Hey, Squidwife, have you gone beyond space? There could be water there… 
Zev Steinhardt
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**
**
I only inferred what you implied. pldennison’s statement that there are no privileged reference frames is the customary verbal representation of the invariance requirements of general relativity. It does not mean that “everything is relative.”
I see what you’re getting at, but it’s misleading to characterize a reference frame attached to the Sun as “privileged”. In mechanics, the term “privileged reference frame” carries a strong connotation that the laws of motion are different in that frame, which is in direct opposition to the claim of general relativity that no such frames exist for a complete theory.
Referring the Earth’s motion to a reference frame attached to the Sun predates general relativity by hundreds of years. If you want to call that “privilege”, that kind of privilege went out the window in 1915. It’s got nothing to do with general relativity. pldennison can speak for himself, but I believe that was exactly his point.
I said “there is no difference between the two in relativity”, referring to the Sun and Earth frames. You said “false”.
We were discussing privileged vs. non-privileged frames. If you compute a motion using the pre-GR laws in these non-inertial frames, you won’t get the right answer unless you account for the acceleration of the frames e.g. by introducing fictitious forces. Pre-GR, the frames are different because the fictitious forces you have to introduce are different in the two frames. But if you compute the motion using the GR equations of motion, there is no need for fictitious forces. Hence my claim that the Sun and Earth frames are “not different” in GR. You said earlier that the Sun frame is “more inertial” than the Earth frame, but this is totally unrelated to the distinction between inertial and non-inertial frames. So, please elaborate on your claim that the two frames somehow differ in relativity.
I’m surprised that noone has brought up the biblical passages that encourage slavery (forgive me, I can’t remember what it is offhand)!! If Christians want a literal interpretation of the Bible, then all means they should be lobbying for the return of slavery!
Not to mention that I find all the passages that discuss submission to God (quite a few of those I’d imagine :P) and government, not to mention the submission of the human spirit (not in THAT sense!), quite disgusting!
Just a few thoughts from the resident “kook Objectivist”
Umm, altho there are verses in the OT which accept slavery;compared to the slavery which was prevelant in the times, the Jewish practice was very liberal. There were all sorts of limitations set upon the owners, far more than in any other period society. Slaves were to be set free after only 6 years of service (and when they left, they did not go empty handed, they had to be given means to make a living, eg. “thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock”), they were not to be mistreated, etc. The term “indentured servant” far better defines Isrealite 'slavery". In many ways, the Isrealites were strongly anti-slavery.
Exodus 21: 20-21 And in case a man strikes his slave man or slave girl with a stick and that one actually dies under his hand… if he lingers for a day or two days he is not to be avenged because he is his money.
So I can beat my slave so severely with a club that she dies of internal injuries after a week in unbearable pain, and nothing happens to me. I’d say that qualifies as mistreatment. If I did that to my dog they’d probably lock me up for mistreatment.
Not true; this only applies to Hebrew male slaves.
[Exod 21]
1
"These are the laws you are to set before them:
2
"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. […]
7
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.
8
If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.
9
If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. […]
20
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21
but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Leviticus 25
1
The LORD said to Moses on Mount Sinai, […]
42
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.
43
Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44
"`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45
You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46
You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Wow- talk about using a source out of context!
DITWD, do you think indentured servitude is an acceptable practice?
-Ben
Well…golly…I just guess that makes it all right, now doesn’t it? That certainly qualifies as a matter of semantics to obfuscate the situation, now doesn’t it? Indentured servititude is a contract entered into voluntarily by two people. Slavery is INvoluntary labor. I don’t have a problem with the indentured servitude because whooever enters into it freely made that choice themselves. But there IS no choice in slavery!!! It don’t matter if it’s as pretty and dressed up as Gone with the Wind…it’s still slavery nonetheless!!!
Actual quotes- Ex: 21,7>11. “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go OUT as the menservants do (I read this as saying that the “owner” may not “subcontract” or out place his new servant, she is only to work for him, and no other)8 If she please not her master, who hath BETROTHED her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing as he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, she shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him ANOTHER wife: her food, her rainment and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not do these three unto her, than shall she go free without money”. Now, in order to read this in context, you must understand that a girl could only get married if she had a dowry. Thus, if a father had no dowry for his daughter, she would go and work for a man, in effect becoming her own dowry- and it was expected that that man(or his son) would take her for a wife. Yes, to us modern folk, all this idea of a woman needing a dowry, and being practically “property” is ridiculous- but in those times it was standard practice.
