My Photo

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1030/1447/1600/20060721_2235_000.jpg

My New Image

..

..

mercedo wrote today at 12:23 AM
imelnychenko said. The doctor has to follow the patient's demand in his and his wife's management,
This transaction the doctor took was totally unacceptable. The doctor ought to have performed blood transfusion for them without considering their will. I think he ought to ignore the decision the patients made even in the last moment when measures other than blood transfusion might lead to life-threatening situations if he believed it were the only or best way to save their lives. I believe they would change their will when they got recovery after they had blood transfusion. They think their doctor's decision was right after they survived, and they might feel what a strange idea they had before they got blood transfusion. So under any circumstances doctors ought to follow only his conscience.

Retrogression

mercedo wrote today at 1:56 AM60 years ago this country was in a very confusion itself. They tried to catch up America, but how it is achievable America proceeds three steps while Japan walks one step. Self destruction is the only way left for this country.

Thanks

Thanks for an insightful comment you made. This helps me understand how incest was made taboo from a social cause.

Viva

mercedo wrote today at 2:35 AMViva European Enlightenment Thinkers, bravo!

Prostitution & Population Increase

mercedo wrote today at 2:12 AMI'm afraid population increase has nothing to do with prostitution. Steady population increase occurs before the war, and after the war rapid population increase occurs. In matured society which is also affluent, population tend to decrease, but prostitution flourishes as one of the ways to have fun. Besides contraceptives are usually always used in prostitution.

Illiterate

mercedo wrote today at 1:21 AM
zytrexx saidAnd the fact is most of the people were illiterate In order not to be illiterate, systematic education was needed and that's what had lacked for in ancient times.

Thanks

mercedo wrote today at 12:41 AMHello..Thanks for the very interesting link. I appreciated that.

Against Jovinian

mercedo wrote today at 12:28 AM
ullangoo saidDo you have more text than Brian quoted? Yes, here it is.AGAINST JOVINIAN 7 line 14 from Medieval Sourcebook: St Jerome (c. 320-420): On Marriage and Virginity, From Letter XXII to Eustochium and from the treatise Against Jovinian http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/jerome-marriage.html

Oral Traditions

mercedo wrote today at 12:08 AMI didn't respond to your reply, but I'm very impressed. You have quality that I can rely on. This was rather something that needless to say though.If you think there must have been oral traditions before Pentateuch were edited, it doesn't mean much for me when, how and who edited or wrote those writings. I don' t think it's very important.

Jerome the great interpreter

mercedo wrote today at 6:46 AM
briangriffith saidAs St. Jerome then explained, “If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one, for there is no opposite of goodness but badness”. My NIV Bible says in 1 Corinthians 7 '1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry ( or have sexual relations with a woman ). 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.'
I understand Jerome's translation as ' ..for there's virtue but no vice in it.' If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one, but in reality it is good to touch a woman, so it is not bad. Because there's only virtue in having sex, but no vice in it.

Cherubim

mercedo wrote today at 6:01 AMNot all reliable sources are available on these matters, though, as far as I noticed in the description of Genesis was the gate in front of Garden of Eden there stood two Cherubim to keep people not entering again. I thought cherubim as well as other angels are Babylonian origin. So I thought it was rather odd to find them in Genesis.

Agreed

mercedo wrote today at 5:41 AM
ullangoo saidIn my opinion, it would be rather stupid to date a text from one criterion only. It's never smart to ignore any information. I am happy to hear that from one of linguists.

Assumption

Current humans originated in Africa some 200,000 years ago, and it was only during 10,000 years that humans were able to start developing their civilisations.
My assumption is humans repeated incest for more than the rest of 190,000 years and it was only Adam that noticed their practice might bring some inconvenience. Genetic disorder must be the result of practicing incest too many years. Adam must have noticed mating to other family prevents from this gene defects.

Money Economy

mercedo wrote today at 5:18 AMIf prostitution specifically means to give them pleasure in exchange for money, this must have developed after the introduction of money economy. Sexual offer in a form of barter must have been taken place long before the introduction of this economic system. My assumption was the ruler in those days needed to forbid prostitution because they thought it harmful to this economic system.

In Faith

mercedo wrote today at 5:06 AMI noticed some are eager to die in their faith. That makes them martyr and have them convince their life after death in a form of resurrection.

Thanks

mercedo wrote today at 4:48 AMThank you for a lot of comments you made. Those are so encouraging.

Panacea

mercedo wrote today at 3:08 AM
ullangoo saidIf you want me to prove from linguistics only that the gospel according to Mark isn't written by a hopeless student in 1824, then - I can't. Oh, really? There's no panacea for everything indeed. You can say lots of matters by always adding 'at least from linguistic viewpoints'..then later we will consider them from many points of view other than linguistics.

Johns

mercedo wrote today at 2:46 AM
ullangoo saidWe can say for certain, for linguistic reasons, that John the evangelist, John the Apocalypse writer, and John the letter writer are three different persons. I can agree with you simply just from my impression I had. There must have been many Johns those days as well.

God's words

Re:In general(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.25 2:39 (#19628775) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.23 16:34)
Bible has been believed to be the words of God. I think the meaning of the words of God is the books reflect the real historical events. So the Book of Judith regarded as religious novel had to be excluded from the Protestant canon. How about other cases? In short other apocryphal books must be written in Hebrew first but we are uable to find the original texts. All those that must have been translated from the original Hebrew but unable to find the original ones were excluded from the Protestant canon. Personally I feel those transactions were a bit strict, but considering the importance of the meaning of the word the Bible is the words of God, the words of God must have been unable to be just the presentation of translation at least from Luther's eyes.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Search

mercedo wrote today at 1:56 AM
briangriffith saidthe "Letter of Barnabas" and "The Shepherd of Hermas" were both included as scripture in the “Codex Sinaiticus” version of the Bible, which dates to the 300s and was found in 1859 at St. Catharine’s Monetary on Mt. Sinai. Only slightly after this manuscript was made, the Council of Laodicea in 364, purged these books from the Bible. Interesting. I don't know many about these two. I will report to you after I look into the reasons behind the exclusion.

The Meaning of God's Words

For people who believe in God, God's words mean truth. In the light of history, those must be in line with historical events. So I found two characteristics on the selection of canon after the Reformation. The work regarded as religious novel -that is fictitious or showing historical anachronism like the Book of Judith, those must be excluded. All other apocryphal books were somehow backed by historical accuracy, but they all were probably written in Hebrew first, but their originals were unable to be found. Only Greek texts were available, in those cases they were excluded from the Protestant canon. In short, the Reformation by Luther was a bold attempt to challenge the authority already firmly established by Roman basically and Greek, but personally I feel those excluded except for the cases like the Book of Judith are somehow worth while to at least take a look at.

Oh

mercedo wrote today at 11:40 PMThank you for lots of useful information. I will report to you as to when the oldest text was written in Old Testament after I examined.

Why Apocrypha was Apocrypha? II

The Wisdom of Ben Sira was written 180 to 175 and canonised in Catholic and Orthodox, but not in Protestant. Therefore we can read it in Septuagint, Vulgate. The reason this was taken out of canon in Protestant was probably judging from its contents. They are regarded as a copy of Proverbs.

Maccabees were written in 100 BC and those Hebrew texts were lost.

The rest of Daniel& Esther might be added later. Not found in Hebrew canon.

Book of Baruch is not found in Hebrew Bible but found both in Sepuagint and Vulgate.

Book of Tobit is not found in Hebrew Bible but found both in Septuagint and Vulgate. Therefore this book is canonised in Catholic and Orthodox Churches. This book was probably written in 2 century BC. But the contents were about 8 century BC.

Book of Judith is dominant in hstorical anachronism. This book is considered as a religious novel. Therefore excluded from Protestant canon.

Wisdom of Solomon was written in 2nd century BC. No Hebrew texts are found. Platonism & Stoicism can be read and we can find allusions to Gospel of Matthew. Found in Septuagint.

