Tsukino_Rei

tell tell tell!

An action becomes immoral when the actor know that the action will do harm to another but does it anyway. I my view morality is intrinsically and inseparatively linked with knowledge and understanding. Giving food to a hungry child is good, because it is intended to be beneficial to them. Giving food which one knows the child is allergic to is immoral, because the consequences are known and it is assumed that when the consequences are known the intent is to do harm. Giving food to a hungry child and accidentally giving them something one did not know they were allergic to is not immoral. In China, when all the babies got sick because of the poisoned milk. The parents that bought the milk and fed it to their children were not immoral, because they didn't know that it was harmful They were doing the moral thing in providing for their children. The company did know the harmful effects of what they chose to do, and thus the company actions were immoral. The area becomes a bit more grey when a single action will both benefit one person and harm another person. I tend to think that this is almost always also immoral, because the benefit which one person or group of people can expect is financial while the harm that the other person or group of people can expect is physical. But for the sake of argument let's say that a natural disaster is going to hit. Your government has the power to avert that natural disaster but if they do the consequence will be devastation on a mass scale in your neighbouring country. What's the moral thing to do? Or, in the case of Winston Churchill - in order to keep secret the knowledge that the German codes had been broken so that it could be used more strategically at a later time he allowed Coventry to be bombed. He knew the bombing was coming and could have warned the people but that would have tipped off the Germans that they'd better start using another code. Churchill was and still is applauded for the decision by both his fellow politicians and by the people. His actions, or inaction, did harm and yet in the balance of things it is considered to have been the right decision and to have done more good than harm. So it just goes to show that concepts of good and harm are also dependent on personal ethics, situation, and often a matter of opinion. As such those who practice harmful medical experimentation on populations, or manipulate world finances to the benefit of the few, need only look to their ethical responsibility to investors, to home lands, to future health benefits, and such. What benefits one country but harms another is moral to the citizens of the country that benefits, and immoral to the citizens of the country it harms. Of course, then we have to concider propoganda - making actions morally acceptable to the citizenry and cloaking consequences. And then there's the question of responsibility, economics uses words like 'invisible elbow' and 'externalities' to describe some of the consequences of the functions of entities within the Global Economy. In war if bombs drop and chemicals spread throughout civilian populations then that's 'collateral'. Somehow these elbows, externalities, and collaterals are concidered acceptable and natural consequences of necessary systems which do more good than harm. But do they do more good than harm or is that just propoganda for the benefit of the populations that benefit most from the destruction? Certainly the corporations have knowledge of the consequences of many of their actions, and when new knowledge comes to light the first instinct is not to confess or make things right - it's to cover their asses against litigation. Likewise, governments are quite concerned with maintaining a positive image of their armies and war efforts at home, so much so that a great deal of effort is put into controlling what information about the damage is getting back to the people. But we all know that everybody knows what happens when bombs laced with radioactive materials, and burning chemicals, are rained down indiscriminately over civilian populations. I guess ultimately morality is in the eye of the beholder.

well said.

It is also notable that malnurishment stunts skeletal growth. The lands where the tall people lived are often described as prosperous and fruitful,so presumably the people living in those civilizations would be well fed. The Israeli had what, mana from heaven and whatever they could forage along the way while they nomaded around? Presumably they didn't have many trading partners since the Bible seems to suggest that everyone other than them was evil. It's hard to make friends while calling everyone evil.

The last video I posted explains how a tumour pressing on the anterior pituitary gland will cause a constant and abnormally large secretion of growth humans from childhood. The pituitary gland and tumor are not likely to survive the rotting of the flesh off the skeleton. The remaining evidence would be the giantism. That said.... at least some of the giant skeleton pictures have been proven to be hoaxes. http://www.hoax-slayer.com/giant-skeleton.html In all likelyhood many of the historical/religious giants were metaphorically tall in stature - as in they were men of status, power, strength. - With only a few suffering actual giantism, and others having giantism incorporated into their legends. Let's think about it. Egyptian hieroglyphs show humans sitting on the laps if giant gods and giant pharoahs. Egyptians were very good at mummification. Wouldn't giant pharoah's have been prime candidates for preservation as they are depicted as wealthy and powerful and having many servants in the hieroglyphs. And yet there are no giant mummies in the British Museum. Just regularly sized icky ones. ICKY! *shudders* I say again. BLECH! I don't deny that it's perfectly plausable that there was once a community of humans who shared the malady of giantism. It's believed that there was once a community of humans who shared an abnormality which caused thick hair growth all over their bodies - only a few survive. Abnormal genetic variants becoming prevalent within a single community is not unheard of among plants, animals, or humans. In a world where 30 was a ripe old age the early benefits of giantism may well have outweighed the later health defects. But they're all human. It's more plausable that these humans were demonized for the purposes of assuring the populus that they were on the morally right side of warfare. By thinking of them as not human it becomes okay to massacre them, even a reason to massacre them. And radiation is only used as an example of one thing that will increase the occurences of birth defects in an area so that the various possibilities are more visible and able to be studied - as opposed to waiting for an otherwise rare natural occurence. Two faced, multi-armed babies do not naturally happen often. If a couple of these pop up, alongside a bunch of cleft lips, backwards limbs, missing parts, enlarged heads....all in one village in the same couple of years... odds are HIGH something is messing with the gene pool. The reason I suggest you look into some of these defects is I think you'd be surprised at the variety of what human beings can and have looked like - and perhaps begin to compare some of what you see to legends of monsters and deities, or curses and blessings, in various past communities. When the occurences were rare then it certainly must have been easy to deny that these were human - and think that surely a god or demon, or fallen angel, or an elf must have intervened. If it's not human then the human community is absolved of the responsibility of care.

