El Shaddai: Ascension of the Metatron

[loco]

A secular, Japanese game for the PS3 and XBOX360 loosely based on the apocryphal book of Enoch.  The player controls Enoch, who is on a mission from God to capture the fallen angels mentioned, by some interpretations, in Genesis 6:2,4 and bring them back to heaven to be imprisoned, as mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6.

Genesis 6:2-4 (New International Version)
2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

2 Peter 2:4
4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
 
Jude 1:6
6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

El Shaddai: Ascension of the Metatron
$59.13
Release Date: August 16, 2011



El Shaddai: Ascension of the Metatron is a third-person, single player action-adventure game in which players must subdue rogue angels, loose on the Earth in order to uphold God's divine plan and prevent the destruction of humanity. Loosely based on the apocryphal Judaic works concerning the pre-flood biblical patriarch Enoch and his role in some traditions as Metatron -- the angelic intermediary between God and his people -- El Shaddai: Ascension of the Metatron features a compelling storyline; a distinct visual experience; combat, platforming and exploration gameplay; unique weapons and feedback systems; and controls that are designed to suit all levels of players.
http://www.amazon.com/El-Shaddai-Ascension-Metatron-Playstation-3/dp/B0054INKOG/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2X3T1FSNTIQCL&colid=1M5AHT055QDT9

The game has received good reviews from players and critics.

[Mr. Magoo]

$60 dollars could save a child dying from dehydration whose parents cannot afford a treatment for diarrhea

but go ahead, do the moral thing, buy a video game

[Butterbean]

$60 dollars could save a child dying from dehydration whose parents cannot afford a treatment for diarrhea

but go ahead, do the moral thing, buy a video game

Do you own any video games Mr. Magoo?

Do you ever eat steak?

[loco]

$60 dollars could save a child dying from dehydration whose parents cannot afford a treatment for diarrhea

but go ahead, do the moral thing, buy a video game

Did you miss the part where I said the game is secular, not religious?  

Did you not know that conservative, Christian people donate more blood, more money, time, and energy to those children about to die from dehydration and many other needy people in the USA and around the world?  Liberals and secularists don't come even close when it comes to that.

[Mr. Magoo]

Do you own any video games Mr. Magoo?

Do you ever eat steak?

What you just did was an ad hominem attack. It's against me the person, not against what I said. Like if i said smoking is unhealthy and you replied "but you smoke!". That's just calling me a hypocrite, it's not against the claim that smoking is unhealthy. Smoking is unhealthy despite my own actions. Just like this case, buying the video game is immoral despite my own actions.

To argue against my point, you would have to show (to make a good argument) that buying a video game while a child dies (while u have the ability to do either and both with relative ease with the same money) is somehow NOT immoral. That would be like me not saving a drowning child in a pond because I didn't want to ruin my 60 dollar pair of shoes.

and just to be nice I will respond. I do not own video games and I've cut down on my meat consumption a lot. I still eat it to maintain calories but I have lost 60 lbs in the process to try to be more consistent in my own life.

[Butterbean]

What you just did was an ad hominem attack. It's against me the person, not against what I said. Like if i said smoking is unhealthy and you replied "but you smoke!". That's just calling me a hypocrite, it's not against the claim that smoking is unhealthy. Smoking is unhealthy despite my own actions. Just like this case, buying the video game is immoral despite my own actions.

To argue against my point, you would have to show (to make a good argument) that buying a video game while a child dies (while u have the ability to do either and both with relative ease with the same money) is somehow NOT immoral. That would be like me not saving a drowning child in a pond because I didn't want to ruin my 60 dollar pair of shoes.

and just to be nice I will respond. I do not own video games and I've cut down on my meat consumption a lot. I still eat it to maintain calories but I have lost 60 lbs in the process to try to be more consistent in my own life.

Thanks for being so nice and responding. 

Was your post to loco an ad hominem attack?

[loco]

What you just did was an ad hominem attack. It's against me the person, not against what I said. Like if i said smoking is unhealthy and you replied "but you smoke!". That's just calling me a hypocrite, it's not against the claim that smoking is unhealthy. Smoking is unhealthy despite my own actions. Just like this case, buying the video game is immoral despite my own actions.

