“'Taking something literally' is a strange but common expression in itself.
Even the Pope agrees that some statements in the Bible are not true.
...Evolution v.s. creationism, earth centric universe, etc.
I look at it as if the first (or one of the first LOL) books of knowledge. Written to help those who read it.
Written by men who had a different point of view than we have now.
We've progressed in our understanding, perhaps from the time of Aristotle due to his logic.
We call it science. But truth, or knowledge, or understanding, or best guess also work.
Ancient beliefs based upon ancient texts have continued, due to organizations of men promoting them. People still are taught from early childhood to accept the Bible as true, ...and so they do, and their world view as adults often is confused. they want to believe, and so they walk the walk, but even without knowing formal logic, they see evidence contradicting their beliefs.
With proper eduction in science and logic some children are able to break free from a confused belief system and accept that mankind does not have all the answers for all his questions.
With luck the future may find us calling the currently practiced religions, mythologies.
Do you take a myth literally ?”
ChicagoKev on Aug 10, 2011 at 10:30:41
“The pope leads a church that merged pagan beliefs with early Christianity. Of course he can't take it literally or he would have to change the church he leads in some very fundamental ways.”
RichieB on Aug 10, 2011 at 09:12:05
“I agree. The bible is based on storys and myths used to explain what people of those times were not able to understand and explain. One needs to look no further than the first book of Genesis to find an example of why the bible shouldn't be taken literally. Today's scientific knowledge totally discredits that myth. But religious fundamentalism is based on faith not science. So the church promotes blind faith as a way of maintaining it's congregations and known science is discouraged. To credit the Catholic church, the Vatican has acknowledged the big bang because they have astronomy observatories. They also proclaimed that it is possible that aliens from other worlds may exist.”
Aug 4, 2011 at 03:23:52
“...vibrational energy was represented by the equation: ?”
JackBaker on Aug 4, 2011 at 08:46:18
“Everything including thoughts have a frequency or vibrate - thoughts have a frequency and are electrical impulses. see ref. Richard Davidson Univ. of Wis. thoughts and conscousness and his work with the Dali Lama. See the Theory of Rel. A. Einstein - and his ref. to photons, Feynman, Hawking, all say the same thing Baksa is saying - they cannot go as far since they are speaking purely in terms of science and mathamatics. Baksa is talking in terms of application to the human experience and how we can best learn and apply. If he is right - waiting for science to catch up and prove using quantum mechanics would not be in our best interest. All good science starts with a modicum of faith (Max Planck)”
“Your logic is flawless. However, you have not shown that your first argument of your syllogism is true. I think most of us would agree that our brains are not the same thing as the universe, and so your conclusion is proved to be true. ...It might be true, but you have not proved it. good try though.”
JShankel on Jul 13, 2011 at 18:31:29
“Hence the use of the word "if."
But to address the point, our brains are clearly not synonymous with the universe, but they are clearly part of the universe.
"Universe" is defined as everything that exists. Things besides our brains exist, therefore the universe is larger than our brains. On the other hand, our brains clearly exist, therefore they are part of the universe.
If part of an entity does something, it is permissible to claim that that entity does a thing.
The Pope, for example, wears a funny hat. The Pope's spleen doesn't wear a funny hat. His head does.”
“Girls mature earlier? ...This depends on your definition of maturity. Teen girls can be in a hurry to be moms while the boys are thinking more about their careers. From my observations the women really don't begin to focus on careers and politics etc. until the nest is empty. Blame TV or society but girls still grow up expecting a Prince Charming to come along and make their life easy.
Boys play sports which teach them how to work as part of a team. Girls on the other hand have traditionally missed this experience and so have more delicate egos. A work team of women generally includes the ideas of all just to keep the peace ...while a crew of men concerns itself with ideas best for the end project without regard for the individual egos. A job interview with a woman concludes with her asking about days off, pay rate and benefits while the man's interview ends with questions about what's involved in doing the job well. Again, this is just a generalization, but the guys are better team players while the gals are more concerned with themselves.”
Courtney Juds on Jun 28, 2011 at 00:59:35
“Okay let's talk here, you say that women don't know how to work as a team because we don't do sports, and maybe that was true fifty years ago but since title nine passed just as many girls play sports as guys. (Then again guys think that women's sports are stupid and pointless and have no problem saying so.) And lets look at your team playing skills, how about basketball for instance where in college players will play just to look good for the NBA draft and in both the NBA and college there is an "it's all about me" mentality. Job interviews with women end with questions about days off and pay because we are the ones expected to have the babies and take time off when the kids are sick. We also know that women make less than 90 cent to the dollar a man makes so questioning our pay seems like kind of a good idea. So while guys may be better "team player's" women know how to compromise and look towards the future. And we don't look for prince charming to make our lives easy, we are looking for a guy that will stand by us and support us rather than making us the little house wife you seem to think we should be.”
“You asked if it might be because women earn less? They do earn less but it's not just because of the availability of education... it's got a lot to do with them being physically less able. I know it's a generalization, but the very difficult physical jobs just don't appeal to girls. You don't find them wanting to (as often) become a wielder, or tree planter, or machinist, etc. Given a choice between hiking through the mountains with a pack full of trees or selling notions in a department store, we would all elect for the easier job were it not for the higher rate of pay for the rougher job. When it comes to hard labor, it is the incentive of better pay which fills the positions. Equal education will not resolve this. Equal pay will only cause the men to likewise flock to the easier jobs now dominated by women.
Blame nature, or blame it on our mate selection over the last million years, but in general, the women just can't compete with the men physically.”
caugrl on Jun 27, 2011 at 22:58:03
“What century are you living in? I work with teens and the females are more likely to graduate with honors than the males are. The boys are full of pipe dreams about being a basketball player or a football player when the reality is that the vast majority of them will never become a pro. The girls hold ALL the positions in the student government. I personally know a female Marine who could take you on physically. She has her act together and she makes rank faster than the male Marines I know because she is driven- her only hurdle is she can't be in infantry. Females don't take jobs that are low paying because they are afraid to work hard; actually, the males I know are much more likely to be couch potatoes than the females I know. Women make less, because society has raised us to help out the community- the jobs that help people the most are the low paying jobs. The jobs where you are only in it for yourself pay the most. I have been on job interviews and have NEVER been more interested in the vacations than in how to do the job properly. BTW-there is no way that my job is easier than the vast majority of jobs I see males do. Why is brawn more valued than brains? Because our male constructed society has set it up as so. Yours truely, a female who was in several high school sports.”
lolly caust on Jun 27, 2011 at 17:49:59
“the gender pay gap isn't about comparing different pay in different fields, frank.
it's about comparing the pay gap between people doing the exact same jobs.
let's look at doctors:
In 2007, male anesthesiologists earned over $59,000 more than female anesthesiologists. Male anesthesiologists earned an annual salary of $352,823, compared to female earnings of $293,543 per year.
As salaries increased, the wage gap decreased, but the difference was still significant.
In 2010, female anesthesiologists earned $313,529 annually.
Male anesthesiologists earned $368,654 per year, which computes to over $55,000 more than female anesthesiologists.
The labor market doesn't pay for danger or physical demand. Let me quote the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
"In sum, the duties most highly valued by the marketplace are generally cognitive or supervisory in nature. Job attributes relating to interpersonal relationships do not seem to affect wages, nor do the attributes of physically demanding or dangerous jobs."