Iam Joy

The view about adjusting population sizes by dictating reproduction treads on very dodgy ground. But I know it's one view shared by far too many people though - always from those who 'have' rather than those who 'have not', because those who have are too selfish and scared to share any of it, plus they believe that those who 'have not' are not as worthy people as they are. None of them will admit this is the reason for their view though. In the UK we have what's called the 'underclass' - these are unemployed people and everyone else living off State benefits for whatever reasons; they are not necessarily homeless or criminals. This year our government and media have been firing all their guns at the underclass during our weak economic climate; basically blaming the poor for all the nations financial issues. This has led to a surge in anti-underclass feeling in my society... it is reminiscent to me of the way the Jews were blamed for the economic slump during the birth of Nazi Germany. The underclass are the new Juden. It has led not just the public, but certain politicians to voice that it's not only morally wrong and shameful for the underclass to have more children, but that they shouldn't 'breed' at all. It's all horrifying to me. The whole argument about who should or should not 'be allowed' to reproduce is always 100% biased against the poor and against any group that the 'haves' dislike, or feel threatened by. There's never any suggestion that it's the 'haves' who shouldn't breed, or the rich, or the powerful, or the politicians. I'll bet no-one in the affluent countries with that idea wonders if their country should breed less - no, because the only population they want to stop/reduce is that one somewhere else; usually in Africa, or India, or anywhere poorer, more needy or different than they are. I'm not against birth control at all - birth control is a great thing - but arguments about which populations should 'breed' and which shouldn't, and which populations should be controlled and which shouldn't is an argument that so very easily slips into the realm of fascism and other madness.

I've been doing a lot of research on this the past few months. You're talking about the manifestation of agency and there's a ton of books and papers about this in the fields of philosophy, sociology, psychology and consciousness science. I think it may have been you asking similar questions that I replied to yesterday, but if not, I'll say the same thing and recommend you try and get hold of 'The Illusion of Conscious Will' by Daniel M Wegner - it's a brilliant, thought-provoking book. Plus if you have a New Scientist subscription read a fantastic acticle from 1998 called 'The Zombie Within' - it first got me thinking about the myth of consciousness and it's a 'must read' for anyone interested. You're right that the majority of our actions are 'unconscious' and automatic; very little of what we do requires our conscious planning and direction - even when we do think that we orchestrate a particular action it's likely that we're deceiving ourselves about the facts of the matter.

Funny how I knew exactly what MOONTANMAN would say in his reply to this :lol: I'm sorry that you're sick of looking at stuff like this MOONTANMAN; perhaps your antitheisism gets in the way, maybe - I could be wrong, but your post gives that impression. I so didn't want this to turn into a dissing session aimed at Bible folks. Personally I'm never tired of looking at strange stuff and reading odd ideas and unusual theories; I enjoy all the Fortean and Nexus stuff. I'm so glad that I've never become jaded and have never snubbed anything because it comes from a certain type of person, or from a certain type of belief system. I hope everyone else will ignore that it's a Bible site and will just look through the webpage without prejudice. I know the first thing on the page is that very unlikely-looking 'finger' that might put people off going any further, but towards the bottom of the page it gets a bit more curious (I think so anyway). I mainly wondered that if the giant femur is actually real (and if it's not then do you have proof?), does anyone with a clue actually know what animal it could have come from? Let's imagine it was actually from a bipedal 'human' then it does seem rather thin to me to bear the weight - if such a tall being ever existed I'd have thought that the femur would be far more robust than it appears in the image, which makes me think it may have been modelled on a normal-sized femur; but maybe I'm wrong. Could it be from a dino, or an elephant? I do appreciate it when people make the effort to say why they think something is fake, rather than simply dissing it or name-calling; even if they think it's something really stupidly daft. Thanks.

CRAIGD Wow! Your massive mind-boggling reply has made me go all tingly! You've given me a lot to ponder about before I can respond to it. All I can really comment on at the moment is that I'm unconvinced that giving the status of personhood to animals would put them in the same class as human persons - they would be 'animal persons' with certain rights and receive a higher moral status, but I wouldn't suggest that they could be regarded on the same level as human persons. Regarding Jewish philosophy about animals it seems very clear that it is far more well developed and far more compassionate than Christian theology. Even though Genesis 01:26-28 is very clear that humans are to "rule" (Strong's 7287) and "subdue" (Strong's 3533) the animals on Earth, and the full meaning of these words are very tough, i.e. reign, tread down, subjugate, bring into bondage, force, trample, conquer and keep under - the Jewish tradition via the Rabbis has developed a very different path regarding animals than the Christians have. I noted recently that there are a great many Jewish veggie and vegan websites. Anyway... CRAIGD... I must go now - have dogs to walk :dogwalk: so will have a think and post again another day. Live long and prosper - yup; I'm a fan too! :smile:

Hi In reply... I guess I have in my mind the brilliant TV docu I watched years ago about Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 and how difficult it was for them to recognise what they had on their slides and to then find it again and track it. I realise this was just comet-sized, but my idea is not that the supposed 'planet X' is massive, but that it is a body like Pluto or smaller (yes I know Pluto is no longer classed as a planet). Something much smaller than our moon would make a hell of an impact on Earth and destroy all life. I'm still not convinced that in the vastness of space someone, unless they were extremely lucky, would spot such an object until it was obvious and left us very little time for our final flings. Yes, I do know that so-called amateurs are very clever with great gear - I've been watching 'Sky at Night' since I was child (if you're not a Brit you won't know what that is, but nevermind). I'm going to need more proof that this is a 100% hoax and that a bloke from his shed in the garden would spot it with his scope - in reality it would be harder than finding a needle in a haystack.

I was just reading 'Is the world on the brink of cyber war?' http://uk.news.yahoo.com/cybergeddon-cyber-war-is-going-on-around-us.html I had a scan of the comments and none of them are worried in the slightest. How do you feel about the idea of global cyberwar? Do you think it's a better idea than 'real' war? How much would it impact on the general, ordinary public, and how do you think we'd cope in everyday life during/after the war?

Hi :smile: Quite by chance and good fortune I came across this amazing page full of 'proof' of things from the Bible; like giants and men living with dinosaurs - when I say "amazing" I mean that my expression was like the "What the f..k?" cat off YouTube! I think you'll also go; "What the f..k?" too when you see this page: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm It's got a ton of stuff on it with images - just please tell me if ANY of this 'proof' is actually real, or is it all stuff from Ripley's Believe it or Not? :lol: What the heck is that giant femur from? What about the other images and the claimed human footprints in/around dino prints? Is there a speck of truth/reality in any of it? I hope you won't simply diss it all without actually knowing what you're saying, just because they're Bible folk - maybe some of this is real alt. science (?)

No matter which version of Genesis 06:04 I read it doesn't say in any of them that the nephilim were the hybrid product of the mating between 'sons of God' and Earth women. Yet literally everything I've tried reading about the nephilim states as a fact that they were! I find this infuriating. Why is everyone so wrong? There are whole websites and books devoted to this false premise. I'll list a few versions of Genesis 06:04 here: "The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men which were of old, the men of renown." (English Revised Version) "The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown." (American Standard Version) "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterwards, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown." (English Standard Version) "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." (KJV) (Some other versions also refer to the nephilim as "giants") I've looked at 15 versions, plus the Hebrew, and NONE of them state that the nephilim were the offspring of women with the 'sons of God' - their mating produced the famous mighty men of old, not the nephilim - so why has everyone got this wrong? If you take a look at anything about the nephilim online you'll see they are either regarded at 'fallen angels', demons or hybrids - not as a separate race/species in their own right that existed on Earth at the same time as humans. It's very annoying and I don't understand it. Here's a breakdown of key words explained in Strong's Numbers: giants (i.e. nephilim) 5303 - 'naphal' sons 1121 of god 430 - 'ba-ne' 'elohim' mighty men 1368 - 'hag-gib-ba-sim' old 5769 - 'me-ow-lam' renown 8034 - 'has-sem' daughters 1323 of men 120 - 'ba-no-wt' 'ha-a-dam' (please note that the a should look like an upside-down 'e' letter) I also have to say that all the versions state the nephilim were either 'in' or 'on' the earth; but this is an incorrect translation as far as I can see it, because the word is 'ha-yu' masculine plural of 'hayah' (Strong's 1961) and it means; come to pass, be, belongs, belonged, came into being and many similar words. So it would be more accurate to state that "The Nephilim belonged to the land in those days" or "came from the land" ('earth' 776 being 'ba-a-res' meaning the land, ground, countryside). Genesis 06:04 clearly states that the nephilim were here BEFORE the women were mated by the 'sons of God', and also AFTER this had happened when the women bore the children of the 'sons of God'. So I cannot understand why seemingly everyone has got this so wrong. Please can anyone explain this situation to me and especially if it's my error. Thank you. :smile: I could well believe that this deliberate misunderstanding is a meme spread by the Church in order to quash the idea that there was a race/species on Earth that Eve didn't give birth to, because that would smash up their doctrine; however, there are tons of 'alternative' websites and New Age/UFO beliefs, etc, that also state the nephilim were the offspring of the 'sons of God' and women (?) How can everyone be so wrong - or is it me? ------------------- I know that the idea of the nephilim as 'fallen' comes from the meaning of 'naphal' (Strong's 5307), which is to be struck down, defeated and fallen to the ground - but personally I believe this refers to the fate of the nephilim as a race/species destined to be killed and superseded by humans (which they were later in the Bible).

