the impression that Leviticus 18 was a statement against homosexuals, so perhaps my comment has helped him see another side of the argument also.

Thanks for reading, Athans. And when (or if) you decide to reply, please keep the snarkiness out of it. I have no desire to undermine you, and I apologise if you have formed that opinion.

~ Regards,

Edited March 16, 2011 by Guybrush Threepwood

[Beckys_Mom]

Hi Athans,

As daniel pointed out, Leviticus 18 and 20 include references to men lying with men (however you wish to interpret that, considering the follow up discussion you and he have had). Now I'm not a KJV fan, I rarely ever use it. But that's rather beside the point, because the context of Leviticus 18 makes it clear beyond reasonable doubt that the reference to homosexuality is NOT referring to all homosexual sex, or a commentary on homosexual sex within the bounds of a loving relationship and therefore cannot be used to condemn it. The law is confined solely to the act of homosexual sex within the context of idol worship. See THIS POST I made a number of months ago on the situation if you want to read a deeper look at the issue. Let me know how it goes

~ Guybrush Threepwood (Mighty Pirate^TM)!

Ummm now I am confused.. I see nothing here that speaks of abortion and law lol

[Beckys_Mom]

[/b]

and since you study the bible you know that when ever the isrealites started thinking things like that they were conquered and scattered. some returning eventually only to do it all over again. just like today. today being when they returned to the promise land after being scattered by the roman empire.

Anything in here about abortion and law?

Look guys I mentioned my dad as an example on how he felt over gays.. it was just one example ( many posts back) - I did not think you all would turn the thread into an all out bible and gays thread... goodness me lol

Edited March 16, 2011 by Beckys_Mom

[Setton]

None of you can answer what "as with a woman means." You know how I know you can't answer that? Because Ph.Ds can't. But apparently everyone else knows what it means.

Just because Ph.Ds can't answer something, doesn't mean no-on2 else can. There are very intelligent people in the world who never completed any formal study but can have vast knowledge from their own interest. Also, it often takes a fresh look at things, not clouded by the opinions taught by others, to work something out.

[Beckys_Mom]

Just because Ph.Ds can't answer something, doesn't mean no-on2 else can. There are very intelligent people in the world who never completed any formal study but can have vast knowledge from their own interest. Also, it often takes a fresh look at things, not clouded by the opinions taught by others, to work something out.

I have a PMT..and it means I can answer almost anything lol

[Setton]

I have a PMT..and it means I can answer almost anything lol

Or at any rate, no-one dares argue

[Beckys_Mom]

Or at any rate, no-one dares argue

You beter believe it haha

[+Paranoid Android]

Ummm now I am confused.. I see nothing here that speaks of abortion and law lol

You are correct. I apologise for dragging off topic. The homosexual debate doesn't take a lot to get started, I must admit, and even moderators are not immune to their human tendencies. I apologise, and hope we can really stay on topic

[Beckys_Mom]

You are correct. I apologise for dragging off topic. The homosexual debate doesn't take a lot to get started, I must admit, and even moderators are not immune to their human tendencies. I apologise, and hope we can really stay on topic

No need to apologise....it all started over one example I made on how my dad hated gays.. it for some reason snowballed from there...!! go figure...these things happen though..

[GIDEON MAGE]

No need to apologise....it all started over one example I made on how my dad hated gays.. it for some reason snowballed from there...!! go figure...these things happen though..

GEE, BACK ON TOPIC? Does anyone here know that Orthodox Jews believe that a baby is a part of a woman's body until it is born? You will not see them protesting against abortion clinics. Abortion is legal in Israel?

[Beckys_Mom]

GEE, BACK ON TOPIC? Does anyone here know that Orthodox Jews believe that a baby is a part of a woman's body until it is born? You will not see them protesting against abortion clinics. Abortion is legal in Israel?

The baby is only inside a part of a womans body... a completely differnt life alltogether

And no need to yell !