To argue against my point, you would have to show (to make a good argument) that buying a video game while a child dies (while u have the ability to do either and both with relative ease with the same money) is somehow NOT immoral. That would be like me not saving a drowning child in a pond because I didn't want to ruin my 60 dollar pair of shoes.

and just to be nice I will respond. I do not own video games and I've cut down on my meat consumption a lot. I still eat it to maintain calories but I have lost 60 lbs in the process to try to be more consistent in my own life.

I am neither encouraging anyone to nor discouraging anyone from buying this game.  The game choice for a theme is interesting and that is why I posted it.

Buying a video game while a child somewhere is dying of hunger is not immoral in itself.  You are either joking or you are simply not thinking before you post.  How selfish of you!

It's like when there was an earthquake in Haiti not long ago.  Royal Caribbean owns a small part of the coast of Haiti and that's one of the places where all of their cruises stop on every voyage.  

Right after the earthquake, many liberal westerners like you said that it was immoral for people to continue booking cruises with Royal Caribbean and stopping in Haiti and continue business as usual while people in Haiti were suffering because of the earthquake.  Wanna guess what the Haiti locals thought of that?  They told those liberals to shut the f#$&k up.  Those cruises contribute much to the economy of the locals and they count on those cruises and on those tourists to make a living and feed their families.  

Think before you post.

[Reeves]

$60 dollars could save a child dying from dehydration whose parents cannot afford a treatment for diarrhea

but go ahead, do the moral thing, buy a video game

If they can't afford to take care of the child, then they never should have had one. 

That would be Africa's problem.  That would be the problem of many poor and otherwise stupid or incompetent people here in the USA.  That is most definitely Mexico's problem.  Here's a thought -

You (not me)  could probably feed a family of ten for as little as fifty cents a day in Southeast Asia, but the result of "all that food" would most likely be a family of eleven.  Or more.   Hmmmmm...So then, what does your ISP cost you per month? 

Do the moral thing.  Live your life as you see fit within the guidelines set by both your moral compass (if you have one) and your country's laws.  There's plenty of simpletons out there that have yet to realize that sexual intercourse (heterosexual intercourse, that is) quite often causes pregnancy.  What's next?

A Modest Proposal?

Fuck that noise.

I'm Reeves, the Magic Mulatto and I approve this message. And yes, I am that smart.   

[Mr. Magoo]

I am neither encouraging anyone to nor discouraging anyone from buying this game.  The game choice for a theme is interesting and that is why I posted it.

Buying a video game while a child somewhere is dying of hunger is not immoral in itself.  You are either joking or you are simply not thinking before you post.  How selfish of you!

Think before you post.

Okay let's see here. You didn't give me any reasons why buying a video game while a child is dying a preventable death is not immoral. You need to say "Buying a 60 dollar (let's keep the 60 dollar amount for the purposes of this thread, but yes it the principle is applicable to non-$60 unnecessary items) while you can just as easily save the life of a child is NOT immoral BECAUSE..." and then give your reasons.

Now, I would like to support my argument that buying a 60 dollar video game while a child is dying an easily preventable death IS immoral. I'll take Peter Singer's famous argument to help me. First we need to establish two principles. 1: Unnecessary pain and suffering is bad (I think most would agree to this). 2: If we can prevent unnecessary pain and suffering without sacrificing something of equal moral worth, we ought, morally, to do it.

The 2nd principle is the major one coming into play here. And of course Singer's famous example is the child in the pond. Imagine you see a drowning child at the edge of a pond, you can easily save her, all you have to do is walk in a couple of feet, bend down and easily pick her up and set her on the ground. No trouble, except in doing  that you will ruin a $60 dollar pair of shoes (I made it the same amount of the video game to show the analogy). Now the issue is, if you DIDNT save the child, I think most would think "what a moral monster!, how dare he care more for his shoes than the death of the child!" And that's where the issue is. If you are morally required to help the drowning child, then you are morally required to help the dying child in africa whose parents cant afford anti-diarrhea treatment for example. In fact, giving aid to save a dying child is easier than saving the drowning child, one doesn't even need to get their shoes dirty (and they can easily do it over the computer). The distance objection is arbitrary because if true, then that means hypothetically if I see a drowning child in a pond, I could just take off running and at whatever arbitrary distance I lose all moral obligation toward saving the child, and this seems silly.