Hey guys! We're supposed to talk about giants first, then move on to the rest of the site after!

Documentaries about the search for Noahs ark, and documentaries about archaeological evidence backing other Bible stories, are still recycled on TLC, Discovery, and various documentary channels in the UK. As to the webauthor of this site and his views regarding giants. These are sweeping and untrue statements. There are more people than Christians who take an interest in stories of giants, more cultures than Christian that have stories of giants, and of course there are theoretical evolutionary explanations for their theoretical existence just as there are explanations for any abnormally large modern mammals, fish, bugs, and humans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_%28mythology%29 <-- Norse, Greek, Hindu, Balt, Basque - Cultures with giant myths. Just look at what these people consider to be evidence that science supposedly has no genetic/evolutionary explanation for. http://s8int.com/six.html Modern people. Extra fingers. Extra toes. Double rows of teeth. I notice they use examples of people living in developing nations. Well, actually, it's happening all over the world, not just the mysterious alleys of distant foreign lands. These are well known, well documented, well studied phenomenon which have been thoroughly dealt with and explained by science. It's common in cats and other creatures as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly A bit of research into the results of mass experimentation of humans to study the results of exposing populations to radiation will illuminate some of the truly amazing things that little genetic mistakes will produce. People who believe in 'Lizard Men' or aliens have sometimes used as evidence for this pictures of babies that have thick, dark, scaly armourlike skin and totally red bulging eyes. The pictures are real, but they are pictures of babies born with a genetic maladyw which causes them not to shed their skin, the way that the rest of us do. The malady begins and continues in the womb so that when they are born their skin has layered and layered and layered until it is like armour, and it is not maleable so that when they move the armour splits and cracks open, so that bacteria can get in through the cracks. The pressure of all those layers of skins normally flips their eyelids backwards causing the appearance of red, bulging, unnatural eyes. They do very much look like aliens. But they are human and survival past infancy was unheard of until one boy in the states had a rather ingenius doctor try acne cream to return maleability to his skin. Turning the eyelids right required surgery, more than once. The condition is called Harlequin's Disease. We know what it is. We know what causes it. It's not a mystery. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOPARxS2qak&feature=related Likewise - extra fingers, extra toes, extra rows of teeth, heck even extra heads! It's not a mystery. We know what causes it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbaT7brkS5E <<-- these kids are AWSOME!Now, let's look at Giantism! <--- VERY informative.Check out Wadlow! He looks, proportionately alot like the pictures that can be found on Egyptian glyphs of Giants. Imagine a dwarf on the lap of a giant. There is no reason to believe that these abnormalities wouldn't have been even more common during early human development, if not equally common. Particularly as, as the author of OOPARTS points out, giantism in some mythologies has been associated with other genetic abnormalities such as polydactylism. That said - if this is used as evidence for christianity then it also has to be used as evidence for all the other religions and cultures who incorporate fantastic stories of giants. And the Norse have dwarfism on their side too! Another rare genetic abnormality is progeria, which appears as rapid aging. - This and other genetic conditions such as AUTISM or BRAIN DISORDERS were once seen in Europe as evidence of fairies and changelings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changeling http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/3/271.extract http://www.helium.com/items/1742381-mythical-creatures-changeling Even modern parents find the stories and legendary descriptions fitting to their experience. Changelings, Giants, Lizardmen, Polydactyls, Dwarves... All of these people have one thing in common: They are all very much human.

How are vibrations checked?

No-one knows what a gnose knows!

Grock and roll! Grock on, dudes!