Edited March 16, 2011 by Beckys_Mom

[Athans]

Wow, I really think you misunderstood what I said. My point in saying "however you may interpret it" was not disparaging to you, it was simply acknowledging that there was a discussion going on about different ways we can understand the phrase in question. And regardless of what the result of that discussion was, then even if it was a reference to homosexuality it could not be used as a reason to say that God hated homosexuality and thought it an abomination - the rest of my post was thus an expansion of that comment to show from the text exactly why it could not be used as a blanket statement to condemn homosexuality.

Does that clarify? Because believe it or not, I am not trying to "1 up" you. I am simply sharing thoughts on a discussion forum, just like you are.

First, I did not use google to get my information. My sources are more varied than a search engine. I guess it's understandable in today's world where everyone can feel like a "google scholar", but I did not grow up with Google and find a lot of information from books rather than just the internet.

Second, this is an informal discussion board, there is no rule that requires me to cite sources unless I directly copy-paste content or ideas from another author. The information about the Hebrew word to-ebah is more or less common knowledge and can be found all over the place (the source I probably got it from was the New Bible Dictionary, 3^rd Edition by I H Marshall, A R Millard, J I Packer, and D J Wiseman (these four being the Consulting Editors, there are more authors and sources within the dictionary itself). The rest of the information within that post was a personal study I did into Leviticus 18 and was sourced solely from the context of the Bible and my personal knowledge of history.

edit: To add in some links about the authors in question: I. Howard Marshall - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._Howard_Marshall

Alan Millard - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Millard

J I Packer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._I._Packer

Donald Wiseman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Wiseman

What makes you think I was replying solely for your benefit? Other people read this forum as well. It's interesting that you say you aren't really interested in my posts, but expect me to take interest in yours. As I said, this isn't a formal board and doesn't require formal sources, except of course when you draw directly from another source (this isn't a university-style board which requires every claim you make to be backed up by scholars in that field of study - if I were to submit this to a university course, I would naturally require to look into it and cite specific authors who support the claim, but the fact is I don't have to submit it to a university). Primarily, the view I suggested was arrived at simply by my study of Leviticus 18 and knowledge of history, so I can't really point you towards a specific name (try Marshall et al, that I mentioned above, they share some of my views on this). But when I have had the chance to speak to theologians (academics who actually study the Bible, not simply pastors and such) they have generally confirmed this information - one of the Jews on here, a university lecturer named here as mklsgl has confirmed this to be one of the primary interpretations in Judaism also.

You really think I'm doing this to put on a show, Athans? I don't visit every thread on these boards, so unless we both are extremely lucky to visit the exact same threads as each other and equally lucky to respond, I highly doubt that I remark on every thread you post in. Please stop generalising simply because you don't like me posting to you.

This is an open discussion board, and you'd do well to remember that. Remember that when people post, they aren't just posting to you, but for the benefit of everyone (hence the term "PUBLIC message board"). Danielost was under the impression that Leviticus 18 was a statement against homosexuals, so perhaps my comment has helped him see another side of the argument also.

Thanks for reading, Athans. And when (or if) you decide to reply, please keep the snarkiness out of it. I have no desire to undermine you, and I apologise if you have formed that opinion.

~ Regards,

I said in the post that if you were just trying to be nice, I apologize…

I tried to be respectful as much as I could. Let me show you where I am coming from…

I did not say that I disagree with you but understand my point of view. I am in college and I deal with a scholarly setting every day. If you do manage to bring up material I am not familiar with, it is possible, but remember I study the Bible at a University, I NEED sources. If I suggested this in any of my classes or papers I would fail if I did not provide sources and I would especially be laughed out of class if it happened to be wrong. If I had a reliable source to at least back up what I said, that is a whole nother story.

The reason I got annoyed is your link did not add to the debate. We were talking about a single verse, not the book of Leviticus. If you simply put a link in there asking others to read for another opinion, fine, but you targeted it towards ME. You made me feel as if I was somehow missing something in the argument. I did not get the impression that you were trying to educate the public reading the board. Maybe next time try addressing the public, because as you stated, this is a public message board. Once again, with all due respect, you are a Moderator. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t your job to get the topics back on track? It seemed to me that you were just trying to open up a whole new can of worms instead of trying to get the topic back on the original topic.