Prayer of Manasseh is apocryphal by all dnominations. Found in Septuagint.

Esdras was written 1st century BC to 1st century AD. Canonised only in Eastern Orthodox Church.

Typical characters Apocrypha have are Not found in Hebrew canon. Written between 2nd to 1st century BC. Found in Septuagint, Vulgate. Reformation was a restoration to Jewish tradition. There was a reason for it.

To Your Kindness

Re: To Your Kindness
Jun 23, '07 3:22 PMby Mer for users slashchick and mercedo
I think I mistook your point and I decided to delete my post. Thank you very much for your kind remark. Hopefully sometimes visit my site. Deleted post can be read still in my blog.

Thanks for the viewing

View History For:Your Entire Site All Entries Blog Page "Why Apocrypha Was Apocrypha" Specific User
Viewing History for Why Apocrypha Was Apocrypha
View as:Table Headshots

morosophyour friend Tim9 hours ago

subgeekyour friend Sparky's friend of family sol's colleague brett9 hours ago

iamrevmikeyour friend Sparky's friend RevMike11 hours ago

bwjonesyour friend Sparky's friend Bryan11 hours ago

mikemolyour online buddy Michael14 hours ago

ignoti16 hours ago

leonardofvince18 hours ago

redvenus1 day ago

ryanlrussellyour friend Sparky's friend Ryan1 day ago

ememalbyour friend Sparky's friend Some Woman's second-cousin Em1 day ago

slashchickyour friend Sparky's friend Vince's friend Erica1 day ago

dubiousdaveyour friend Sparky's friend dubious1 day ago

liberaltarianyour friend Sparky's friend Alan1 day ago

eglamkowskiyour online buddy Edward1 day ago

ladyguardianyour friend Sparky's friend Seth's friend Jenn1 day ago

redwarrior22001your friend Sparky's friend Vince1 day ago

sparctacus1 day ago

samthebutcheryour friend Sparky's friend Sam1 day ago

justarbyour friend Sparky's friend arb1 day ago

btlzu2your friend Sparky's friend Rob1 day ago

lordbodakyour friend Sparky's friend Vince's friend Michael1 day ago

iamthefallenyour friend Sparky's friend Iamthe1 day ago

kiratsunayoshi1 day ago

Root

Re:Try Credo, the board game(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.23 2:01 (#19610305) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.22 2:02)
Thanks for the link. This is an interesting game. Christian doctrines were so devided because they were not originated from themselves but were rooted in a Jewish monotheism. Firstly adopted by Greeks, then Romans. After long period of time, those were adopted by various cultures. Many translations gave rise to many interpretations as well.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Reformation

Re:Close(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.23 1:32 (#19609865) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.22 2:02)
I examined each cases as closely as possible. There were many cases but generally those apocryphal scriptures have common characters, that are not included in Hebrew canonical scriptures, but included in Septuagint, Vulgate, many were written in 2nd to 1st BC. Generally Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox use those apocryphal Bible and Jews and Protestant don't. In short Protestant Reformation was an attempt to restore the Jewish tradition in Christianity.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

The Origin of Taboo

Incest for fun and profit!
Jun 11, '07 10:07 PMby Edward Glamkowski for group circularrefuge
Well, not really. But it was used in ancient Hawaii amongst the nobles to maintain the purity of their bloodline, since the nobles who came to rule Hawaii were part of the second wave of immigrants to the islands who didn't want to mix with the earlier wave of immigrants.Amongst these nobles it was considered highly desirable to marry as close a family relation as possible. Most desirable was for a Prince to marry his sister. Failing that, the next most desirable was to marry his neice. Third on the list would be to marry his own daughter! And lastly is any other noble. Marrying your own daughter?! And yet, the noble lines in Hawaii showed no wide-spread signs of genetic defects...Of course, you have to consider that polygamy was the norm, and therefore your own sister probably had at least one different parent from you (it went both ways - a female noble could have multiple husbands as well as a male noble having multiple wives), so it may not have been quite as appalling as it sounds. Even so... Plus, the ancient Hawaiians also practiced infanticide (not abortion, they gave birth to the child and then killed it if it was unwanted) as well as human sacrifice, so I would guess they probably just immediately killed any infant showing serious defects. They also had rigorous testing of young nobles as well, which a healthy individual would pass no problem, but which a genetically defectively individual could very well die as a result of, such as running over bare lava rock, which would result in many cuts on the feet from which a healthy individual would recover, but would cause a hemophiliac (who might appear outwardly healthy and thus avoid the infanticide) to bleed to death.The interesting thing about the whole situation is that apparently once such genetically defective individuals have been repeatedly culled from the population over a long enough period of time, it turns out to be relatively safe for such close relatives to have kids together. The longer such in-breeding goes on, as long as the genetically defective kids don't reproduce, those who are healthy who do go on to reproduce have less chances of producing genetically defective children themselves. The problems occur where the genetically defective children do reproduce and thus keep the bad genes in the population. The ancient Hawaiian nobles were just ruthless in culling the defective genes and thus keeping the population healthy despite the intense inbreeding. Indeed, the inbred population actually got increasingly healthier over time, not less!Of course, such inbreeding was strictly limited to nobles - it was a crime for anyone not a noble to engage in such behavior. Some people in the west like to talk about male privilege or white privilege, but damn we ain't got nothing on that explicit tabu system the Hawaiian nobles used!

Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded


iambmetammy wrote on Jun 11Interesting. Weird, but interesting. .


mercedo wrote on Jun 11Incest was forbidden because it is the easiest way for mating. Probably before civilisation, many humans kept on practicing this for too many years. Incest became taboo mainly from economic reasons. Suppose if we got married to one of our parents, we can inherit their property. But remember we can automatically inherit their property because we are their child, so we don't have to get married to them in order only to inherit their property. If we got married to a person from other family, we can inherit property that belongs to other family. From the same reason even if we got married to one of siblings, we find no economical merit on this since our siblings merely inherit a part of our parents' property. That's why we are always encouraged to get married to a person from other family that owns more property than us anyway, and that explains why incest was not taboo amongst nobles in Hawaii. They needed to monopolise their wealth.


markzero wrote on Jun 12yay, eugenics, kill everyone with a birth defect!


eglamkowski wrote on Jun 12, edited on Jun 12In the case of the Hawaiian nobility, it was such a small gene pool to begin with that it was more a matter of survival than anything else. Yeah, yeah, they could have liberalized their marriage laws and let them marry commoners, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a royal system anywhere that allowed that as a matter of course, for better or worse that's just not how it works, not in Hawaii, not anywhere.


mercedo wrote on Jun 13Today if the kids born as a result of violating incest taboo were born with some birth defects, it might be not because incest itself brought such birth defects, but because those who practice such heinous act must have had problems in their genes, so simply can we assert that those who had defects in genes are more likely to give birth to kids with some birth defects? Incest is not a cause, but a symptom. And that explains why incest is taboo for sure. Incest might be an atavism appears in a very rare frequency.


lpetrazickis wrote on Jun 12Of course incest was forbidden before civilization -- it's forbidden in your genes. Do gorillas practise incest? No. Do gorillas have civilization? No. QED.And the incest-avoidance algorithm is much simpler than you think. It's "Did you play as a kid with someone? Then it's yucky." In species where the child grows up with only one of the parents, the incidence of the child mating with the absent parent is relatively high.


mercedo wrote on Jun 13Incest was not a taboo before civilisation - this is a hypothesis specifically viewed from economic standpoint. I believe that we had had such a state in stages of human development, though, of course I have no way to confirm.
Aside from that argument, incest has been a taboo at least after civilisation. Simply because it is the act that brings about disorder to the smallest unit of the society. Two people meet and marry, have kids. In this smallest unit only one sexual relation is allowed. Family is the place where children learn how to socialise other than sexual love. Children need to seek for their mate other than the member of their family. That is how to adjust in society apart from their family.
What was a society like before the dawn of civilisation - more than 10000 years ago allows us a lot of assumptions. Assuming they had kept on steady population and lived in a limited area, cave or something, I still think incest was not a taboo those days.


eglamkowski wrote on Jun 13Indeed, we see small, isolated populations even in historic times where incest was practiced out of necessity, or at least out of the interest of the family not seeing its family line die off. Even in colonial North America it was not uncommon in the 17th and 18th centuries to see family members marrying close relatives (not necessarily sisters or daughters, but nieces and cousins were not unheard of), simply because there weren't any other families around for hundreds of miles, it was marry back into your own family or the family line goes extinct.There's a reason why Jeff Foxworthy includes in his "You might be a redneck if..." the line "If your family tree does not fork..." It's funny only because it has a kernel of truth to it! It may be extremely rare here in the US today, but most people realize that even in the recent past, even in the US, it wasn't all that uncommon after all.Depending on where in space youi go, there were no doubt places where it was common at various times in history, and I tend to agree with mercedo - in prehistory it no doubt was also quite common, for the same reason it often was common in historical times, lack of anybody else in the vicinity to get married to.

