The text for the APoD of March 12 states:
"Explanation: This huge ball of stars predates our Sun. Long before humankind evolved ..."
Error 1: "humankind". The word is MANKIND. Decent people are not "politically correct," unnecessarily modifying the language to please a few radical feminists. The English syllable, "man" (standing alone or in "mankind"), can mean "human being." Thus there is no need to change it into "human."
Error 2: "before humankind evolved". There are verious theories of evolution, none of them yet being proved, so a writer should not use such a flat-out statement of fact. Instead, one should write, "before man is believed by some theorists to have evolved". [I am not denying the possible evolution of man, but just being careful about how we speak of it.]
Errors in text of "Globular Cluster M3 from WIYN"
-
fastartceetoo
- Ensign
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:04 pm
"jfgecik", yours is a remarkably inane post ...a waste of time for one and all. (I have lots and lots of time to waste; hence this reply.)
By the way, my Unabridged Webster's Dictionary (which, I think, might be a higher authority on the English language than you) contains this definition, with its origin dating back to the fifteenth century:
hu·man·kind (hyÁÆmÃn k
By the way, my Unabridged Webster's Dictionary (which, I think, might be a higher authority on the English language than you) contains this definition, with its origin dating back to the fifteenth century:
hu·man·kind (hyÁÆmÃn k
-
fastartceetoo
- Ensign
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:04 pm
+
Wow! What a bunch of troubled and uneducated people are posting here. Not only are they wrong factually, but they make themselves totally obnoxious (via sarcasm) in revealing their ignorance. Too bad they can't just sit back and learn. Must be a lot of students who are not mature yet.
On the contrary, "fastartceetoo," it is YOUR post that is totally worthless. Lest anyone mistakenly think that it has value, I will explain why it does not. The problem is that, like so many people nowadays, you don't trouble yourself to read and understand what others say.
You tried to make it seem as though I was not aware of the existence of the word, "humankind." I NEVER stated that it is not a word. I only said that it is a useless word (since "mankind" is available) and that people use it nowadays in an effort to please radical feminists -- something they should not do.
Radical feminists are mentally ill. They have let their problems (e.g., abuse) suffered at the hands of one man (e.g., father, brother, boyfriend, husband, teacher, etc.) to fester -- resulting in a hatred of ALL men. This is then "acted out" in a variety of sick behaviors, one of which is attempting to change the language by purging real or imagined references to the male sex. The word, "mankind," is one of the imagined references.
And, on the contrary, "Qev," I am not "trolling." As you ought to have realized by now, I am both interested in the APoDs and the text below them. I am 100% serious, and I will do my part to correct errors of fact [e.g., about Antarctica] and to clean up improper language when it is used. Get used to me, because I am going to be around here for a long time -- probably longer than you.
God bless you.
Wow! What a bunch of troubled and uneducated people are posting here. Not only are they wrong factually, but they make themselves totally obnoxious (via sarcasm) in revealing their ignorance. Too bad they can't just sit back and learn. Must be a lot of students who are not mature yet.
On the contrary, "fastartceetoo," it is YOUR post that is totally worthless. Lest anyone mistakenly think that it has value, I will explain why it does not. The problem is that, like so many people nowadays, you don't trouble yourself to read and understand what others say.
You tried to make it seem as though I was not aware of the existence of the word, "humankind." I NEVER stated that it is not a word. I only said that it is a useless word (since "mankind" is available) and that people use it nowadays in an effort to please radical feminists -- something they should not do.
Radical feminists are mentally ill. They have let their problems (e.g., abuse) suffered at the hands of one man (e.g., father, brother, boyfriend, husband, teacher, etc.) to fester -- resulting in a hatred of ALL men. This is then "acted out" in a variety of sick behaviors, one of which is attempting to change the language by purging real or imagined references to the male sex. The word, "mankind," is one of the imagined references.
And, on the contrary, "Qev," I am not "trolling." As you ought to have realized by now, I am both interested in the APoDs and the text below them. I am 100% serious, and I will do my part to correct errors of fact [e.g., about Antarctica] and to clean up improper language when it is used. Get used to me, because I am going to be around here for a long time -- probably longer than you.
God bless you.
In the near/far future humankind might just prove to be the truest label for us as other possible non human races are discovered on planets outside our solar system. To think we are unique in this respect is arrogant at best.