Also, I find it very unlikely that a random reader would read a post more than 4 or so pages long. Even if it is a topic I am interested in, it is very unlikely that I would read more than 4 or 5 pages.

I do not care about your posts because as I stated above they are not useful to me. I did not say you needed to take interests in my posts. As far as I can see, you were nowhere near that convo. I could give a crap if 1 person or a hundred people read my posts. It’s not like I get money or even cool points for it.

How am I supposed to know if you are a Google scholar or if you have real sources with a statement like “many theologians will agree with me.” Not everyone is a Google scholar, but how do you tell the difference?

I appreciate the sources. It shows some scholarly research…but it also shows your views. Millard seems like a reliable source. I would probably use him too. But now if you notice, the other ones you mentioned are all Evangelical Christians. Evangelicals have a reputation for being Biblical Literalists but even more important they are number 1 among scholars at universities as far as being liked and being respected. They do not have a very good reputation. They are followed by the Mormons. I do not have the specific article which talks about this on my computer, but if you are interested I can email Dr. Osburn for it.

Once again I will give my piece on Theologians. Theologians are philosophers and most important they use Deductive Reasoning. Deductive reasoning has no place in the scholarly world. This is how people used to do Biblical Scholarship and Archeology. They would walk around with the Bible and look for things to prove it right. Basically they already know the answer, or the answer they want to find before they even start looking. Here is a definition off the web of deductive reasoning…

The deductive method reasons from certain premises to a necessary conclusion. It is often described as reasoning from the general to the specific.

Premise: All men are mortal.

Premise: Socrates is a man.

Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

If the premises are true, and the form is correct or valid, then the conclusion is necessarily true. However, if the form is invalid, then the conclusion is not necessarily true.

Some men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Though we may know that Socrates is mortal, nevertheless that does not logically flow from the premises of this argument. If we only know that some men are mortal, then Socrates might be among some men who are not mortal. The form of the argument is not valid.

Inductive reasoning is the way scholars do it. They look at the facts/evidence and base a conclusion or theory on it. This will be the way I find God, if I ever do. Here is a definition of inductive reasoning.

The inductive method reasons in the opposite direction of the deductive method. It begins with specific observations and reasons to a generalization about the observations. It is often described as reasoning from the particulars to the general.

I have examined ten thousand dogs.

Every dog I have examined has fleas.

Therefore, all dogs have fleas.

The conclusion (really, a generalization) may possibly be true there is no observation which contradicts the conclusion but it is not necessarily true there are still more observations which could be made.

If, indeed, I had examined all dogs (which, of course, nobody could possibly do), and all dogs examined had fleas, then I could conclude that all dogs do indeed have fleas. Based on my sample of dogs, it appears that all dogs have fleas. But the first dog I found which did not have fleas would contradict and therefore disprove my conclusion. So all that I actually know is that some dogs have fleas.

Do you see the difference? Do you see why that is significant? If you have any more questions on it you can look up inductive and deductive reasoning in Bible study.

I tend to go with scholars that do not know the answer before they being research…

And to both you and Setton…

Sorry I couldn’t figure out the double quote…

I have personally asked about the word abomination a number of times. All 3 people I asked cringed before answering and said “it’s complicated.” 2 of these 3 people teach advanced Hebrew at a University. If this is such common knowledge can you explain why they don’t just have an answer? The thing is translation is interpretation. It may be common knowledge by a group of evangelicals or by a certain group of Jews and that is because one person tells another and another tells another. They are not scholars of the language. The answer I have received is that the word literally means “to be way off” or “to miss a target.” Put that into context. Once again, Google is not reliable.

And Setton,

No offense, but I am going to guess you do not have a degree. I say this because I had that same opinion.

“Just because Ph.Ds can't answer something, doesn't mean no-on2 else can. There are very intelligent people in the world who never completed any formal study but can have vast knowledge from their own interest. Also, it often takes a fresh look at things, not clouded by the opinions taught by others, to work something out.”

That was the view I had when I got really deep into Ancient Astronauts Theory. I thought “Yeah! Why does a Ph.D. know so much but no one else can!?”

