Screw the hackers already.
One advantage to the 'ho house is we never discuss anything of value so it don't matter that they gone.
Woogy boogy nigga, know what I mean?
Anyway, I just saw this report on breastfeeding on the CNN. The gist of the thing was that some people are offended by seeing a woman feed her baby.
How phobic can you get?
I am not sentimental about it. I don't consider it to be some kind of beautiful act. But a kid's gotta eat and a hungry baby is like a rabid tiger. Nobody in his right mind would not feed a hungry baby. It's a matter of self defense; self preservation.
I don't get why feeding a baby is offensive. Some man said it's like urinating in public. Personally, I have nothing against peeing and pooping in the streets except for the filth.
But feeding a baby does not deposit human waste in the streets. It is not a health hazard.
I realize that Americans are very prudish but damn. Get over it. Mothers are encouraged by their pediatricians and obstetricians to breastfeed. Human milk is the best thing to feed humans.
I do realize that breasts are considered to be secondary sexual characteristics. So, I am trying to imagine if I would feel disturbed if testicles had nipples and seeped milk and men ball fed kids.
Preposterous idea, I know, but same principle.
I think that I would have the masculine ability to compartmentalize the concept. In a sexual encounter, I might find balls interesting and attractive. But, if a man opens up a special flap in his jeans and commences to feed his child, I would envision his balls in a different light.
Of course, the comparison between boobs and balls is silly. A crotch is a lot closer to the anus than the chest.
I do not get how breastfeeding is offensive.
Any explanations?
Faizi Edited by: MKFaizi at: 6/10/05 10:35
Ball feeding
-
MKFaizi
Re: Ball feeding
What a bunch of pussies.
Temporary genius, hell.
Take my fucking identity. I DARE YOU!!
Like you could want it. I don't. I would sell it if I could.
Cheap.
Faizi
Temporary genius, hell.
Take my fucking identity. I DARE YOU!!
Like you could want it. I don't. I would sell it if I could.
Cheap.
Faizi
Re: Ball feeding
Maybe you'd like this t-shirt (for a baby):
<a href="http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product ... tid=442</a>
I don't think breast feeding is offensive, so I can only speculate.
Maybe people find it offensive just out of general principle, since it involves bodily fluids and breasts.
Maybe it's just a little too sexual. (You can get pornos of women lactating.)
<a href="http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product ... tid=442</a>
I don't think breast feeding is offensive, so I can only speculate.
Maybe people find it offensive just out of general principle, since it involves bodily fluids and breasts.
Maybe it's just a little too sexual. (You can get pornos of women lactating.)
-
MKFaizi
Re: Ball feeding
I looked at the tshirt. No, I would never wear something like that because, for the life of me, I cannot imagine that feeding a baby could be a show. While feeding in public, the most you might see is the flash of a nipple.
I fed my children and I cannot imagine it being seen as a sexual act or like urinating in public. I did keep my breasts covered because I realize some people get upset by breastfeeding. I was married to a Pakistani Muslim at the time. He considered women to be naked when they wore shorts. Yet, he saw nothing wrong with a woman feeding her baby -- not me or any other woman -- in public or not. Most Pakistani women breastfeed. Part of the culture. He had eight older sisters and he grew up seeing his sisters feed his nieces and nephews.
I think that getting excited by lactation is a separate issue from feeding a baby. Some men do get excited by the idea of milky breasts but it is mainly the idea. In reality, the milk is runny and sticky and a pain in the ass. Very messy. Often excessive. I used to have to pump off the excess or the kids would have drowned. Could have fed twenty babies.
Feeding a child is separate from sex. The breast becomes what it really is -- a vessel -- not part of sexual foreplay. No different from a very convenient bottle.
Cool if some men are turned on by lactating breasts. But if they are so hung up that they cannot separate feeding from sex, they got a problem. Not just men either. A lot of women are very upset by breastfeeding. A receptionist at my office once implored me to put a woman in a room because she was feeding her baby in the waiting room. THE HORROR.
I asked the woman if she wanted to come back to a room but she was perfectly all right so I left her to it. If you can't feed a baby in a doctor's office, I mean, damn.
I do think this horror at breastfeeding is mainly an Amercian Christian thing. It's weird. No one really cares if a woman walks more than half naked on Virginia Beach. But they are offended if a woman feeds her child in a restaurant.