Ethics Of Doctors

What was a Doctor's Job?
May 25, '07 3:11 AMby Mer Cedo for group circularrefuge
Some people don't accept some medical treatment even if when they are absolutely necessary to save their lives.
If a patient instructed a doctor not to do some particular treatments - for example, not to use some medicine or practice some medical treatment beside medical reasons, how a doctor ought to react?
If a doctor practiced some particular treatments when he judged that they are necessary and irreplaceable to other measures, then he did them deliberately with fully knowing the patient's wish of refusal to those particular treatments, and he successfully saved his life in consequence. Might he sue the doctor for not honouring his wish, or not?
It doesn't matter, because a doctor did what he had to do, this is a doctor's professional act within a range permissible by medical doctors. His first job is to save a life of patients. If he can do it within alternative treatments the patients allowed the doctor to practice, that'll be fine, too.
If the case involves in using the very treatments the patients directed him not to, his medical judgement ought to be prior to patient's wish. If you don't want particular measures when they're absolutely necessary, all he has to do is to leave a doctor. If he did so, the case will leave a matter a doctor concerns. That'll be fine, too.
Next case is even more troublesome. When a doctor judged a particular measure is necessary and irreplaceable to other measures, but he didn't it because he honoured the patient's wish and as a consequence, a patient died.
In this case, he might be questioned as murderer. He definitely honoured the patient's wish, but he not only violated doctor's ethics but also criminal code. Because he didn't do what he had to do enough in his job. The patient won't sue a doctor of course, if his family were understandable to the patient's wish, they won't sue him either. The problem was the third person like public prosecutors can sue the doctor for not fully responsible to his job. If the deceased were an influential person as company president, the company would have a possibility to sue the doctor.
If the patients leaves the matter to a doctor after he clearly states his wish not to accept a particular medical treatment, that'll be fine. My conclusion is that a patient cannot instruct a doctor not to practice some particular treatments as long as he is a patient of the doctor.

Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded


ememalb wrote on May 25In my limited understanding of how this works...if a patient refuses a specific type of medical assistance, the doctor can have (and should) have the patient sign a form stating they are refusing said treatment.I don't believe it's up to a doctor to go against a patient's wishes, even if the doctor thinks the patient's wishes are stupid. (Obviously there is a gray area, where the patient might not be thinking rationally, but that's not the point of this post).


eglamkowski wrote on May 25I think the hard part is when children are involved. The child may be too young to understand what's going on and thus too young to make a competent decision of their own. Should the parents be allowed to risk the life of their child against the advise of a doctor? I do kind of want to say yes, it should be the parent's decision, but I am certainly sympathetic to the other side of the argument as well. It's a tough call.


ememalb wrote on May 25true, it is.However, there has been precedence for this before. i forget the version of (perverted) Christianity it is, but there's a subset who don't believe in modern medicine. So...is it their right to refuse medical treatment on behalf of their child? The courts say yes.I, of course, believe this is delusional and extremely short-sighted. But that's just me, I don't make the rules. (Damned if I shouldn't tho)


kshgoddess wrote on May 25iirc, it's jehovah's witnesses who refuse most medical attention.It's a patient's right to refuse any procedure, and I'm fairly sure as was said upthread, there is a form for it. Otherwise there would be no reason to have, say a DNR order (Do not resuscitate). It does get tricky when children are involved. It gets damned tricky when it's a lifesaving measure that's refused, like an epinephrine shot for someone who's throat is closing up, a transfusion for someone who's lost too much blood, etc.

siliconjesus wrote on May 25I believe he's actually referring to Christian Scientists.


mercedo wrote on May 25Now I changed my opinion as yours.


sillypixie wrote on May 25Hm. Methinks you are giving far far too much credence to the omniscience of the Doctors of the world...I know a woman who would have woken up from exploratory surgery with a radical (and unnecessary) hysterectomy, if the world worked the way you speak of -- the doctor was convinced that a hysterectomy was absolutely critical -- but it turned out that the doctor was just a decade out of touch with the types of fibroids that this lady had, and only her ability to think for herself and to do her own research saved her from listening to someone who was very authoritative, but dead wrong. Life-or-death situations are harder - but then I think they are also much less likely to involve contradictory commands from the patient of family. The only real cases like that would be the ones where certain medical procedures are against a patient's religion. Even in that case, I *still* think that the patient has a right to dictate their own treatment.


mercedo wrote on May 25, edited on May 25I'm now wondering how weaker it might have been my idea for the importance of the individual's right. Ten out of ten people say the patient's wish ought to be respected more than the doctor's opinion. In the end any patients go to see a doctor whom they want to have themselves see. Any patients have a right to choose a doctor or even not to go to see a doctor. A doctor can neither force patients to come to see him nor practice medical procedures the patients feel detested.Usually for the ordinary patients it's more important to live longer. But for people who have some belief, it might be much more important to live well in accordance with the way they are eager to pursue rather than just to live longer.

lpetrazickis wrote on May 25People have the right to refuse any medical procedure they desire.Conversely, parents and guardians can't kill their children. That notion went out with Rome's paterfamilias. It is the duty of the government to protect children from their parents, so it is my opinion that doctors should have the final say when it comes to children's medical treatment.


mercedo wrote on May 25Children usually try to follow the parent's decision. Doctors and government agencies ought to watch these particular cases closely and if the cases apparently might lead to a matter of life or death, the third person ought to have the proper right to intervene the parent's decision.
Reply deleted at the request of the author.


mercedo wrote on May 26, edited on May 26Reply deleted at the request of the authorI deleted my post because I mistakenly posted it in my article. I think I did the same thing in Slashdot two times before.Thanks to various replies, my idea was completely changed at before and after, now I knew my idea was a bit short-sighted. Now I want to delete my blog entry itself, though I don't of course.