To think that the reference in the bible to God "creating man in his own image" states that god created us in gods' own image (likeness) is also arrogant, (lets not forget that the book we know today was interpreted form more ancient texts and re-written in the 15-1600's by the leader of the old worlds "Mans club" so the language reflects this) when it could just as easily mean that man was created in mans' own unique image. Also, nowhere in that book does it state that human/earth are the only created forms of life/habitat in the entire galaxy/universe.
I'll hold out hope that we aren't alone, that humankind is unique to our corner of space, but not the only intelligent life out there.
To think that the reference in the bible to God "creating man in his own image" states that god created us in gods' own image (likeness) is also arrogant, (lets not forget that the book we know today was interpreted form more ancient texts and re-written in the 15-1600's by the leader of the old worlds "Mans club" so the language reflects this) when it could just as easily mean that man was created in mans' own unique image. Also, nowhere in that book does it state that human/earth are the only created forms of life/habitat in the entire galaxy/universe.
I'll hold out hope that we aren't alone, that humankind is unique to our corner of space, but not the only intelligent life out there.
-
fastartceetoo
- Ensign
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:04 pm
Wow! You guys don't give up, do you? You actually WANT to display your ignorance? Better to be quiet and learn, rather than let people realize how little you know (factually) and how weird your opinions are.
BMAONE23, you wrote: "In the near/far future humankind might just prove to be the truest label for us as other possible non human races are discovered on planets outside our solar system. To think we are unique in this respect is arrogant at best."
This is sheer fantasy, the kind of thing that some weak-minded people engage in after viewing silly science-fiction junk on TV.
First, in the extremely unlikely event that any living beings exist on other planets, they would almost certainly be merely like Earth's protozoa or plants or animals, not manlike beings with immortal souls.
Second, no matter what those other beings may be like, that would not make the word "mankind" bad to use (or "humankind" better to use).
So you have failed to make a point of any significance.
Next, you wrote: "To think that the reference in the bible to God 'creating man in his own image' states that god created us in gods' own image (likeness) is also arrogant ... when it could just as easily mean that man was created in mans' own unique image."
You don't know what you are talking about. The meaning of the statements in the Bible has nothing to do with physical appearance. Our being made in the "image and likeness of God" refers to certain non-physical things -- such as the immortality of divine and human souls, the fact that both God and men have and intellect (ability to remember, to reason, etc.) and a will (ability to choose), etc.. There is nothing "arrogant" about this at all.
Next, you wrote: "lets not forget that the book we know today was interpreted form more ancient texts and re-written in the 15-1600's by the leader of the old worlds 'Mans club' so the language reflects this".
That is a massive "crock," which I've never come across before, in my 54 years of seeing various kinds of crocks. The Bible was not "re-written" in any way. It is a book that has God as its primary Author (men being secondary authors) and, as such, cannot contain any errors.
The fact is that, in the Gospels (of which we have Greek copies from very early centuries), Jesus (both Man and God) dozens of times refers to the first Person of the Trinity as "Father" (and "He") and never as "Mother" (or "She"). Since the Bible is inerrant, we can take this as guidance as to how we are to speak about God.
All the feminist goddess rubbish is junk that was invented since 1960, for Pete's sake! It's part of witchcraft and satanism. The devil loves it when youngsters like you fall for that junk.
Next, you wrote: "I'll hold out hope that we aren't alone, that humankind is unique to our corner of space, but not the only intelligent life out there."
Why would you "hope" for this, when it really doesn't matter to MANKIND? Who gives a darn about extra-terrestrials (if there are any), since they are totally irrelevant to our lives.
And now for the less childish, but no less obnoxious "fastartceetoo" ...
Thanks for helping me to understand why you are out of touch with certain parts of reality. You identify yourself as a "humanist" (an atheistic "secular humanist," I assume). This puts you in a very tiny minority of misguided people.
You quoted me as ending with, "God bless you," and then you wrote:
"Wow... what a *scary* rant!"
There is no valid point in your comment. I was not trying to be "scary" (a childish term that should be replaced by "frightening"). Nor did I engage in a "rant" (which is an uncontrolled, emotionally shouted complaint.) I calmly stated facts and corrected you people, just as I am doing now. That is not a "rant."
Next, you wrote: "As for God blessing all of us, it might be best for you, jfgecik, if She doesn't exist!"
I have already begun to explain the fallacy involved in using the pronoun, "She," which is non-biblical. But let's go a step farther. God, in His divinity, as the supreme Being who made all things, is referred to as "pure spirit," having no body and thus no sexuality.