But Muslims can handle it. I don't get that -- Americans are supposed to be better than Muslims.
I live in a rural county. More churches than I can shake a stick at -- and they are building more of 'em.
Really fucks up the Blue Ridge Mountain beauty here. Stinking crosses are eye sores.
Faizi
I fed my children and I cannot imagine it being seen as a sexual act or like urinating in public. I did keep my breasts covered because I realize some people get upset by breastfeeding. I was married to a Pakistani Muslim at the time. He considered women to be naked when they wore shorts. Yet, he saw nothing wrong with a woman feeding her baby -- not me or any other woman -- in public or not. Most Pakistani women breastfeed. Part of the culture. He had eight older sisters and he grew up seeing his sisters feed his nieces and nephews.
I think that getting excited by lactation is a separate issue from feeding a baby. Some men do get excited by the idea of milky breasts but it is mainly the idea. In reality, the milk is runny and sticky and a pain in the ass. Very messy. Often excessive. I used to have to pump off the excess or the kids would have drowned. Could have fed twenty babies.
Feeding a child is separate from sex. The breast becomes what it really is -- a vessel -- not part of sexual foreplay. No different from a very convenient bottle.
Cool if some men are turned on by lactating breasts. But if they are so hung up that they cannot separate feeding from sex, they got a problem. Not just men either. A lot of women are very upset by breastfeeding. A receptionist at my office once implored me to put a woman in a room because she was feeding her baby in the waiting room. THE HORROR.
I asked the woman if she wanted to come back to a room but she was perfectly all right so I left her to it. If you can't feed a baby in a doctor's office, I mean, damn.
I do think this horror at breastfeeding is mainly an Amercian Christian thing. It's weird. No one really cares if a woman walks more than half naked on Virginia Beach. But they are offended if a woman feeds her child in a restaurant.
But Muslims can handle it. I don't get that -- Americans are supposed to be better than Muslims.
I live in a rural county. More churches than I can shake a stick at -- and they are building more of 'em.
Really fucks up the Blue Ridge Mountain beauty here. Stinking crosses are eye sores.
Faizi
Re: Ball feeding
Quote:Quote:<hr>I do think this horror at breastfeeding is mainly an Amercian Christian thing. It's weird. No one really cares if a woman walks more than half naked on Virginia Beach. But they are offended if a woman feeds her child in a restaurant.<hr>
I don't have enough experience with other cultures to say. But it does sound like a Puritan thing - objecting to the exposed breast on general principle.
If you look at magazine covers and so on, it seems that now you are allowed to show the entire breast - except for the nipple. The nipple is crossing some kind of line, going to far. (Leading to those bikinis where the top looks roughly like two bottle caps and some string.)
Quote:Quote:<hr>I live in a rural county. More churches than I can shake a stick at -- and they are building more of 'em.
Really fucks up the Blue Ridge Mountain beauty here. Stinking crosses are eye sores.<hr>
Crosses everywhere - now that's offensive.
The first thing I noticed when I moved to Dallas was that there were two things everywhere: churches and strip clubs. Both much bigger than I'd seen elsewhere.
Huge churches, taking up more than a city block. Huge strip clubs, with billboards and neon signs. Both were clearly booming businesses.
I couldn't help but speculate on the relationship between the two.
I don't have enough experience with other cultures to say. But it does sound like a Puritan thing - objecting to the exposed breast on general principle.
If you look at magazine covers and so on, it seems that now you are allowed to show the entire breast - except for the nipple. The nipple is crossing some kind of line, going to far. (Leading to those bikinis where the top looks roughly like two bottle caps and some string.)
Quote:Quote:<hr>I live in a rural county. More churches than I can shake a stick at -- and they are building more of 'em.
Really fucks up the Blue Ridge Mountain beauty here. Stinking crosses are eye sores.<hr>
Crosses everywhere - now that's offensive.
The first thing I noticed when I moved to Dallas was that there were two things everywhere: churches and strip clubs. Both much bigger than I'd seen elsewhere.
Huge churches, taking up more than a city block. Huge strip clubs, with billboards and neon signs. Both were clearly booming businesses.
I couldn't help but speculate on the relationship between the two.
-
MKFaizi
Re: Ball feeding
I am certain that there is a relationship. Recently, there was a city in Texas where there was a big prostitute bust that was an embarrassment for many good Christian men.