Martyr

Martyr
Jun 1, '07 2:32 AMby Mer Cedo for group circularrefuge
Religious people more or less believe in life after death though the notion varies. So they are not afraid of death, or rather they are eager to start another life after their death. Martyr is their ideal form of death. Because otherwise they can't expect another life they hope for. Some religious people are willing to accept this way to reach death. The desire to martyr shows itself in some refusal to current medicine.
In the end it's the patient's freedom to see a doctor who honors his direction or change a doctor who ignores his wish. Of course he can choose not to go to see a doctor in the first place or in the end. A doctor can merely suggest a better way to take but he can't force his patients to undergo his way.
Respectable believers won't sue any doctor even if he did what his patients feel detested. But once lawsuits were held, the doctors won't win. He needs to pay compensation for the psychological loss of the patients. But the amount of compensation might be significantly lower in comparison with the benefit the doctor brought. In short, lawsuits are counterproductive and less beneficial. What was important was not keep away from blood itself, but what he did to avoid them. His conscience won't question himself if he did best what he could before his conscience.
For example, as to blood transfusion, products. It's better for him to emphasise the sacredness of blood rather than the risks blood has. Medically speaking, blood products or transfusion has more risks than other treatment. However probably Moses prohibited it from the health risks blood has. First successful blood transfusion was reported after blood type was found in 18c and blood products are a result of modern medicine. Moses won't prohibit the use of blood in medical purpose for this health reason if now.
Usually people without faith are eager to live just longer, but people like he don't want to live against his faith, instead want to live well in accordance with God's will. Society, doctors ought to respect the patient's wish first. The most important thing is the doctor won't be under inquisition for the allegation of euthanasia even if it involved the cases of life and death. Because he did his best to save the life of patients within a range all he allowed to do.
Euthanasia often take places in hospice and it's not illegal these days when the patients themselves wished firmly. Even if the cases that involve the vegetable man, who has lost his consciousness and just live through the life maintenance apparatus. If the patient's family wished to take away the apparatus, some doctors do with this consent. This medical act is not publicly admitted yet, but it has been held these days under the tacit consent with society, law enforcement.
Refusal to transfusion ought to be understood in line with this current movement in society. The happiness of the individuals ought to be determined by each individuals, this is not a matter people other than himself have a say.


Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded

mikemol wrote on Jun 1Interesting timing. And a nice piece. Thanks.


mercedo wrote on Jun 1Thanks. This article is the end of serial thinking to the refusal of blood transfusion, products. My idea before was completely opposite to the thinking of majority people. This is a free country in a free world. Each individual has a right to choose whatever way they think best. On the other hands, a doctor merely has privilege over the decision of each patients. A doctor can exercise his privilege as long as it doesn't infringe patient's rights. Needless to say, privilege has less priority to those rights.


morosoph wrote on Jun 1Interesting. Of course it doesn't resolve the issue of medical help for children, for the doctor, acting in loco perentis, has vowed to preserve life.The child's parents might object to treatment, but if we are considered equal, then we are left trying to guess what the child would choose as an equal adult. The child is not considered competent to judge, but to allow the parents the right to judge is to deny equality, for the child has no more rights than a slave.Under such circumstances, I believe that society should support the doctor as being in the best place to judge. The child might share his parents genes, but he or she does not share their mind. The most competent individual present to arbitrate is the doctor.

mercedo wrote on Jun 1Not only I but also many other people agree with you. Minors are neither responsible nor competent to making such a critical decision that directly relates to life and death. Minors whose parent follows some belief ought to be declared non compos mentis when it comes to severe surgery that needs to employ blood, and the related law ought to give the exclusive right to choose most acceptable way to a very doctor in charge.


ememalb wrote on Jun 1then you get into the argument of religious freedom and what a "normal" person might consider a routine medical procedure is not something they believe in. I disagree with their religious practices, but I am not one to think that religious freedoms should be taken away.


mercedo wrote on Jun 2When I looked it up the Greek word 'martur', from which the word martyr is derived, I realised why some people are eager to die for their cause. All humans die, all people who have some faith are humans, so they also die. But for them how to die matters a lot. Martyr is the best way for them to convince their lives in the next world. If they can acquire it by not choosing some medical treatment that is absolutely required for their lives to save, it's the easiest way for them to obtain eternal life in such a simply way. It's not very hard for them to do. They can get it by just one negative choice, which is much easier to get it as opposed to obtain it through time consuming religious practices, and still not so sure whether to have been able to get it.


mercedo wrote on Jun 2, edited on Jun 2When I looked it up the Greek word 'martur', from which the word martyr is derived, I realised why some people are eager to die for their cause. All humans die, all people who have some faith are humans, so they also die. But for them how to die matters a lot. Martyr is the best way for them to convince their lives in the next world. If they can acquire it by not choosing some medical treatment that is absolutely required for their lives to save, it's the easiest way for them to obtain eternal life in such a simply way. It's not very hard for them to do. They can get it by just one negative choice, which is much easier to get it as opposed to obtain it through time consuming religious practices, and still not so sure whether to have been able to get it.

Case Study

Creation? or Evolution?
Jun 17, '07 10:21 PMby Mer Cedo for group circularrefuge
Missing link is a hypothesis there might have existed the pre humans that connect apes to modern humans. The reason of this claim is as follows. Although we can find many species closer to each other in the case of other animals, we can't find a closer species to modern humans. So assumption here is we must have had pre humans that were much closer to modern humans but we haven't found them -that is called ' missing link'. And the archaeological evidence that proves the existence of pre humans are not found yet. Missing link is used somehow to explain human's unique existence from other species. Missing link is supportive to creationist' s insistence.
Even if some result proves man's existence merely dated back to 6000 years ago, that doesn't tell anything whether humans existed before 6000 years ago.
Evolution was led from many scientific experiments and partly from archaeological evidence, but not entirely from artifacts. Lack of evidence in artifacts has nothing to do with the support of any theories.
So whatever the reason some believe a man was created by God around 6000 years ago.
But I believe 4.57 billion years ago the Earth was born and 3.7 billion years ago life on Earth started. 200,000 years ago current humans were born. 6000 years ago human civilisation started.
As to the reply to your question, yes, I think so. Our species were originated from a common human ancestor that appeared in some part of Africa 200,000 years ago. The number of our ancestors was considerably fewer than now.
And most important thing is as follows.
Creation? or Evolution? That's an obsolete dichotomy. It is unknown whether life was born by itself or created by God. But life evolves. If you are a creationist, you can say ' humans are a form of life that were brought by God on the Earth some 3.7 billion years ago.' If you are an evolutionist, you can say ' humans are a form of life that were born on the Earth some 3.7 billion years ago. ' Life evolves, but nobody knows the origin of life was spontaneously appeared or brought by some intelligent Being with intention.
Prev: hailNext: On measuring global warming

Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded


mikemol wrote on Jun 18Hear, hear. This is a point often lost in the polarization of the issue.I think the origin of the 6,000-year-old Earth concept was specifically to counter the concept of evolution.Another way of looking at it, though, is that the Earth could have been created 6000 years ago, with all the evidence of evolution already in place, and a universe consisting of physical laws that support the evolution hypothesis. In such a case, it doesn't really matter when the Earth was created, just that we can perform science under the assumption that it's much older than 6,000 years.The whole debate is wonky.


infinitemonkey wrote on Jun 18
mikemol said think the origin of the 6,000-year-old Earth concept was specifically to counter the concept of evolution. The 6,000 year idea is much older than modern evolutionary theory. The specific version used by Young Earth Creationists originated with a 17th-century attempt to try and make a guess at an exact date for the creation of the Earth based on a literal interpretation of the Bible by John Ussher, an Anglican archbishop in northern Ireland in 1642. However, other similar such attempts were made as long ago as the early Middle Ages, such as by the Venerable Bede (a favorite author of mine, actually, a monk considered to be the father of English history) in the early 8th century AD.Of course, it's pretty stupid to cling to the notion, because even at the time most educated people (particularly scientists and philosophers and even many theologians) didn't think a literal attempt to deduce a specific timeframe from the Bible was worthwhile.Cheers,Ethelred


siliconjesus wrote on Jun 19There like some issue with the Catholic faith, as the Church portrays itself as infallible, and the Vatican has stood with the "Young Earth" model for the last couple hundred years, therefore, even if they agree that its wrong they cannot openly admit it, for it would show that the Church was wrong. Its part of why Pope John Paul II caught so much flack from the more conservative parts of the Church while he was pope, as he wasn't afraid to overturn previous papal law.