And, no, nowadays “indentured servitute” is not acceptable. However, you are guilty of 'presentism", ie judging those of the past of todays standards. The isrealites of some 3000 years ago were far more liberal & humanitarian to their “servants” than any other culture, and indeed to our very own USA as little as 130 years ago. Jefferson, that well known liberal & defender of the rights of man- owned slaves that had far less rights that the servants of the Isrealis some 2>3000 years prior.
See “The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy” by C. Dennis McKinsey (Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY) for about 450 pages of examples plus commentary.
Just one of many:
Matt 13:31-32 (RSV), “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which… is the smallest of all seeds”.
No it isn’t. The orchid seed is smaller.
As many posters have pointed out, all the examples in the world won’t make any difference to a believer.
ferkrisakes- did you ever hear of poetic license? Besides, orchids are a new-world plant.
Well, I always thought that the Bible was to literally be taken at its word!!! Now you tell me that no, it’s not literal but takes a feat of interpretation?? Wow…no wonder I’m an athiest…don’t have the brainpower to over-interpret Biblical passages. And yes…I believe that history should be taken in the context of the time, and I do believe in the right to worship as you choose, but I still enjoy pointing out Christian hypocracy, and if you believe that the Bible should be taken literally, then by all means, let’s bring back some slavery!!!
“Actual quotes”? What, are you implying I did not use “actual quotes” here?
NIV: "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.
NASB: "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
You are correct that female Hebrew slaves could not be subcontracted. However, it makes no mention of women slaves being allowed to go free at any point if the female was never betrothed (though I will bow to our OT scholar here if they tell me different)–and we are only talking about Hebrew female slaves here, not the non-Hebrew slaves whom it was perfectly acceptable to keep as slaves for life.
You realize I expect you to back this up, don’t you? 
Besides, please note that you claimed that slaves were only held for six years and that they could not be mistreated, and I and Gaspode conclusively disproved that. You tend to have a very generous reading of the Bible, and cite “good” things about it, while completely ignoring the “less good” things–such as the hereditary slavery, the perfectly acceptable brutal beating of slaves, etc. So I tend to look a bit askance at your claims, when I know that you often ignore facts that do not suit your viewpoint. I do not mean to be insulting, but I do mean this as criticism: I do not trust what you say unless I can independently confim it, and you will not gain my trust until you start telling all the facts.
Just as I only inferred what pldennison implied.
He was using to support the claim that the sun rotates the Earth, which suggests that he believes that Earth’s motion is puely relative.
You’re right; pldennison was using “privilidged reference frame” in one way, and since I was responding to him, I used it in the sense that he was using it. Do agree that, in General Relativity, the preference for the sun as a reference frame is not arbitrary? That’s all I’m trying to say; the statement “the sun rotates around the Earth” is not as valid as the statement "the Earth rotates around the Earth.
I don’t understand. The latter is what makes the former true. How are they unrelated?
Well, if you take the Earth to be standing still, you’ll find that the velocity of Alpha Centauri is about a thousand times the speed of light. Since in relativity objects can’t travel faster than the speed of light, we are forced to conclude that the Earth is moving.
My biggest pet peeves are those who counter inconsistencies in the bible with the ultimate excuse ‘oh, that is clearly a problem in the translation’.
I believe the Bible is a valuable historical document, but like all historical documents, we must attempt to view it in the eyes of the people who wrote it. Reading the bible through a 21st pair of glasses and a reference vantage point that includes the Hubble, the space shuttle, vaccines, an atomic clock accurate to mere milliseconds every couple of hundreds of years, etc., is going to create problems. We have a considerably broader (not necessarily better; that is a judgement call) scientific understanding of how our world works. I would imagine in a couple of thousand years, our successors will marvel at our rudimentary, primitive and ‘superstition-based’ beliefs of the universe.
So how should the bible be used? a) we should try to understand its purspose - it is a vehicle that is supposed to be carrying a message. b) The bible gives us valuable historical references and at least one version (or several <g>) of what was happening at the time, which c) helps us understand how this messasge (set of beliefs, called Christianity) developed.