Definitely, plenty of Muslim men are just as hypocritical. Plenty of them go to prostitutes. But, as a culture, they are pro-breastfeeding. They don't consider it a heinous act. They don't equate it with urination,
In Pakistan, of course, they would kill a woman for walking around nearly naked in public. But I have been among many Pakistani people when a woman was feeding her baby. I don't mean that the women completely exposed their breasts. Not at all. You do not have to do that to feed a baby. Most women put a blanket over a shoulder or they put the baby on the breast before lifting their shirt.
But back to the crosses. I do loathe them. Of course, I think that anyone should be free to practice whatever crap religion they choose. I also believe that a homosexual man should be free to hold his partner's hand in public if he chooses to do so. Here in Christian land, they don't dare do it. Oddly, in most Muslim countries, two men can hold hands and no one even assumes they are gay.
Around here, you could get shot for that. Just today, my sister was speaking about a gay man she knows. He moved to Washington D.C. so that he could live more openly. He did not even feel comfortable being homosexual in Charlotte -- a fairly large city in North Carolina.
I recall an arguement a good while back in which Kevin Solway asserted that Christians are more tolerant than Muslims. Generally, I don't think so. The only thing that holds Christians back in the US is the tenuous idea of separation of church and state. We hang to that by a bare thread.
If that thin thread ever gets completely severed, God help us.
Faizi
Definitely, plenty of Muslim men are just as hypocritical. Plenty of them go to prostitutes. But, as a culture, they are pro-breastfeeding. They don't consider it a heinous act. They don't equate it with urination,
In Pakistan, of course, they would kill a woman for walking around nearly naked in public. But I have been among many Pakistani people when a woman was feeding her baby. I don't mean that the women completely exposed their breasts. Not at all. You do not have to do that to feed a baby. Most women put a blanket over a shoulder or they put the baby on the breast before lifting their shirt.
But back to the crosses. I do loathe them. Of course, I think that anyone should be free to practice whatever crap religion they choose. I also believe that a homosexual man should be free to hold his partner's hand in public if he chooses to do so. Here in Christian land, they don't dare do it. Oddly, in most Muslim countries, two men can hold hands and no one even assumes they are gay.
Around here, you could get shot for that. Just today, my sister was speaking about a gay man she knows. He moved to Washington D.C. so that he could live more openly. He did not even feel comfortable being homosexual in Charlotte -- a fairly large city in North Carolina.
I recall an arguement a good while back in which Kevin Solway asserted that Christians are more tolerant than Muslims. Generally, I don't think so. The only thing that holds Christians back in the US is the tenuous idea of separation of church and state. We hang to that by a bare thread.
If that thin thread ever gets completely severed, God help us.
Faizi
Re: Ball feeding
Ball Feeding
Quote:Quote:<hr>Definitely, plenty of Muslim men are just as hypocritical. Plenty of them go to prostitutes. <hr>
I don’t know much about it, but I thought that was less frowned-upon among Muslims than among Christians.
Quote:Quote:<hr>In Pakistan, of course, they would kill a woman for walking around nearly naked in public. <hr>
I take it that it is considered sinful, because the sight arouses lust, brings shame to the family, etc.?
Certainly, the girls walking around in tiny bikinis arouse lust. That’s the whole point, isn’t it?
Quote:Quote:<hr>But back to the crosses. I do loathe them. Of course, I think that anyone should be free to practice whatever crap religion they choose. <hr>
Well, there have got to be limits somewhere. Should you be allowed to take drugs that are otherwise illegal, if it is a tenet of your religion? Should you be able to sacrifice animals? What about throwing a virgin into the volcano?
In California, there is a large cross on top of a hill. It is maintained in a public park with public funds. The rationale is that it is a memorial, and the cross is a traditional shape for a tombstone, and so not a religious symbol in this context.
Christianity is so prevalent in the US that it is taken for granted.
Quote:Quote:<hr>I also believe that a homosexual man should be free to hold his partner's hand in public if he chooses to do so. Here in Christian land, they don't dare do it. Oddly, in most Muslim countries, two men can hold hands and no one even assumes they are gay.