infinitemonkey wrote on Jun 19
siliconjesus saidThere like some issue with the Catholic faith, as the Church portrays itself as infallible, and the Vatican has stood with the "Young Earth" model for the last couple hundred years, therefore, even if they agree that its wrong they cannot openly admit it, for it would show that the Church was wrong. Not quite true. Catholic teaching essentially says that only certain specific things are to be held as definitive or infallible. Not everything taught by the church is in fact "infallible"; in reality very few specific things taught by the Roman Catholic Church are or ever were labeled as such (though the distinction wasn't terribly useful or interesting to people like Galileo, who ended up being persecuted anyway).The word "infallible" has a specific legal meaning in Catholic theology (that which is taught and defined by the Sacred Magisterium). The Roman Catholic Church has in fact reversed itself on Creationism, the heliocentric model and other areas. None of those things would be possible if its teachings had been infallibly held in those areas.The Catholic Church readily admits it was wrong on things like evolution, and has changed its position. It will not and cannot change its position on things like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, however, because that is indeed something infallibly held and to reverse itself on that would indeed destroy the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.Cheers,Ethelred


iamrevmike wrote on Jun 20
infinitemonkey saidNot quite true. Catholic teaching essentially says that only certain specific things are to be held as definitive or infallible. Not everything taught by the church is in fact "infallible"; in reality very few specific things taught by the Roman Catholic Church are or ever were labeled as such Thanks, Ethelred. This idea of the "infallible pope" has been used for a long time to drive anti-Catholic bigotry. It simply isn't true, at least in the way it is communicated to many non-Catholics.Essentially, there are three levels of teachings in the Church: Tradition, Doctrine, and Dogma. Traditions are the lowest level, and can be changed fairly readily. It is a tradition that the priests of the Roman Rite must be celibate. Since it is only a tradition, it can even be set aside in certain circumstances, such as when an married Anglican priest decides to join the true Church. Doctrine is a middle ground of teaching. Doctrine does change, but usually very slowly. It is doctrine that only males can become priests. It is possible for Pope Benedict to issue a new teaching tomorrow reversing the Church's position on that. Catholics are free to disagree with doctrine, and argue that a particular doctrine should be changed. Dogma is the infallible teaching of the Church, and cannot be changed. There is very little dogma. The Nicene Creed probably describes most of the dogma of the Church.In the very rare occasions that the Pope issues an infallible teaching, that teaching must have the effect of raising an already established Doctrine to to level of Dogma. If the Pope says "I think a ham sandwich would be good for lunch today," it doesn't mean that all Catholics must believe that today, ham sandwiches are indeed good for lunch. They can have a BLT or a Waldorf Salad and still be good Catholics.The dogma of papal infallibility was formally defined in 1870. In the 137 years since, a Pope has only issued a single infallible teaching - elevating the Assumption of Mary to a dogmatic teaching.

infinitemonkey wrote on Jun 20
iamrevmike said such as when an married Anglican priest decides to join the true Church Now now, tut tut. ;-)Though in point of fact there are many who argue that Rome does, in fact, argue that the position on female priests is in fact part of the Sacred Magisterium and thus infallible. It is still a hotly debated issue.I hear Tony Blair is having an audience with the Pope soon. I bet he's negotiating the acceptance of Rome into the Church of England. :-DCheers,Ethelred

btlzu2 wrote on Jun 20hehe--you two are so cute when you disagree about religion and mike acts all 'superior and one true churchy' and you respond by being all 'anglicans rock dood' and i'm all 'whatever--way too complicated for a bunch of myths' and then everyone else is all '*sigh*, they're at it again', and...and...and! ;)can't we all just get along? :D


infinitemonkey wrote on Jun 20, edited on Jun 20Actually, the point of Anglicanism isn't that "Anglicans rock" (my remark was tongue in cheek). The point of Anglicanism is precisely "can't we all just get along". ;-)(EDIT: Read about the Via Media and how Anglicanism developed, and you begin to get the idea.)The notion of Anglicans forcibly taking over much of anything is a bit of an oxymoron. It's almost like Unitarian Jihad. Which is more or less the way I think it should be.Cheers,Ethelred


mercedo wrote on Jun 19According to Genesis description, God created the Earth in six days and the seventh day he took a rest. Here one day for God ia equivalent to one billion year in human standard. In the same manner, it is well explicable if we interpret 6000 years as 6 billion years. Here one year by God is equal to one million year in men. We oughtn't to forget Bible is God's word, not men's. We'd better take a rest for the next 1 billion years.

ignoti wrote on Jun 19
mercedo saidWe oughtn't to forget Bible is God's word, not men's. The Bible purports to be the word of god, but the fact that the Bible as exists is a political by-product of the Nicene council and two-thousand years of manipulation, makes that claim seem unlikely.


mercedo wrote on Jun 19I think many Bible accounts are backed in historical viewpoint, though, we'd better consider part of them like a book of Ruth, Esther, or Job as some story not necessarily backed in the light of accurate history. That said what Bible contributed to humans are enormous, especially when it comes to general education.


ignoti wrote on Jun 19Having a valid historical viewpoint is different from having legitimate historical verification.


infinitemonkey wrote on Jun 19I don't know what political manipulation or by-product you mean. The canon of the Bible was already quite stable by the time Nicaea took place (there were lists of books floating around that were quite consistent already from the earliest days -- Nicaea just codified them), and the canon has remained remarkably stable since (with the exception of Luther tossing out the Apocrypha).Why anyone would believe there would be some sinister political machinations at work on the Bible, I don't know. If you read the Sermon on the Mount and all the anti-authoritarian stuff that remained (you know, tossing out the money-changers, blessed are the meek, rich men having as much chance of getting into Heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle and all that) while reading the stuff that didn't make the cut (some pretty amazingly misogynistic stuff -- the Gnostics had some batshit crazy woman-haters among them*) then any charges of "manipulation" start to look pretty farcical."Da Vinci Code" made good theater, but the actual reality of the Bible's history is a lot more mundane. The good stuff really is what made the editor's cut.Cheers,Ethelred* - Classic example from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas: Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females do not deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven." The Gnostics generally viewed the female gender as the counterpart to the evil and insane Demiurge. Yeah, all love and roses, those Gnostics.


ignoti wrote on Jun 19, edited on Jun 19I don't mean overt political machinations, but you cannot deny that the Bible has been changed over the past two thousand years. The first manipulation was the fact that the books of the New Testament weren't written for many decades after the fact. The second manipulation was the conversion by Constantine I, and the subsequent establishment of a rigid "church" from what had been many different competing beliefs. The canon of the Bible may have been stable, but it wasn't the only "canon", nor the only interpretation. The Nicene council codified one interpretation of the Bible at the expense of other less centralized beliefs.

infinitemonkey wrote on Jun 19, edited on Jun 19What "changes" there have been in the Bible have not been of any particular doctrinal substance. Even though the NT was "written down" some decades after the events described, it does record oral tradition fairly soon after the events by the standards of the day, in some cases within living memory. Thus much of the criticism of the canon of the Bible doesn't hold up to closer scrutiny.What is noticeable about the "rigid" structure of the Church that you criticize is the kinds of people who ended up leaving the Church at the time. The Gnostics are often portrayed as latter-day fun-loving hippies wronged by the big bad church. The quote I mentioned above is just one example of the reality. The Circumcellions and Donatists are another couple of examples. Those "competing beliefs" that the Church cast off were the loony extremists, in some cases the bin Ladens and Jim Jones of their day (I'm not exaggerating).What is truly remarkable about the whole Nicaea process is to see what was left over -- a Church that was decentralized and kept a lot of that remarkable anti-authoritarian love-your-neighbor stuff intact, even while being the state religion of the Emperors. The Papacy we know today didn't exist yet at that point (Rome was just another patriarch, "first among equals") and the Patriarchs competed with one another for dominance. It was a quite different sort of Christianity from the Roman Catholic Church you see today, though Rome of course claims continuity with it (Orthodoxy is probably closer to the original on that score).It is easy to look back at Nicaea today through the prism of what happened 1000 years later, after the Great Schism and the ascendancy of Rome. But Nicaea itself was a totally different ballgame and a truly remarkable event. The Christian Church in those days was indeed rather democratic (bishops and clergy were very often elected -- something Rome eroded over the centuries) and decentralized (multiple patriarchs and exarchs). In fact it's an ideal many of us Christians dearly want to go back to, except that Rome keeps getting in the way. :-PCheers,Ethelred

ignoti wrote on Jun 19
infinitemonkey saidWhat "changes" there have been in the Bible have not been of any particular doctrinal substance. The existence of any changes to the Bible seem to readily prove that the Bible isn't the infallible word of God - to me at least.Of course, I'm not a Christian, so what does my opinion matter?