Well then I started going to school…

First off, a Ph.D. is not an easy thing to get. They take 9-13 years of total schooling. Yes it is true that average people can read a book and know a lot but the big difference is can they put it into context? Ancient Astronaut Theory is the perfect example. These people know TONS. They read about this stuff for years. Then they form this theory. The problem is that they took it all out of context or do not know how to interpret/understand they info they have attained.

In addition to that, one may not understand exactly what the author is trying to say. In one of my classes we read works by many different people and then discuss them. In every single class at least half the people are WAY off. They thought the person was saying to total opposite of what they were. And what if these people were reading these books at home or on the internet and didn’t discuss them afterwards? What if they based theories on a misunderstanding?

Also why is it that people think there are not scholars that take a fresh look at things or look at things a different way? Do you really think there are not some scholars that think the way you do? If you thought of it, why couldn’t they? Ph.D.s are not a secret society that you get inducted into whose goal is to bind the world of the real facts.

A lot of scholars and Ph.D.s have taken a fresh look at things. That is how the field of Anthropology came into existence. Some people went against the grain and developed a new method, and bingo! We now have a new area of study. Look at other people that went against the grain. Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Emile Durkheim, ect. Just because someone has an education does not mean they are a close-minded robot. I do not know why people get this view. I think it’s because they want to believe in something that isn’t true.

On a final note, yes, I know mklsgl. We have actually been PMing back and forth about different things.

I hope we can get back on topic now…

[Setton]

And Setton,

No offense, but I am going to guess you do not have a degree. I say this because I had that same opinion.

“Just because Ph.Ds can't answer something, doesn't mean no-on2 else can. There are very intelligent people in the world who never completed any formal study but can have vast knowledge from their own interest. Also, it often takes a fresh look at things, not clouded by the opinions taught by others, to work something out.”

That was the view I had when I got really deep into Ancient Astronauts Theory. I thought “Yeah! Why does a Ph.D. know so much but no one else can!?”

Well then I started going to school…

First off, a Ph.D. is not an easy thing to get. They take 9-13 years of total schooling. Yes it is true that average people can read a book and know a lot but the big difference is can they put it into context? Ancient Astronaut Theory is the perfect example. These people know TONS. They read about this stuff for years. Then they form this theory. The problem is that they took it all out of context or do not know how to interpret/understand they info they have attained.

In addition to that, one may not understand exactly what the author is trying to say. In one of my classes we read works by many different people and then discuss them. In every single class at least half the people are WAY off. They thought the person was saying to total opposite of what they were. And what if these people were reading these books at home or on the internet and didn’t discuss them afterwards? What if they based theories on a misunderstanding?

Also why is it that people think there are not scholars that take a fresh look at things or look at things a different way? Do you really think there are not some scholars that think the way you do? If you thought of it, why couldn’t they? Ph.D.s are not a secret society that you get inducted into whose goal is to bind the world of the real facts.

A lot of scholars and Ph.D.s have taken a fresh look at things. That is how the field of Anthropology came into existence. Some people went against the grain and developed a new method, and bingo! We now have a new area of study. Look at other people that went against the grain. Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Emile Durkheim, ect. Just because someone has an education does not mean they are a close-minded robot. I do not know why people get this view. I think it’s because they want to believe in something that isn’t true.

You're quite right, I don't have a degree. I'm studying for one at one of the top universities in the country but, hey, don't let that get in the way of your assumptions. I'm well aware of what it takes to get a Ph.D since I'm looking into taking one after I finish my undergraduate masters course.

I know academics try to take a fresh look at things but at the end of the day, they are relying on things someone else taught them originally. Someone who is self-taught can take a completely fresh look at it because they haven't discussed it. I never said every person who teaches themself has a better understanding. The vast majority don't but that doesn't mean a person can't work out the exact meaning just because they don't have a Ph.D. I also never said anything was common knowledge. Since you are obviously so knowledgeable about academic matters, I presume you are familiar with the idea of not attributing things to people who never said them? Apparently not...

With regard to that last statement, since your previous assumption was so entertaining, what do you think I believe that isn't true?