Around here, you could get shot for that. Just today, my sister was speaking about a gay man she knows. He moved to Washington D.C. so that he could live more openly. He did not even feel comfortable being homosexual in Charlotte -- a fairly large city in North Carolina. <hr>
There was that picture of Bush holding hands with a guy from Saudi Arabia. Funny. I guess moving to D.C. would make sense!
<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0426/dailyUpdate.html" target="top">www.csmonitor.com/2005/0426/dailyUpdate.html</a>Kind of ironic that Bush is so friendly with Saudi Arabia, considering…
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 70_pf.html" target="top">www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a ... pf.html</a>
Quote:Quote:<hr>I recall an arguement a good while back in which Kevin Solway asserted that Christians are more tolerant than Muslims. Generally, I don't think so. <hr>
I think Solway has a different slant on things, being in Australia. I think it would be hard to understand how quickly and how radically the US has changed. It has been subverted by religious radicals.
Most Christians are more or less harmless. It is the radical contingent that is dangerous, in much the same way that the Taliban was dangerous. Religious extremists are dangerous, from almost any religion.
(There are always exceptions! <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... BCFLG1.DTL" target="top">sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/08/DDG27BCFLG1.DTL</a>)
But religious radicals are more dangerous in the US than elsewhere, because of the incredible arsenal the US has.
Quote:Quote:<hr>The only thing that holds Christians back in the US is the tenuous idea of separation of church and state. We hang to that by a bare thread.
If that thin thread ever gets completely severed, God help us. <hr>
It’s in quite a bit of danger. Bush, and his supporters, see the separation of church and state as some sort of atheist conspiracy or something.
Maybe the issue would be clearer to them if it was called separation of mosque and state, or separation of synagogue and state, or perhaps separation of coven and state. (I kind of like that one.)
It’s maddening that this sort of thing is going on. This whole separation of coven and state issue should have been settled for good two hundred years ago. There shouldn’t be any need to rehash it. And still debating teaching evolution is schools! Damn!
I guess we’re lucky they’ve given up on the flat-earth thing.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Definitely, plenty of Muslim men are just as hypocritical. Plenty of them go to prostitutes. <hr>
I don’t know much about it, but I thought that was less frowned-upon among Muslims than among Christians.
Quote:Quote:<hr>In Pakistan, of course, they would kill a woman for walking around nearly naked in public. <hr>
I take it that it is considered sinful, because the sight arouses lust, brings shame to the family, etc.?
Certainly, the girls walking around in tiny bikinis arouse lust. That’s the whole point, isn’t it?
Quote:Quote:<hr>But back to the crosses. I do loathe them. Of course, I think that anyone should be free to practice whatever crap religion they choose. <hr>
Well, there have got to be limits somewhere. Should you be allowed to take drugs that are otherwise illegal, if it is a tenet of your religion? Should you be able to sacrifice animals? What about throwing a virgin into the volcano?
In California, there is a large cross on top of a hill. It is maintained in a public park with public funds. The rationale is that it is a memorial, and the cross is a traditional shape for a tombstone, and so not a religious symbol in this context.
Christianity is so prevalent in the US that it is taken for granted.
Quote:Quote:<hr>I also believe that a homosexual man should be free to hold his partner's hand in public if he chooses to do so. Here in Christian land, they don't dare do it. Oddly, in most Muslim countries, two men can hold hands and no one even assumes they are gay.
Around here, you could get shot for that. Just today, my sister was speaking about a gay man she knows. He moved to Washington D.C. so that he could live more openly. He did not even feel comfortable being homosexual in Charlotte -- a fairly large city in North Carolina. <hr>
There was that picture of Bush holding hands with a guy from Saudi Arabia. Funny. I guess moving to D.C. would make sense!
<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0426/dailyUpdate.html" target="top">www.csmonitor.com/2005/0426/dailyUpdate.html</a>Kind of ironic that Bush is so friendly with Saudi Arabia, considering…
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 70_pf.html" target="top">www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a ... pf.html</a>
Quote:Quote:<hr>I recall an arguement a good while back in which Kevin Solway asserted that Christians are more tolerant than Muslims. Generally, I don't think so. <hr>
I think Solway has a different slant on things, being in Australia. I think it would be hard to understand how quickly and how radically the US has changed. It has been subverted by religious radicals.
Most Christians are more or less harmless. It is the radical contingent that is dangerous, in much the same way that the Taliban was dangerous. Religious extremists are dangerous, from almost any religion.