Here is the entire Singer article where he expands this argument and replies to more objections. It's called Famine, Affluence, and Morality, written in 1971.
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm

Think before I post? I have thought my friend. Selfish? In no way is this selfish.

And I'll keep this topic related to the thread by saying If anyone who reads this thread still buys this video game, they have down an immoral action.

[Mr. Magoo]

Thanks for being so nice and responding. 

Was your post to loco an ad hominem attack?

Na my first post wasn't an ad hominem attack, it was just an attempt to get the ball rolling and get a response  I could have typed out a long argument with the conclusion that buying a $60 dollar video game while being just as easily capable of saving a child from dying (same money, same effort (sit at the computer and click a few buttons, etc)) is immoral, but I doubt anyone would originally read a post that long. Of course this is assuming that the person is full aware of the easily preventable deaths he could be preventing, but unfortunately nobody who reads this thread can make the ignorance excuse 

my conclusion is that if someone who reads this thread (to make it simpler and related to this thread topic) still buys that $60 video game instead of saving an easily preventable death (Let's be honest, most who read this thread can easily do both), then they have done an immoral action. This isn't against Loco the person, because he said that he was not advocating that anyone buy this game (very smart by the way to take that route).

However, he DID say that buying a video game while a child is dying (assuming the person in question bought the video game INSTEAD of saving the child) is not immoral in itself. And that is where the disagreement is and where the thread will lead. Loco the person is not under attack, but his claim in that specific sentence is.

[Butterbean]

However, he DID say that buying a video game while a child is dying (assuming the person in question bought the video game INSTEAD of saving the child) is not immoral in itself. And that is where the disagreement is and where the thread will lead. Loco the person is not under attack, but his claim in that specific sentence is.

But video games and other products the consoles or whatever..the plastic wrap etc etc...the manufacturing, purchase of and distribution etc......provide jobs which can keep people out of poverty, right?

I understand what you are trying to say but unfortunately children are dying somewhere every day.  Do you think spending time surfing the internet when you could be working for money to send to dying children and/or volunteering is immoral knowing that children are dying somewhere?  What about watching television or even working out?

I hope it can give you some comfort that many people you think aren't doing things to help others actually are, and in many ways.

What is the charity you are referring to re: the treatment for diarrhea?

[Reeves]

To quote the man himself, "Oh Magoo... You've done it again!"

It is good that his words give us all pause to think, even when I disagree with him.  Of course there can be no doubt that my reply to his statement regarding the morality of buying items while children are dying is pretty much spot on.

There is much that is wrong in the world that could be prevented by those that perpetrate it upon themselves. 

But then that would require those individuals to actually do something constructive or dare I say it, moral themselves.  To be honest, those that misuse the ability to procreate burden not only themselves but the world itself. 

Like I previously said, if you feed that hungry Southeast Asian family of ten on the monies your ISP or whatever goods andservices you not me, care to give up to do so, you (and ultimately all of us on this planet) will most likely end up with a Southeast Asian family of eleven or more. 

Morality quite often has nothing to do whatsoever with reality.  That should be an epiphany for anyone with an IQ above room temperature.  That would be pretty much everyone here.

[loco]

Okay let's see here. You didn't give me any reasons why buying a video game while a child is dying a preventable death is not immoral. You need to say "Buying a 60 dollar (let's keep the 60 dollar amount for the purposes of this thread, but yes it the principle is applicable to non-$60 unnecessary items) while you can just as easily save the life of a child is NOT immoral BECAUSE..." and then give your reasons.

Now, I would like to support my argument that buying a 60 dollar video game while a child is dying an easily preventable death IS immoral. I'll take Peter Singer's famous argument to help me. First we need to establish two principles. 1: Unnecessary pain and suffering is bad (I think most would agree to this). 2: If we can prevent unnecessary pain and suffering without sacrificing something of equal moral worth, we ought, morally, to do it.