infinitemonkey wrote on Jun 19If there were substantive changes, you would have a point. But there haven't been. The core of the Bible has been quite consistent, even across the various divergent splinters of the Church that have arisen over the centuries. What has diverged is mainly interpretation of that core, not the actual text itself, and unfortunately experience has shown that most any body of text is, in the right hands, useful for manipulation and propaganda -- even science.The lesson to be learned is not that the Bible or changes to it are to blame for anything wrong with us today. The lesson is that people have to question and challenge authority and received wisdom in all its forms (including conspiracy theories related to the Bible :-P ). Unless and until people do that, we're screwed no matter what Utopian vision people want to peddle.Your opinion matters even as a non-Christian, which is why I'm debating the point with you. ;-)Cheers,Ethelred


mercedo wrote on Jun 20
infinitemonkey saidWhat has diverged is mainly interpretation of that core, not the actual text itself, The oldest text of Old Testament was Aleppo Codex edited in 920 AD till 1947, but parts of them were lost since then. Now the oldest complete one is Leningrad Codex edited in 1008 AD. From　6th AD to 10th AD, Old Testament had been carefully copied by Masoretes, but even decisive findings in 20th century were the famous Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in 1947, those texts were carefully stored in the first century BC by Essenes. All the texts found in these codices, Masoretic texts and Dead Sea Scrolls were strikingly similar except for a few differences in some words. In the case of New Testament, we can find just too many codices. The Bible that we read today is the result of all those countless textual examinations. What kept Bible as what we read today is the power of faith. People all concerned Bible believed Bible is God's word. Therefore they earnestly worked to keep his word as it's originally written. I am certainly not the one who intend to overexaggarate the power of faith, though, that was faith that kept one of the precious historical record of our times.

mercedo wrote on Jun 20
infinitemonkey saidEven though the NT was "written down" some decades after the events described, it does record oral tradition fairly soon after the events by the standards of the day, in some cases within living memory. Four gospels were written decades after the crucification. People later days often wonder why his record didn't start being written soon after the event. The answer might be that it always takes sometime for the people to realise the importance of someone's teachings. In the case of Jesus, people didn't realise it soon after his death. But even 20 years or 30 years after his death, his influence was far from dying away but had kept on spreading in Levant, so people who knew his teachings directly started to feel the necessity of keeping the record of his novel idea."the owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk" - HegelAny man would vanish in a labyrinth of oblivion unless his deeds and words were written down. People were about to forget his deed and word after some decades, then people decided to keep the record at this very moment.

mercedo wrote on Jun 20
infinitemonkey said But Nicaea itself was a totally different ballgame and a truly remarkable event. My understanding about Nicaea council in 325 AD is thatMonotheism was originally started by Moses in 1300 BC, but since it experienced the wave of Babylonian captivity in 597 BC and Greek rule 323 BC-166 BC, and finally Roman rule 63 BC, monotheistic tradition Moses firmly established was shivering at the time Jesus was born. Christianity was originated from Judaism basically adopting other traditions, making a unique shape. How to deal with Arianism was the main topic in Nicaea, because unitarianism Arius taught was basically in line with monotheistic tradition, but in fact Constantine had to deal with many other aspects Christianity at that time inevitably held in itself like what is the position Jesus occupies in Christianity, how about many angels like Michael, Gabriel, etc. Constantine needed to settle the matter and chose to adopt Athanasius doctrine, that is trinity. Trinity was convenient to explain many aspects in early Christianity. Arian unitarianism as well as Gnosticism kept on surviving till today beside the main stream of Christian denominations.


samthebutcher wrote on Jun 18Well reasoned.:)

mercedo wrote on Jun 19I met you in Slashdot street for the first time. I encountered you in devianArt, next in last Fm. Now I stumbled upon you in camp. We both were to be a refuge anyway.


lpetrazickis wrote on Jun 19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossilThe idea of a missing link went out with muttonchops. Hopefully, my muttonchops are not bringing it back.:P


mercedo wrote on Jun 19Although other animals chose to cohabit with animals kin to themselves, current human species chose to eliminate primates whose domains and kingdoms are closer to humans for fear that those closer species might start attacking the current humans. That's my assumption as to why the link is missing. Civilisation means massacre and annihilation rather than construction and cohabitation. Missing link is the proof of men's cruelty.


mercedo wrote on Jun 19Although other animals chose to cohabit with animals kin to themselves, current human species chose to eliminate primates whose domains and kingdoms are closer to humans for fear that those closer species might start attacking the current humans. That's my assumption as to why the link is missing. Civilisation means massacre and annihilation rather than construction and cohabitation. Missing link is the proof of men's cruelty.

crashpryor wrote on Jun 19
mercedo saidOur species were originated from a common human ancestor that appeared in some part of Africa 200,000 years ago. The number of our ancestors was considerably fewer than now. ...I've been reading about this sort of thing since I was old enough to get a library card (the digs/ findings around the Olduvai Gorge; La Cava de Juesos in Spain; those crypts with fossilized flowers in them found near Mesopatamia) tell me that the evidence is there...I've read at one point in time Homo Sapiens were an "endangered species" at one point with a population close to that of the Silverback Gorilla (!)...I've always held that our virus-like spread all over the globe was a product of evolution and everytime I hear that canard about "Noah having dinosaurs on his Ark" I want to laugh...when I got that first library card, I stopped reading fairy tales too..


btlzu2 wrote on Jun 19oh man, you don't think this happened??? :)

mercedo wrote on Jun 20I agree that homo sapiens was an endangered species. He must have needed to start using his intelligence to survive. I don't think Noah collected one pair of dinosaurs in his ark. If he did so, we would keep on being an endangered species as we used to be. He was wise enough not to.

Flashback

Why Apocrypha Was Apocrypha
Jun 22, '07 1:03 AMby Mer Cedo for group circularrefuge

Apocrypha refers to the collection of books written between the end of Old Testament around 500 BC and the beginning of the New Testament around 50 AD. Basically the Old Testament is a record between 1300 BC to 500 BC and the New Testament between 50 AD to 100 AD. Apocrypha covers those missing links between two testaments.
During that period, Jewish cultures were on the verge of extinction. Overall Hellenisation was on the process in those Levant area. Antiochus (reigned 175 -163) was probably sarcastically called Epiphanes and went too far to proceed this movement. But many important books were written, those include
>1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras) 2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras) Tobit Judith Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24) Wisdom Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach) Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy (all part of Vulgate Baruch) Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90) Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13) The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14) Prayer of Manasses 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees -From Wikipaedia
Those Apocrypha books were included in Catholic Canon but excluded from Protestant Bible in the Reformation in 16c.
My assumption why Apocrypha was excluded is probably because Protestant needed to establish authority against Roman Catholic and Greed Orthodox Churches. Jewish states were reigned by Ptolemaic (323 to 198) and Selucid (198 to 166). Jewish state enjoyed its independence from 142 to 63 after the Maccabean revolt in 167 and following struggle that lasted till 142. Protestant didn't like to follow Roman and Greek authority in Church, so they went too far to hide those scriptures written during that period.
Apocrypha is just hidden, God reveals as Epiphanes.
Prev: On measuring global warmingNext: This just in from Slashdot...

Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded


slashchick wrote today at 2:37 AMI don't mean to be rude, but I'd like to ask that you not post these to Circular Refuge. Those who are interested can read them in your blog, but they don't have much to do with the /. group.


mercedo wrote today at 2:54 AMI understand you don't like to read my writings. But I believe here is the forum every member can post any post as long as it is not offensive, illegal.

?

mercedo wrote today at 2:54 AMI understand you don't like to read my writings. But I believe here is the forum every member can post any post as long as it is not offensive, illegal.

Why Apocrypha Was Apocrypha?

Why Apocrypha Was Apocrypha
Jun 22, '07 1:03 AMby Mer Cedo for group circularrefuge

Apocrypha refers to the collection of books written between the end of Old Testament around 500 BC and the beginning of the New Testament around 50 AD. Basically the Old Testament is a record between 1300 BC to 500 BC and the New Testament between 50 AD to 100 AD. Apocrypha covers those missing links between two testaments.
During that period, Jewish cultures were on the verge of extinction. Overall Hellenisation was on the process in those Levant area. Antiochus (reigned 175 -163) was probably sarcastically called Epiphanes and went too far to proceed this movement. But many important books were written, those include
>1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras) 2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras) Tobit Judith Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24) Wisdom Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach) Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy (all part of Vulgate Baruch) Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90) Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13) The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14) Prayer of Manasses 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees -From Wikipaedia
Those Apocrypha books were included in Catholic Canon but excluded from Protestant Bible in the Reformation in 16c.
My assumption why Apocrypha was excluded is probably because Protestant needed to establish authority against Roman Catholic and Greed Orthodox Churches. Jewish states were reigned by Ptolemaic (323 to 198) and Selucid (198 to 166). Jewish state enjoyed its independence from 142 to 63 after the Maccabean revolt in 167 and following struggle that lasted till 142. Protestant didn't like to follow Roman and Greek authority in Church, so they went too far to hide those scriptures written during that period.
Apocrypha is just hidden, God reveals as Epiphanes.

Why Apocrypha Was Apocrypha?

Why Apocrypha Was Apocrypha?
2007.06.22 2:02

Apocrypha refers to the collection of books written between the end of Old Testament around 500 BC and the beginning of the New Testament around 50 AD. Basically the Old Testament is a record between 1300 BC to 500 BC and the New Testament between 50 AD to 100 AD. Apocrypha covers those missing links between two testaments.
During that period, Jewish cultures were on the verge of extinction. Overall Hellenisation was on the process in those Levant area. Antiochus (175 -163)was probably sarcastically called Epiphanes but went too far to proceed this movement. But many important books were written, those include
1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras) 2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras) Tobit Judith Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24) Wisdom Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach) Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy (all part of Vulgate Baruch) Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90) Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13) The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14) Prayer of Manasses 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees
Those Apocrypha were included in Catholic Canon but excluded from Protestant Bible in the Reformation in 16c.
My assumption why Apocrypha was excluded is probably Protestant needed to establish authority against Roman Catholic and Greed Orthodox Churches. Jewish states were reigned by Ptolemaic (323 -198) and Selucid ( 198 to 166 ). Jewish state enjoyed its independence from 142 to 63 after the Maccabean revolt in 167 and following struggle that lasted till 142. Protestant didn't like to follow Roman and Greek authority in Church, so they went too far to hide those scriptures written during that period.
Apocrypha is just hidden, God reveals as Epiphanes.

Posting

mercedo wrote today at 3:54 AMHi, thank you for your posting and expressing your candid idea.

Endangered

mercedo wrote today at 3:33 AMI agree that homo sapiens was an endangered species. He must have needed to start using his intelligence to survive. I don't think Noah collected one pair of dinosaurs in his ark. If he did so, we would keep on being an endangered species as we used to be. He was wise enough not to.

Nicaea

editdeletereply
mercedo wrote today at 3:14 AM
infinitemonkey said But Nicaea itself was a totally different ballgame and a truly remarkable event. My understanding about Nicaea council in 325 AD is thatMonotheism was originally started by Moses in 1300 BC, but since it experienced the wave of Babylonian captivity in 597 BC and Greek rule 323 BC-166 BC, and finally Roman rule 63 BC, monotheistic tradition Moses firmly established was shivering at the time Jesus was born. Christianity was originated from Judaism basically adopting other traditions, making a unique shape. How to deal with Arianism was the main topic in Nicaea, because unitarianism Arius taught was basically in line with monotheistic tradition, but in fact Constantine had to settle many other aspects Christianity at that time inevitably held in itself like what is the position Jesus occupies in Christianity, how about many angels like Michael, Gabriel, etc. Constantine needed to settle the matter and chose to adopt Athanasius doctrine, that is trinity. Trinity was convenient to explain many aspects in early Christianity. Arian unitarianism as well as Gnosticism kept on surviving till today beside the main stream of Christian denominations.

Minerva

mercedo wrote today at 2:19 AM
infinitemonkey said Even though the NT was "written down" some decades after the events described, it does record oral tradition fairly soon after the events by the standards of the day, in some cases within living memory.
Four gospels were written decades after the crucification. People later days often wonder why his record didn't start being written soon after the event. The answer might be that it always takes sometime for the people to realise the importance of someone's teachings. In the case of Jesus, people didn't realise it soon after his death. But even 20 years or 30 years after his death, his influence was far from dying away but had kept on spreading in Levant, so people who knew his teachings directly started to feel the necessity of keeping the record of his novel idea.
"the owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk" - Hegel
Any man would vanish in a labyrinth of oblivion unless his deeds and words were written down. People were about to forget his deed and word after some decades, then people decided to keep the record at this very moment.

Codecies

mercedo wrote today at 1:08 AM
infinitemonkey said What has diverged is mainly interpretation of that core, not the actual text itself,

The oldest text of Old Testament was Aleppo Codex edited in 920 AD till 1947, but parts of them were lost since then. Now the oldest complete one is Leningrad Codex edited in 1008 AD. From　6th AD to 10th AD, Old Testament had been carefully copied by Masoretes, but even decisive findings in 20th century were the famous Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in 1947, those texts were carefully stored in the first century BC by Essenes. All the texts found in these codices, Masoretic texts and Dead Sea Scrolls were strikingly similar except for a few differences in some words. In the case of New Testament, we can find just too many codices. The Bible that we read today is the result of all those countless textual examinations. What kept Bible as what we read today is the power of faith. People all concerned Bible believed Bible is God's word. Therefore they earnestly worked to keep his word as it's originally written. I am certainly not the one who intend to overexaggarate the power of faith, though, that was faith that kept one of the precious historical record of our times.

Homo sapiens spiritus

Re:Creation AND Evolution(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.19 3:46 (#19554593) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.17 22:13)
You are absolutely right. Probably we are subspecies and distinctive from humans before Adam.
If we were able to be a being that is free from the restraint of physical boundary, we would be rightly called 'evolved'. Homo sapiens spiritus will be the next new species. It will need another Biblical day -one billion years though.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Historical Viewpoint

mercedo wrote today at 2:44 AMI think many Bible accounts are backed in historical viewpoint, though, we'd better consider part of them like a book of Ruth, Esther, or Job as some story not necessarily backed in the light of accurate history. That said what Bible contributed to humans are enormous, especially when it comes to general education.

Missing Link

mercedo wrote today at 2:02 AMAlthough other animals chose to cohabit with animals kin to themselves, current human species chose to eliminate primates whose domains and kingdoms are closer to humans for fear that those closer species might start attacking the current humans. That's my assumption as to why the link is missing. Civilisation means massacre and annihilation rather than construction and cohabitation. Missing link is the proof of men's cruelty.

A Refuge

mercedo wrote today at 1:26 AMI met you in Slashdot street for the first time. I encountered you in devianArt, next in last Fm. Now I stumbled upon you in camp. We both were to be a refuge anyway.