(There are always exceptions! <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... BCFLG1.DTL" target="top">sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/08/DDG27BCFLG1.DTL</a>)
But religious radicals are more dangerous in the US than elsewhere, because of the incredible arsenal the US has.
Quote:Quote:<hr>The only thing that holds Christians back in the US is the tenuous idea of separation of church and state. We hang to that by a bare thread.
If that thin thread ever gets completely severed, God help us. <hr>
It’s in quite a bit of danger. Bush, and his supporters, see the separation of church and state as some sort of atheist conspiracy or something.
Maybe the issue would be clearer to them if it was called separation of mosque and state, or separation of synagogue and state, or perhaps separation of coven and state. (I kind of like that one.)
It’s maddening that this sort of thing is going on. This whole separation of coven and state issue should have been settled for good two hundred years ago. There shouldn’t be any need to rehash it. And still debating teaching evolution is schools! Damn!
I guess we’re lucky they’ve given up on the flat-earth thing.
-
MKFaizi
Re: Ball feeding
Quote:Quote:<hr>I don’t know much about it, but I thought that was less frowned-upon among Muslims than among Christians.<hr>
I can only go on my personal experience among a small group of Pakistanis in Baltimore. I know that the wives did not like it. My husband thought it was disgusting. They went around with the most disgusting females. Nasty.
Quote:Quote:<hr>I take it that it is considered sinful, because the sight arouses lust, brings shame to the family, etc.?<hr>
Pretty much. Because it would signify that she is a prostitute or insane.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Certainly, the girls walking around in tiny bikinis arouse lust. That’s the whole point, isn’t it?<hr>
Partly. It is also because it is acceptable in our culture. A girl would look kind of odd out on the beach in a swimsuit that covered her from head to toe. Men do not go around on the beach covered up either.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Well, there have got to be limits somewhere. Should you be allowed to take drugs that are otherwise illegal, if it is a tenet of your religion? Should you be able to sacrifice animals? What about throwing a virgin into the volcano?<hr>
I reckon I was referring to the usual stuff with some possible variations.
Quote:Quote:<hr>In California, there is a large cross on top of a hill. It is maintained in a public park with public funds. The rationale is that it is a memorial, and the cross is a traditional shape for a tombstone, and so not a religious symbol in this context.<hr>
I can't see much difference in that and the courthouse in Alabama that displayed the Ten Commandments. Big blow up about that one. If Californians can do it, why can't Alabamans?
One thing I find particularly offensive is when I must call a patient and I get his voice mail and it says, "Jesus said this or that and let us pray."
If my voice mail said something like, "Nietzsche said God is dead. Let us think," I would probably be put in GITMO.
Quote:Quote:<hr>There was that picture of Bush holding hands with a guy from Saudi Arabia. Funny. I guess moving to D.C. would make sense!<hr>
Yes, that was a hoot on CNN. I wonder how that played in Texas.
Quote:Quote:<hr>I think Solway has a different slant on things, being in Australia. I think it would be hard to understand how quickly and how radically the US has changed. It has been subverted by religious radicals.<hr>
God, I do long for the good old days. Back when there was more freedom.
Quote:Quote:<hr>It’s in quite a bit of danger. Bush, and his supporters, see the separation of church and state as some sort of atheist conspiracy or something.
Maybe the issue would be clearer to them if it was called separation of mosque and state, or separation of synagogue and state, or perhaps separation of coven and state. (I kind of like that one.)<hr>
They would not see it because Christianity is good, plain and simple.
Quote:Quote:<hr>I guess we’re lucky they’ve given up on the flat-earth thing.<hr>
Only because it's not in The Bible.
Faizi
I can only go on my personal experience among a small group of Pakistanis in Baltimore. I know that the wives did not like it. My husband thought it was disgusting. They went around with the most disgusting females. Nasty.
Quote:Quote:<hr>I take it that it is considered sinful, because the sight arouses lust, brings shame to the family, etc.?<hr>
Pretty much. Because it would signify that she is a prostitute or insane.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Certainly, the girls walking around in tiny bikinis arouse lust. That’s the whole point, isn’t it?<hr>
Partly. It is also because it is acceptable in our culture. A girl would look kind of odd out on the beach in a swimsuit that covered her from head to toe. Men do not go around on the beach covered up either.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Well, there have got to be limits somewhere. Should you be allowed to take drugs that are otherwise illegal, if it is a tenet of your religion? Should you be able to sacrifice animals? What about throwing a virgin into the volcano?<hr>
I reckon I was referring to the usual stuff with some possible variations.