Thus, God, in his divine nature, is neither man nor woman. However, in revealing Himself to us through Jesus, God never lets his People (in the Old or New Testaments) use feminine language about Him. He took flesh in a man, not a woman -- and that man (Jesus) speaks of God his Father in heaven -- not of God as his Mother (since His mother was a human being, not a divine one).
God bless you.
John
BMAONE23, you wrote: "In the near/far future humankind might just prove to be the truest label for us as other possible non human races are discovered on planets outside our solar system. To think we are unique in this respect is arrogant at best."
This is sheer fantasy, the kind of thing that some weak-minded people engage in after viewing silly science-fiction junk on TV.
First, in the extremely unlikely event that any living beings exist on other planets, they would almost certainly be merely like Earth's protozoa or plants or animals, not manlike beings with immortal souls.
Second, no matter what those other beings may be like, that would not make the word "mankind" bad to use (or "humankind" better to use).
So you have failed to make a point of any significance.
Next, you wrote: "To think that the reference in the bible to God 'creating man in his own image' states that god created us in gods' own image (likeness) is also arrogant ... when it could just as easily mean that man was created in mans' own unique image."
You don't know what you are talking about. The meaning of the statements in the Bible has nothing to do with physical appearance. Our being made in the "image and likeness of God" refers to certain non-physical things -- such as the immortality of divine and human souls, the fact that both God and men have and intellect (ability to remember, to reason, etc.) and a will (ability to choose), etc.. There is nothing "arrogant" about this at all.
Next, you wrote: "lets not forget that the book we know today was interpreted form more ancient texts and re-written in the 15-1600's by the leader of the old worlds 'Mans club' so the language reflects this".
That is a massive "crock," which I've never come across before, in my 54 years of seeing various kinds of crocks. The Bible was not "re-written" in any way. It is a book that has God as its primary Author (men being secondary authors) and, as such, cannot contain any errors.
The fact is that, in the Gospels (of which we have Greek copies from very early centuries), Jesus (both Man and God) dozens of times refers to the first Person of the Trinity as "Father" (and "He") and never as "Mother" (or "She"). Since the Bible is inerrant, we can take this as guidance as to how we are to speak about God.
All the feminist goddess rubbish is junk that was invented since 1960, for Pete's sake! It's part of witchcraft and satanism. The devil loves it when youngsters like you fall for that junk.
Next, you wrote: "I'll hold out hope that we aren't alone, that humankind is unique to our corner of space, but not the only intelligent life out there."
Why would you "hope" for this, when it really doesn't matter to MANKIND? Who gives a darn about extra-terrestrials (if there are any), since they are totally irrelevant to our lives.
And now for the less childish, but no less obnoxious "fastartceetoo" ...
Thanks for helping me to understand why you are out of touch with certain parts of reality. You identify yourself as a "humanist" (an atheistic "secular humanist," I assume). This puts you in a very tiny minority of misguided people.
You quoted me as ending with, "God bless you," and then you wrote:
"Wow... what a *scary* rant!"
There is no valid point in your comment. I was not trying to be "scary" (a childish term that should be replaced by "frightening"). Nor did I engage in a "rant" (which is an uncontrolled, emotionally shouted complaint.) I calmly stated facts and corrected you people, just as I am doing now. That is not a "rant."
Next, you wrote: "As for God blessing all of us, it might be best for you, jfgecik, if She doesn't exist!"
I have already begun to explain the fallacy involved in using the pronoun, "She," which is non-biblical. But let's go a step farther. God, in His divinity, as the supreme Being who made all things, is referred to as "pure spirit," having no body and thus no sexuality.
Thus, God, in his divine nature, is neither man nor woman. However, in revealing Himself to us through Jesus, God never lets his People (in the Old or New Testaments) use feminine language about Him. He took flesh in a man, not a woman -- and that man (Jesus) speaks of God his Father in heaven -- not of God as his Mother (since His mother was a human being, not a divine one).
God bless you.
John
Perhaps I did utilize incorrect verbiage when I stated that the bible was "rewritten" but it was re-interpreted by order of King James of England, son of Queen Mary Stuart of Scotland, who is responsible for the "writing" of the King James Version of the bible that we all read today. (key word being Version.) This book isn't presented in its original text but rather is a re-interpretation of events that have been translated into a language other than was originally written. Certain poetic license was taken so that the wording and phrases reflected the language used at the time. Made easier to understand.
If god has no sex then why are "HIMSELF" and "HIS DIVINE NATURE" phrases of your choosing? all imply sex.
If god has no sex then why are "HIMSELF" and "HIS DIVINE NATURE" phrases of your choosing? all imply sex.