[Athans]

You're quite right, I don't have a degree. I'm studying for one at one of the top universities in the country but, hey, don't let that get in the way of your assumptions. I'm well aware of what it takes to get a Ph.D since I'm looking into taking one after I finish my undergraduate masters course.

I know academics try to take a fresh look at things but at the end of the day, they are relying on things someone else taught them originally. Someone who is self-taught can take a completely fresh look at it because they haven't discussed it. I never said every person who teaches themself has a better understanding. The vast majority don't but that doesn't mean a person can't work out the exact meaning just because they don't have a Ph.D. I also never said anything was common knowledge. Since you are obviously so knowledgeable about academic matters, I presume you are familiar with the idea of not attributing things to people who never said them? Apparently not...

With regard to that last statement, since your previous assumption was so entertaining, what do you think I believe that isn't true?

Hey *Snip* listen,

I wasn't trying to be disrespectful. Was that part about common knowledge just addressed to you? The reason I did mention your name is because you said "Just because Ph.Ds can't answer something, doesn't mean no-on2 else can." I related this to my comment about Ph.D.s not knowing the meaning of the word abomination. I know you did not say it was common knowledge but do you see the connection?

Excuse me for assuming something based on your little statement. I was just trying to address the problems with that little statement you made. I’m sorry if you were offended. Personally, that is not the type of response I would expect from someone going for a Ph.D. Most Ph.Ds would laugh at that statement, mostly because of the amount of money they are spending to get a Ph.D. If they thought they could get just as good of an education sitting at home reading about their hobbies, I would imagine this is the route they would have taken.

I imagine you school is pretty expensive isn’t it? Do you mind telling me what school you are going to or are you going to make a smart ass remark about that too?

“I know academics try to take a fresh look at things but at the end of the day, they are relying on things someone else taught them originally.”

So according to you, not even you can take a fresh look at academics?

“With regard to that last statement, since your previous assumption was so entertaining, what do you think I believe that isn't true?”

That was a general statement not targeted directly at you. Do you know what a general statement is?

Now can you stop getting butt hurt and can we be friends?

Edit:

I'm sorry if I worded it wrong. I was trying to RELATE to you, not attack you. Ok so my assumtion was incorrect about not having a degree (though you said it was right, but you are in school.) Ever make a wrong assumption based no almost no evidence? I have. Why don't you tell me a little more about yourself so I don't do it again.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Karlis
Deleted vulgarity

[Setton]

Hey *Snip* listen,

A civil reply wouldn't have hurt...

I wasn't trying to be disrespectful. Was that part about common knowledge just addressed to you? The reason I did mention your name is because you said "Just because Ph.Ds can't answer something, doesn't mean no-on2 else can." I related this to my comment about Ph.D.s not knowing the meaning of the word abomination. I know you did not say it was common knowledge but do you see the connection?

I assumed it was addressed to me based on the fact that you used my name right before.

Excuse me for assuming something based on your little statement. I was just trying to address the problems with that little statement you made. I'm sorry if you were offended. Personally, that is not the type of response I would expect from someone going for a Ph.D. Most Ph.Ds would laugh at that statement, mostly because of the amount of money they are spending to get a Ph.D. If they thought they could get just as good of an education sitting at home reading about their hobbies, I would imagine this is the route they would have taken.

I'm not saying it's as good an education just that it doesn't automatically rule out the possibility they can work out something someone with a Ph.D can't

I imagine you school is pretty expensive isn't it? Do you mind telling me what school you are going to or are you going to make a smart ass remark about that too?

I'm at Durham University studying for an MSci in Geoscience. It's costing just over £3000 a year and the Ph.D will probably be around £9000 a year.

"I know academics try to take a fresh look at things but at the end of the day, they are relying on things someone else taught them originally."

So according to you, not even you can take a fresh look at academics?

I should have been more specific. I meant within their area of study. I could probably take a fresh look at the things you study, you could at the things I study.

"With regard to that last statement, since your previous assumption was so entertaining, what do you think I believe that isn't true?"

That was a general statement not targeted directly at you. Do you know what a general statement is?