Quote:Quote:<hr>In California, there is a large cross on top of a hill. It is maintained in a public park with public funds. The rationale is that it is a memorial, and the cross is a traditional shape for a tombstone, and so not a religious symbol in this context.<hr>
I can't see much difference in that and the courthouse in Alabama that displayed the Ten Commandments. Big blow up about that one. If Californians can do it, why can't Alabamans?
One thing I find particularly offensive is when I must call a patient and I get his voice mail and it says, "Jesus said this or that and let us pray."
If my voice mail said something like, "Nietzsche said God is dead. Let us think," I would probably be put in GITMO.
Quote:Quote:<hr>There was that picture of Bush holding hands with a guy from Saudi Arabia. Funny. I guess moving to D.C. would make sense!<hr>
Yes, that was a hoot on CNN. I wonder how that played in Texas.
Quote:Quote:<hr>I think Solway has a different slant on things, being in Australia. I think it would be hard to understand how quickly and how radically the US has changed. It has been subverted by religious radicals.<hr>
God, I do long for the good old days. Back when there was more freedom.
Quote:Quote:<hr>It’s in quite a bit of danger. Bush, and his supporters, see the separation of church and state as some sort of atheist conspiracy or something.
Maybe the issue would be clearer to them if it was called separation of mosque and state, or separation of synagogue and state, or perhaps separation of coven and state. (I kind of like that one.)<hr>
They would not see it because Christianity is good, plain and simple.
Quote:Quote:<hr>I guess we’re lucky they’ve given up on the flat-earth thing.<hr>
Only because it's not in The Bible.
Faizi
Re: Ball feeding / Earth a ball?
DH: I guess we’re lucky they’ve given up on the flat-earth thing.
Faizi: Only because it's not in The Bible.
I thought it must have been in there somewhere, or why would Copernicus have gotten in so much trouble with the Church over it?
Naturally, I had to go take a look. I apologize for being in such an insanely pedantic mood today.
Genesis 1:6-8 are hard to interpret from a round earth point of view, but it's not clear to me what the "firmament" is supposed to be, exactly.
The below verses suggest the earth can't move, which I think is inconsistent with a globular view:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.â€
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...â€
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...â€
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.â€
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...â€
Job 38:12-13: "take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it"
...and so, once again, the conversation has drifted from what it would be like if men fed babies from their balls, to whether the Bible says the earth is flat.
The internet, in a nutshell. (Or a nutsack.)
<span style="text-decoration:underline">edit</span>: wrote all that, then realized I was talking out my ass. The issue was whether the Earth was the center of the universe, not whether the Earth was flat. Oh, well.
Edited by: DHodges <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://home.earthlink.net/~d_hodges/sit ... _small.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 6/17/05 5:48
Faizi: Only because it's not in The Bible.
I thought it must have been in there somewhere, or why would Copernicus have gotten in so much trouble with the Church over it?
Naturally, I had to go take a look. I apologize for being in such an insanely pedantic mood today.
Genesis 1:6-8 are hard to interpret from a round earth point of view, but it's not clear to me what the "firmament" is supposed to be, exactly.
The below verses suggest the earth can't move, which I think is inconsistent with a globular view:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.â€
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...â€
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...â€
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.â€
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...â€
Job 38:12-13: "take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it"
...and so, once again, the conversation has drifted from what it would be like if men fed babies from their balls, to whether the Bible says the earth is flat.
The internet, in a nutshell. (Or a nutsack.)
<span style="text-decoration:underline">edit</span>: wrote all that, then realized I was talking out my ass. The issue was whether the Earth was the center of the universe, not whether the Earth was flat. Oh, well.
Edited by: DHodges <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://home.earthlink.net/~d_hodges/sit ... _small.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 6/17/05 5:48
-
MKFaizi
Re: Ball feeding / Earth a ball?
Well, who knows? People get bent out of shape over what is and what is not in the Bible.
To me, fixed speaks of stability.
Faizi
To me, fixed speaks of stability.
Faizi