The 2nd principle is the major one coming into play here. And of course Singer's famous example is the child in the pond. Imagine you see a drowning child at the edge of a pond, you can easily save her, all you have to do is walk in a couple of feet, bend down and easily pick her up and set her on the ground. No trouble, except in doing  that you will ruin a $60 dollar pair of shoes (I made it the same amount of the video game to show the analogy). Now the issue is, if you DIDNT save the child, I think most would think "what a moral monster!, how dare he care more for his shoes than the death of the child!" And that's where the issue is. If you are morally required to help the drowning child, then you are morally required to help the dying child in africa whose parents cant afford anti-diarrhea treatment for example. In fact, giving aid to save a dying child is easier than saving the drowning child, one doesn't even need to get their shoes dirty (and they can easily do it over the computer). The distance objection is arbitrary because if true, then that means hypothetically if I see a drowning child in a pond, I could just take off running and at whatever arbitrary distance I lose all moral obligation toward saving the child, and this seems silly.

Here is the entire Singer article where he expands this argument and replies to more objections. It's called Famine, Affluence, and Morality, written in 1971.
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm

Think before I post? I have thought my friend. Selfish? In no way is this selfish.

And I'll keep this topic related to the thread by saying If anyone who reads this thread still buys this video game, they have down an immoral action.

Don't you believe morality is relative?  Then who are you to come here and tell us that buying a video game is immoral?  If you believe that it's immoral to you, then that is fine and you should act on that belief and live by it.  That is just your opinion.

I already told you what I think about your statement and provided an example to explain why I disagree and why believing as you do does more harm than good to those children.  

Peter Singer?  You take morality lessons from Peter Singer?    

    
Professor Peter Singer: Kill infants and those with disabilities


Peter Singer, professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton University:

''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,''

''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''

"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”

"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html

Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm

[loco]

More on Peter Signer:

"Singer's mother suffers from severe Alzheimer's disease, and so she no longer qualifies as a person by his own standards, yet he spends considerable sums on her care. This apparent contradiction of his principles has not gone unnoticed by the media. When I asked him about it during our interview at his Manhattan apartment in late July, he sighed and explained that he is not the only person who is involved in making decisions about his mother (he has a sister). He did say that if he were solely responsible, his mother might not be alive today." (Singer's mother died shortly thereafter.)
http://notdeadyetnewscommentary.blogspot.com/2008/03/peter-singer-slippery-mind.html

When Singer's mother became too ill to live alone, Singer and
his sister hired a team of home health-care aides to look after
her.  Singer's mother has lost her ability to reason, to be a person,
as he defines the term.  So I asked him how a man who has written
that we ought to do what is morally right without regard to proximity
or family relationships could possibly spend tens of thousands
of dollars a year on private care for his mother.  He replied that
it was "probably not the best use you could make of my money.
That is true.  But it does provide employment for a number of people
who find something worthwhile in what they're doing.''

  This is a noble sentiment, but it hardly fits with Peter Singer's
rules for living an ethical life.  He once told me that he has no
respect for people who donate funds for research on breast
cancer or heart disease in the hope that it might indirectly save
them or members of their family from illness, since they could
be using that money to save the lives of the poor.  ("That
is not charity,'' he said.  "It's self- interest.")
http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/1999/1999_09_06_philosopher.html

[Butterbean]

Sheez 

Magoo were you aware of the stuff loco posted about Singer?  Do you agree w/his views in those posts?

[Mr. Magoo]

Don't you believe morality is relative?  Then who are you to come here and tell us that buying a video game is immoral?  If you believe that it's immoral to you, then that is fine and you should act on that belief and live by it.  That is just your opinion.

I already told you what I think about your statement and provided an example to explain why I disagree and why believing as you do does more harm than good to those children.
 

No I do not believe morality is relative. The statement "all views regarding morality are subjective" would itself be a self defeating statement and therefore cannot be objectively true.

