You are browsing the archive for 2015 February 08.

Avatar of admin

by admin

Creationists: To Dismiss Unicorns Found in the Bible as Mythical Animals ‘Is to Demean God’s Word’

February 8, 2015 in Blogs

By Tom Boggioni, Raw Story

They say “modern readers” have difficulties believing the Bible’s unicorns.

 an article posted at Answers in Genesis – a creationist apologetics website dedicated to substantiating the infallible truths found in the Bible — an author cautions that dismissing the one-horned horse known as the unicorn as a mythical beast “is to demean God’s Word.”

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, citing several references in the Bible to the fantastical animal that is a favorite of children and fantasy fans, warns that the unicorn did indeed exist writing, “The Bible is clearly describing a real animal.”

According to Mitchell, there are multiple references to the unicorn in the Bible, including Job 39:9 (“Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?”) and Isaiah 34:7  (“And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness“).

Mitchell notes that  “modern readers”  have difficulties believing the Bible’s unicorns because  they “forget that a single-horned feature is not uncommon on God’s menu for animal design. (Consider the rhinoceros and narwhal)”.

Mitchell does concede that the unicorn portrayed in popular fantasy as a silken-maned graceful one-horned horse often accompanied by rainbows may have actually been a type of wild ox known as an auroch.Mitchell notes that  “modern readers”  have difficulties believing the Bible’s unicorns because  they “forget that a single-horned feature is not uncommon on God’s menu for animal design. (Consider the rhinoceros and narwhal)”.

“The aurochs’s horns were symmetrical and often appeared as one in profile, as can be seen on Ashurnasirpal II’s palace relief and Esarhaddon’s stone prism,” she wrote.

Mitchell concludes by writing, “The unicorn mentioned in the Bible was a powerful animal possessing one or two strong horns—not the fantasy animal that has been popularized in movies and books. Whatever it was, it is now likely extinct like many other animals. To think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word, which is true in every detail.”

To date paleontologists have yet to discover …read more

Source: ALTERNET

Avatar of admin

by admin

“American Sniper’s” Sinister Philosophy: Pro-war Propaganda Wrapped in Moral Truth

February 8, 2015 in Blogs

By Robert Gordon, Salon.com

Make no mistake—Clint Eastwood's film is a myth-building tale, not a human interest story.

“American Sniper” is a difficult movie to criticize, partly because of the pro-war jingoism that’s long been a staple of post-9/11 society and partly because the movie itself is competently made, but mostly because of the dogmatic belief among supporters that “American Sniper” is a “human story” and not a political one. And that’s exactly the problem. Taking a conflict in which there are deep historical, economic, social and political roots, and then atomizing it as a single man’s story, robs the conflict of context, and this is a political act in itself. The act of de-politicization serves to obscure the ideological framework within which the story operates, coating it with a human face. In studying this “face” however, the experiences of sniper Chris Kyle that constitute the film, we can see how beneath the obviously “human” story is a troubling philosophical thesis that speaks to the rise of neoconservatism among the U.S. political and military elite.

This intersection of the personal and political can be seen as early as the first scene, where the titular sniper aims at a man described as a “military-aged male” (borrowing from the language of drone strike casualties) on a cell phone. Of course he is reporting the troop movements below, and from the house he stands atop emerge a woman and her son, who attempts to throw an RPG at the oncoming soldiers. When we return to this scene after a flashback, Chris Kyle shoots both.

What are we supposed to take from this? We’re meant to see the “horrors of war” that the protagonist must commit out of a sense of duty — it is a “necessary evil” and Chris is deeply affected by the experience. What distinguishes Chris Kyle from a simple child-killer is that he holds the moral upper hand above the jihadis, who slaughter children to advance their political agenda.

But let’s take a second to look at that moral upper hand Chris holds, and the moral theory it operates under, …read more

Source: ALTERNET