Exchange Rate

mercedo wrote today at 1:17 AMAccording to Genesis description, God created the Earth in six days and the seventh day he took a rest. Here one day for God ia equivalent to one billion year in human standard. In the same manner, it is well explicable if we interpret 6000 years as 6 billion years. Here one year by God is equal to one million year in men. We oughtn't to forget Bible is God's word, not men's. We'd better take a rest for the next 1 billion years.

Unit Alteration

Unit Alteration (Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.18 2:24 (#19542015) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.17 22:13)
We learned we ought not to take the figures in Genesis as they are, some include exaggeration like the earth was created in 'one' day or Methusela lived up to nearly '1000' years old. We need to interpret them as one day is equal to one billion year for example and 1000 years old was 100 years old, etc.
In the same manner it's just fine for us all to interpret young earth creationist's claim like the Earth was created 10000 years ago as one year is equal to 457 thousand years. Then mathematically their claim will be in accordance with the result of current archaeological achievement.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Difference

Difference(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.18 0:51 (#19541331) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.17 22:13)
Those who got bachelor's degree think whether it was necessary. Those who didn't go to college think it was necessary.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Creation? or Evolution?

Missing link is a hypothesis there might have existed the pre humans that connect apes to modern humans. The reason of this claim is as follows. Although we can find many species closer to each other in the case of other animals, we can't find a closer species to modern humans. So assumption here is we must have had pre humans that were much closer to modern humans but we haven't found them -that is called ' missing link'. And the archaeological evidence that proves the existence of pre humans are not found yet. Missing link is used somehow to explain human's unique existence from other species. Missing link is supportive to creationist' s insistence.
Even if some result proves man's existence merely dated back to 6000 years ago, that doesn't tell anything whether humans existed before 6000 years ago.
Evolution was led from many scientific experiments and partly from archaeological evidence, but not entirely from artifacts. Lack of evidence in artifacts has nothing to do with the support of any theories.
So whatever the reason some believe a man was created by God around 6000 years ago.
But I believe 4.57 billion years ago the Earth was born and 3.7 billion years ago life on Earth started. 200,000 years ago current humans were born. 6000 years ago human civilisation started.
As to the reply to your question, yes, I think so. Our species were originated from a common human ancestor that appeared in some part of Africa 200,000 years ago. The number of our ancestors was considerably fewer than now.
And most important thing is as follows.
Creation? or Evolution? That's an obsolete dichotomy. It is unknown whether life was born by itself or created by God. But life evolves. If you are a creationist, you can say ' humans are a form of life that were brought by God on the Earth some 3.7 billion years ago.' If you are an evolutionist, you can say ' humans are a form of life that were born on the Earth some 3.7 billion years ago. ' Life evolves, but nobody knows the origin of life was spontaneously appeared or brought by some intelligent Being with intention.

Creation? or Evolution?

Creation? or Evolution?
2007.06.17 22:13

Missing link is a hypothesis there might have existed the pre humans that connect apes to modern humans. The reason of this claim is as follows. Although we can find many species closer to each other in the case of other animals, we can't find a closer species to modern humans. So assumption here is we must have had pre humans that were much closer to modern humans but we haven't found them -that is called ' missing link'. And the archaeological evidence that proves the existence of pre humans are not found yet. Missing link is used somehow to explain human's unique existence from other species. Missing link is supportive to creationist' s insistence.
Even if some result proves man's existence merely dated back to 6000 years ago, that doesn't tell anything whether humans existed before 6000 years ago.
Evolution was led from many scientific experiments and partly from archaeological evidence, but not entirely from artifacts. Lack of evidence in artifacts has nothing to do with the support of any theories.
So whatever the reason you believe a man was created by God around 6000 years ago.
But I believe 4.57 billion years ago the Earth was born and 3.7 billion years ago life on Earth started. 200,000 years ago current humans were born. 6000 years ago human civilisation started.
As to the reply to your question, yes, I think so. Our species were originated from a common human ancestor that appeared in some part of Africa 200,000 years ago. The number of our ancestors was considerably fewer than now.
And most important thing here.
Creation? or Evolution? That's an obsolte dichotomy. It is unknown whether life was born by itself or created by God. But life evolves. If you are a creationist, you can say ' humans are a form of life that were brought by God on the Earth some 3.7 billion years ago.' If you are an evolutionist, you can say ' humans are a form of life that were born on the Earth some 3.7 billion years ago. ' Life evolves, but nobody knows the origin of life was spontaneouly appeared or brought by some intelligent Being with intention.

Gnash

mercedo wrote today at 10:58 PM

I gnash all the seeds and swallow them together with the juicy red part.

Creation? or Evolution?

Creation? or Evolution?
2007.06.17 22:13

Missing link is a hypothesis there might have existed the pre humans that connect apes to modern humans. The reason of this claim is as follows. Although we can find many species closer to each other in the case of other animals, we can't find a closer species to modern humans. So assumption here is we must have had pre humans that were much closer to modern humans but we haven't found them -that is called ' missing link'. And the archaeological evidence that proves the existence of pre humans are not found yet. Missing link is used somehow to explain human's unique existence from other species. Missing link is supportive to creationist' s insistence.
Even if some result proves man's existence merely dated back to 6000 years ago, that doesn't tell anything whether humans existed before 6000 years ago.
Evolution was led from many scientific experiments and partly from archaeological evidence, but not entirely from artifacts. Lack of evidence in artifacts has nothing to do with the support of any theories.
So whatever the reason you believe a man was created by God around 6000 years ago.
But I believe 4.57 billion years ago the Earth was born and 3.7 billion years ago life on Earth started. 200,000 years ago current humans were born. 6000 years ago human civilisation started.
As to the reply to your question, yes, I think so. Our species were originated from a common human ancestor that appeared in some part of Africa 200,000 years ago. The number of our ancestors was considerably fewer than now.
And most important thing here.
Creation? or Evolution? That's an obsolte dichotomy. It is unknown whether life was born by itself or created by God. But life evolves. If you are a creationist, you can say ' humans are a form of life that were brought by God on the Earth some 3.7 billion years ago.' If you are an evolutionist, you can say ' humans are a form of life that were born on the Earth some 3.7 billion years ago. ' Life evolves, but nobody knows the origin of life was spontaneouly appeared or brought by some intelligent Being with intention.

Life Evolves

Hello, ***

I spend today Sunday with my girlfriend.

I plan to come to Tuesday's meeting if it's not rainy.

I come on Thursday, so I'm sure I see you then.

Here's the reply to your recent mail.

Missing link is a hypothesis there might have existed the pre humans that connect apes to modern humans. The reason of this cliam is as follows. Although we can find many species closer to each other in the case of other animals, we can't find a closer species to modern humans. So asumption here is we must have had pre humans that were much closer to modern humans but we haven't found them -that is called ' missing link'. And the archaeological evidence that proves the existence of pre humans are not found yet. Missing link is used somehow to explain human's unique existence from other species. Missing link is supportive to creationist' s insistence.

Even if some result proves man's existence merely dated back to 6000 years ago, that doesn't tell anything whether humans existed before 6000 years ago.
Evolution was led from many scientific experiments and partly from archaeological evidence, but not entirely from artifacts. Lack of evidence in artifacts has nothing to do with the support of any theories.
So whatever the reason you believe a man was created by God around 6000 years ago.

But I believe 4.57 billion years ago the Earth was born and 3.7 billion years ago life on Earth started. 200,000 years ago current humans were born. 6000 years ago human civilisation started.

As to the reply to your question, yes, I think so. Our species were originated from a common human ancestor that appeared in some part of Africa 200,000 years ago.
The number of our ancestors was considerably fewer than now.

And most important thing here.

It was unknown whether life was born by itself or created by God. But life evolves. If you are a creationist, you can say ' humans are a form of life that were brought by God on the Earth some 3.7 billion years ago.' If you are an evolutionist, you can say ' humans are a form of life that were born on the Earth some 3.7 billion years ago. ' Life evolves, but nobody knows the origin of life was spontaneouly appeared or brought by some intelligent Being with intention.

Mer