Now can you stop getting butt hurt and can we be friends?

Ok, I thought it was carrying on from the part addressed to me.

Edit:

I'm sorry if I worded it wrong. I was trying to RELATE to you, not attack you. Ok so my assumtion was incorrect about not having a degree (though you said it was right, but you are in school.) Ever make a wrong assumption based no almost no evidence? I have. Why don't you tell me a little more about yourself so I don't do it again.

Reading your reply again, I can see I took it the wrong way. Try reading it in a sarcastic tone and you might see why.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Karlis

[Athans]

A civil reply wouldn't have hurt...

I assumed it was addressed to me based on the fact that you used my name right before.

I'm not saying it's as good an education just that it doesn't automatically rule out the possibility they can work out something someone with a Ph.D can't

I'm at Durham University studying for an MSci in Geoscience. It's costing just over £3000 a year and the Ph.D will probably be around £9000 a year.

I should have been more specific. I meant within their area of study. I could probably take a fresh look at the things you study, you could at the things I study.

Ok, I thought it was carrying on from the part addressed to me.

Reading your reply again, I can see I took it the wrong way. Try reading it in a sarcastic tone and you might see why.

It's all good. I'm glad we got that worked out. I guess "Snip" wasn't the best word to use eh?

Durham looks like a pretty good school. I actually did a quick search on "best Universities in the World" and it has Durham ranked 92. My school is actually right near that, at 96, which is higher than I thought, but then again we do have some real big departments. I mean we are the head of twin studies in the world.

I will mention that even though a lot of things are similar, a degree in science is different than a degree in History or Liberal Arts. All I have really done on the science side are my generals. In a way it is easier than History but at the same time it is more complex. A lot of things in science are beyond me and that might have to do with my horrible skills in math...

Edited March 16, 2011 by Karlis

[GIDEON MAGE]

The baby is only inside a part of a womans body... a completely differnt life alltogether

And no need to yell !

I didn't state it as my opinion, only reflecting what the Jews think.

[Setton]

It's all good. I'm glad we got that worked out. I guess "prick" wasn't the best word to use eh?

Durham looks like a pretty good school. I actually did a quick search on "best Universities in the World" and it has Durham ranked 92. My school is actually right near that, at 96, which is higher than I thought, but then again we do have some real big departments. I mean we are the head of twin studies in the world.

I will mention that even though a lot of things are similar, a degree in science is different than a degree in History or Liberal Arts. All I have really done on the science side are my generals. In a way it is easier than History but at the same time it is more complex. A lot of things in science are beyond me and that might have to do with my horrible skills in math...

Yeah Durham's pretty good. I think it's 7th in the UK overall and 4th for my subject

I know science and history are very different. My brother and one of my flatmates do history so we have this debate about them quite a lot. I'm fascinated by it, I just don't like the way places make you study it (essays ) Naturally science is harder They disagree...

When I was talking about looking at each other's courses, I meant providing you'd been taught the basics of it first. I wouldn't be able to write an essay on the life of St Bede (something my flatmate just did) and I wouldn't expect you to be able to explain whether you think conventional hotspot theory is correct or not

[Athans]

We better get back on topic...if you have more to say, PM me. I will do the same.

[mklsgl]

GEE, BACK ON TOPIC? Does anyone here know that Orthodox Jews believe that a baby is a part of a woman's body until it is born? You will not see them protesting against abortion clinics. Abortion is legal in Israel?

I do.

[mklsgl]

Just because Ph.Ds can't answer something, doesn't mean no-on2 else can. There are very intelligent people in the world who never completed any formal study but can have vast knowledge from their own interest. Also, it often takes a fresh look at things, not clouded by the opinions taught by others, to work something out.

As a Ph.D. (Literary and Cultural Studies, UPenn), I can say that I learn just as much from my students as they learn from me.

[+Sherapy]

I do.

I personally would not choose abortion for myself, yet I fully support and stand for pro choice.

[mklsgl]

At heart, the question remains "When does life begin?" and there is no single, absolute answer. (Yes, I made a 'no-duh' post but it seems to be one the most complicated questions ever asked.)