But what if it was coming directly at us? Would it be possible for an ordinary amateur to recognise that unless they had the right equipment to measure its change of diameter over time; especially if they didn't recognise it on the first night and so didn't keep their telescope trained on the exact same spot? Plus, I remember several years ago a documentary saying that even with all the large telescopes working together we couldn't possibly cover the entire sky and that's why we miss so many near Earth objects until they whizz by. Thus, it seems improbable to me that even with all the amateurs watching the sky each night one of them would definitely be able to detect the approach of a large body until it was obvious to everyone that it was coming - where would they start looking? How would they know which unknown star in the sky was a body heading for us, so that they could watch it and measure its diameter increase? I think most people would like to know, even though nothing could be done; it's still good to know how long we've got left so we can try to fulfil what we want to do before we die.

Greatest and coolest TV cartoon series ever has to be 'Gargoyles' http://www.gargoyles-fans.org/ Greatest and coolest comic ever has to be 'Morbius' (only the very early Morbius comics though) http://marvel.com/universe/Morbius I was also a big fan of the TV cartoon series called 'marine boy' as a small child - it was anime and got me into anime at a very early age.

"why is the Jewish Bible considered part of the Christian Scripture?" I thought it was pretty obvious that it's because all the way through the NT there are references to verses from the OT, so you need the OT as the foundation that the NT has grown from. Besides, during christian history there have been plenty of people who have tried to begin new branches of it omitting either all, or some of the OT, but inevitably were branded heretics by the catholic church, whose doctrine has always won out in the end (until the modern day). Logically though it'd seem that if christians only need the bits of the OT that are referred to in the NT then all the rest of the OT could be omitted - which in reality is what they do anyway (i.e. with the Jewish dietary laws and punishments). Like Jesus only refers to a few books in the OT and not to any of the vile slaughter-fests (like the book of joshua) so I don't see why christians can't omit these books as it'd end a lot of religious confusion.

FORESTS hi :smile: It's all very fascinating and interesting! I shall have a read of all your links. I used to be a nurse and have witnessed the very moment of death; even in the eyes of those passing away. It is a really strange experience to behold. Many nurses see things they can't explain when people die and they only discuss it among themselves. I can well imagine that perhaps the claimed 'death flash' is simply that in some people in the final moment perhaps all the electrical and chemical energy of the body goes off all in one micro-explosion, rather than a slow fade. Even when a body is dead (human or animal) the latent energy can still cause it to move; so there is a lot to get rid of at death and maybe with some people it all goes off suddenly in a 'flash'. It's an interesting idea that this may transport the consciousness to an immaterial dimension - who knows yet - we won't be able to tell this until our science is far more advanced.

Hi BELOVELIFE :smile: There are infinite layers to existence - it is the multiverse - a scientist is supposed to have invented that word and meaning quite recently, but it's something I've known (and probably many have known) for a long long time. Eventually science will discover that all that exists is created from the quantum level and that what is at that level is the same thing in all that exists. The only difference is that it vibrates at a different frequency to be the building blocks of material existence, or immaterial existence. So yes, many layers exist, and probably most of them are immaterial. So far our science knows that we are only 5% of what exists and the other 95% we can't see/detect - so there is a LOT we don't know. I do believe there is a dimension 'layer' that is akin to 'thought' and maybe we can visit there in dreams sometimes, or in meditations. Jung wrote about the 'collective consciousness'. Some people think this may be 'heaven' where the consciousness goes and makes its own 'reality'.

Do we control our DNA, or does it control our beliefs? There is some SF online about the DNA in mitochondria being placed in 'mitochondrial Eve' by aliens and that the DNA is propogating memes through society and influencing our behaviour. It is just SF, but I've always wondered how much influence our DNA has on our thinking, seeing as we don't know the full function of our DNA yet.

If there is a small planet/body heading towards Earth that will impact us and destroy the planet I'm pretty sure that every government on Earth would do everything they could to hide it, suppress it and kill anyone who said they'd bring proof to the public. So if Planet X is actually true, how would we know? Would it be possible for unsponsored independent people with telescopes to see it coming? If it was true then there's nothing we could do anyway; right?