The "special interests" are the experts. Would you trust even the most
enlightened legislator to determine the tariff on imported hydrogenated yak
Just yesterday the House voted on a 1,000 page environmental/tax bill, none
of whom had read it. As bad as that was, they included a 300-page amendment
that starts out: "Page 3, Section 101(b) strike all the words beginning with
'Absalom' thru the first occurance of 'gaggle,' substituting 'Battle of
Agincourt' for the struck-out portion."
Not exactly. In Judaism, the method for interpretation is vested within the
revealed word of God himself ("If a matter comes before you, take it to the
Sages of the Generation and be bound thereby"). In the Catholic tradition,
the authority for interpretation is vested with the Church as an institution
("As you ordain on earth, so shall it be in heaven"). In the non-Catholic
tradition, authority is placed upon the individual, guided by the Holy
Mostly, these different methods reach the same conclusion, i.e., murder is
Sometimes these methods reach different conclusions, i.e., abortion. The
Church says "never;" Judaism says "sometimes yes, but mostly no;" The
non-Catholic tradition generally has no institutional standard on the issue.
Which is all a bunch of bury 'em in BS bafflegab that ignores the point,
which is that there is little agreement among the major religions on what
constitutes morality, making the decision an arbitrary one by some authority
or other (since you are being as pedantic as an Asperger's patient about the
word "church"). And you go on about Judaism, "the Catholic tradition", and
"the non-Catholic tradition", but you totally ignore the fact that most of
the people in the world are not Jews or Christians.
I have witnessed a miracle. A real one. Too bad this forum has a few
people who would like to take potshots at the story if I told it.
And we ain't talking Jesus' image in burnt toast here.
Your sister, me too. My sister just came home from the hospital and what
happened to her this month shook some in our family.
No intention of taking pot shots at anyone's beliefs, but the miracles
that involve images of Biblical personages leave me a little cold. No
living person has any inkling of what anyone living in the 1st century
C.E.may have looked like. The absolute most that any such image could
resemble is what some medieval artist imagined such person would look
like. Said artist, likewise having no knowledge of the physical
appearance of said personages. But I find it hard to accept that the
Semitic peoples of that time would actually look anything like the
Of course, the images could be produced in replica of the artistic
imaginations so that we would recognize them. But if that's the case,
they can't be said to be true and accurate images of the actual
person. And that doesn't seem quite kosher to me.
More significantly, if you look at those images you realize that they could
be anybody and in fact for most of them you have to work a bit at it before
you even see a face. The fact is that humans seem to be hard-wired to see
faces even where no faces exist.
We do have contemporaneous images of real people available. Coins, statuary,
etc., dating from the time of the actual person depicted. Many great
worthies even posed for the reproduction.
Still, you're right. I've never heard of the face of Nero, or even Chester
A. Arthur, appearing in a cut cantelope.
If you want to see what people living around the time of Christ looked like,
google "fayoum portraits". The first time I saw one I was gobsmacked--I'd
never imagined that paintings of that quality had been preserved from that
time, or that that degree of realism was even used in paintings then.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.