As you are feeling drained now you might assume, as you are reporting, certian physiological side effects. Great strain can weaken the nervous system. The following foods can help repair and strengthen your nervous system and so help with the feeling of being drained; Banana's Strawberries Chocolate Turkey Orange juice to help you absorb the iron from your foods.

What do you understand to be some of the reasons?

I've gotten through the two video's, a video which a responder recommended, some of the other links, and some related reading - The rest is going to take a few more days, alot more pizza and most definately some caffeinated beverage. But I'll be back!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA Another possibility is that non-coding DNA which has cross-species presence is a missing link. Ever see a Mara? Head of a bunny-rabbit. Hooves and body of a small deer. They freak my husband right out. Darwin and others observed physical similarities between species and came to believe that they had developed one into another. We've seen fish with legs. We've found skeletal evidence of links between dogs and horses. And yet a dog cannot mate with a horse and produce a Dorse. A monkey cannot mate with a man and produce a Mankey. A bird cannot mate with a lizard and prouce a lird or a bizzard. The reason is the varying lengths and complexities of dna stands. The data jigsaw pieces don't physically, naturally fit into place with eachother. Isn't it possible that the junk (alien) DNA of various data strand lengths and complexities are missing links between the species; left over evidence of eons of evolutionary development? p.s - I don't deny that there could be evidence of extraterrestrial life or even extraterrestrial participation in the development of life on earth - I'm just not convinced that this is it.

I think the junk DNA is just spare data kicking around which may or may not become active in future generations. As a poor example, you may carry the ancestral data for red hair, blonde hair, black hair, brown hair,etc, for being tall, short, skinny, rotunde, big boobs, little boobs, green eyes, brown eyes, blue eyes, various genetic ailments... You are born with active genes for just a few of the traits, the rest of the traits which might have become active continue to float around. There is also evidence that your environment, your diet, the drugs you take, and many of your life choices have an impact on what direction your genetic development takes as you grow up. The genetic choices continue even after you've left the womb. So all the data for the various choices that could have been made must be within you. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/faqs1.shtml Professor Chang isn't mentioned on the Human_Genome project. I have not been able to find any links at all to Professor Chang's teams research. Serious research findings are published for peer review. I can find no peer review. Even scientists who have yet to be published in a recognized journal will post their raw data for the viewing of fellow scientists in the hopes of attracting the attention of a publisher.

Which is one reason why Liberal Christian philosophy is to passionately and fearlessly seek after the Truth wherever it may lead.

Genuine deception can also produce genuine fear.

There's an entire industry of scary movies which show that's not true. Willing suspension of disbelief for the duration of the film is all that's needed to generate fear. The idea of something is very often enough; the hint of a possibility, the ability to imagine that it may be true. Even tragedies, designed to generate cartharsis which is a blend of pity and fear, depend on the audiences ability to suspend their disbelief even though they know what they are watching isn't real.

Imagine for a moment that I am a famous person. One man reads about me in the magazines, buys two of my Biographies which were written by ghost-writers whom I hired and whom I believed could most accurately capture the essence of who I am. He knows all of my published likes and dislikes, intimate childhood experiences that some tabloids managed to dig up, my birthday, the names of my parents. Maybe everything he reads is true, maybe it isn't, but it entertains him to believe it's so. Another man has no interest in papers or tabloids. He barely knows who I am when he meets me, but he isn't terribly shocked that my favorite food is no longer Pizza, as his friends tell him was published in Time Magazine. Even once we get married he pays no attention to the press and reads neither of my biographies. But we laugh together. We go for long walks together. We talk to eachother about how we feel about everything. We spend long nights making love and taking comfort in one anothers arms. We raise children. We give one another support. In all the time he is with me he never cross references what I tell him with what's written in my books or the papers to confirm it's accuracy. Why would he need to? Which man knows me? Faith is not the willing suspension of disbelief. No prophet ever acted in faith on what he read in a book. He acted on faith according to dreams, to visions, to burning bushes, to inner voices - in virtually every religion around the world this is the testimony. And like reading the tabloids being familiar with these testimonies themselves is not true, direct experiential knowledge of the being. The books and magazines and T.V documentaries serve as a brief introduction of questionable accuracy to a real person. Reading a book and insisting upon trusting it's every word as innerrant knowledge of a Being one supposedly believes as real, burying every doubt as lack of faith to be shunned rather than freely and confidently explored in whatever direction it goes for feer of being led astray and losing salvation... that's not faith. That's willing suspension of disbelief.

Thank you for the links, Michael. It's exceedingly helpful to be pointed at somewhere to start given the bulk of information!

produce a strangely groovy haze over the throng. Soon the people began to....

That's an insightful way of looking at it Brother Sky. Thank you!