Is English the only language that is so religion-focused that we must capitalise ‘God’ and ‘Christianity’?)
Just some food for thought –
*Is English the only language that is so religion-focused that we must capitalise ‘God’ and ‘Christianity’?) *
T’dis quoi?!? The French capitalize “Dieu” (although not “chr’etien” or its derivatives, AFAIK), the Germans “Gott” (as well as lots of other nouns), the Spanish “Domingo”, medieval Latin-literate Europeans “Deus”, etc. etc. etc. In fact, can you name any language (where initial capitals are used for honorifics) in which monotheists don’t capitalize their word for “God”? I can’t, off the top of my head.
Pssst…“Domingo” is Spanish for “Sunday”. “God” is “Dios”.
Kimstu,
There are plenty of languages which do not have majiscule & miniscule for their letters. Arabic, Korean, Chinese (yes, Chinese. In addition to the characters, there is also a syllabary), Japanese, and Hindi come to mind right off the bat. It’s safe to say that it’s not “religion-focused” that brought about the capitlization of those two words. I’d venture that it’s just because those words are…gasp!..proper nouns and, what with tradition, the “big G” just stuck.
Well, according to Gen 17:27, all the foreign slaves were to be circumcised, and thus became a “Hebrew”- i suppose that those who refused to be circumsized or convert were treated differently. However, in any case, even foriegn, non-converted slaves were freed during a “jublile”, ie 49 years. There are scads of Laws about slaves, and how to treat them- and one section about 'foriegn" “bondsmen & bondsmaids”. The KJV does not seem to say they are 'slaves", per se, but I guess that can be argued from the context- however, with no sureity.
Next- translations differ- my translation, the KJV, reads differently from yours- I am hardly ‘wrong" if we have 2 similar sources, and they say things similar, but with differences. However, as to the daughters being set free, read Ex21:11 “and if he do not these three unto her, then she shall go free without money” (ie, without paying anything). Ie, the rules say with daughters, ie "maidservants’- that they are to be brought in “like wives”, and if not accepted as a wife, they have to be let go.
No, you and gaspode did not 'conclusively" prove me wrong- there is one verse about severe punishment that will be inflicted if one KILLS a servant. However, my translation goes on “if he (the servant)continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money” ()mine. This indicates to me, that if the servant is injured, and needs to take a day or two off, he (the servant) shall not be punished. You folks read it as the master shall not be punished. However, both "he"s occure without gap or colons, which indicate, in the rather odd syntax of the KJV, that both "he"s are the same person. Now, read Lev25. Now in the 1st, they are only talking about hebrew servants- but the master “ye shall not rule over one over another with vigor”. I would think that beating a man to death would be “vigor”. Next, later, the KJV is apparently talking about those “sojouner or stranger servants”, and it goes: “And as a yearly hired servant shall he be with him: and the other shall not rule over him with vigor…”.
Now lets us look at the treatment of Negro slaves in the Pre-War south- which I compared to the Isreal of some 3000 years ago. Black folk were property, period. They could be bought, sold, killed, beaten, and had no rights at all. They were born slaves, died slaves; and their children & children’s children the same. In Isreal, if one was, or converted to being a Hebrew (which servants were supposed to do) one had to be set free after 6 years work- with enuf stuff to set them up in a living. Servants could not be killed, or treated with “vigor”. Every 49 years, all were set free- so if one did not accept circumcision, at least your children would be free. They were "bondservants’ and had to be treated like servants, not property. In the ancient society this was set in, this was very liberal & “soft”, compared to the inhuman & barbarous way we were treating our own slaves less than 130 years ago.
Now, the role of a Hebrew “servant” was not all that bad- since there was no 'welfare" or anything like that. A pennyless man could “sell himself out” for 6 years- likely of very hard labor i would agree- but after those 6 years be able to make a living on his own. Pretty damn fair, if you ask me- compared to starving to death, or living hand-to- mouth, without hope. A 'foriegn" slave could convert, or at least had the Jubile to look forward to. Not very nice- but better than being just “property”.
It is often said: “there is no such thing as a stupid question”, but here is where that saying goes awry, I think.
We also capitalise “Fred” and “Republican”- not for any religous deference, but because they are “proper nouns”. Sheesh.