Peter Singer?  You take morality lessons from Peter Singer?    

and Butterbean/stella, see the above? That is an example of an ad hominem attack. Peter Singer said X, but instead of arguing against X, he argued against Peter Singer. Does that help explain what an ad hominem attack is, and why it's a logical fallacy?

[Butterbean]

No I do not believe morality is relative. The statement "all views regarding morality are subjective" would itself be a self defeating statement and therefore cannot be objectively true.

and Butterbean/stella, see the above? That is an example of an ad hominem attack. Peter Singer said X, but instead of arguing against X, he argued against Peter Singer. Does that help explain what an ad hominem attack is, and why it's a logical fallacy?

Magoo, I'm not sure why you are focusing on what you see as ad hominem attacks instead of just saying something like, Yes, I agree w/Singer in these things as well or no I don't agree w/everything Singer says but I agree w/him in the example I used earlier.

It's like you are analyzing all aspects of the conversation instead of just conversing.  I don't know, I don't really have an analytical mind I guess.

So do you agree with Singer in the stuff loco posted?  I'm not attacking you, just wondering..but maybe it's not right for me to even ask?  Would it be right to start a diff thread to ask you or PM you or you could PM me?  If you don't want to talk about it, that is fine too, I would not want to force someone to talk about something against their will and it doesn't really matter if you don't want to answer ..no worries!
 

[Mr. Magoo]

Magoo, I'm not sure why you are focusing on what you see as ad hominem attacks instead of just saying something like, Yes, I agree w/Singer in these things as well or no I don't agree w/everything Singer says but I agree w/him in the example I used earlier.

It's like you are analyzing all aspects of the conversation instead of just conversing.  I don't know, I don't really have an analytical mind I guess.
 

Maybe his helps some:

I'm focusing on it because we should follow a good logical debate. Not resort to common fallacies which would lead us nowhere. The reason I didn't respond is 1) What he did was an attack of the person, not the claim and 2) If I ignored calling attention to the fallacy and did respond then the discussion would go a different route and onto a different issue (Perhaps an issue that Loco feels more confident on).

But since it is established that it is a faulty argument technique to do this, I will say that I would suggest reading Singer's arguments, think about them, reading some objections, then decide for yourself if you agree with them. Bolding certain words here and there to appeal to emotion is not a good way to agree/disagree with a claim.

 So for instance, in Loco's first post in his attack on Singer, it seems Singer (in the first half of the quotes) is using similar arguments that Judith Jarvis Thomson uses about how even if a human life is innocent, it is in certain circumstances permissible to kill it. For more info see: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Also see Singer's argument on what he calls "Specieism" which he discusses in his book Animal Liberation

If this is your first time hearing of Singer after a few google quotes, then I suggest read his works, see what his arguments are, and become more informed.

This video is a short summary of the poverty argument I discussed at the beginning of this thread

[loco]

Mr. Magoo,

Your views and those of Peter Singer are immoral and extremely dangerous to society.  


If I have misquoted Peter Singer, as you accuse me of, then explain this:

American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html

Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm

[OTHstrong]

A secular, Japanese game for the PS3 and XBOX360 loosely based on the apocryphal book of Enoch.  The player controls Enoch, who is on a mission from God to capture the fallen angels mentioned, by some interpretations, in Genesis 6:2,4 and bring them back to heaven to be imprisoned, as mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6.

Genesis 6:2-4 (New International Version)
2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

2 Peter 2:4
4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
 
Jude 1:6
6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

El Shaddai: Ascension of the Metatron
$59.13
Release Date: August 16, 2011



El Shaddai: Ascension of the Metatron is a third-person, single player action-adventure game in which players must subdue rogue angels, loose on the Earth in order to uphold God's divine plan and prevent the destruction of humanity. Loosely based on the apocryphal Judaic works concerning the pre-flood biblical patriarch Enoch and his role in some traditions as Metatron -- the angelic intermediary between God and his people -- El Shaddai: Ascension of the Metatron features a compelling storyline; a distinct visual experience; combat, platforming and exploration gameplay; unique weapons and feedback systems; and controls that are designed to suit all levels of players.
http://www.amazon.com/El-Shaddai-Ascension-Metatron-Playstation-3/dp/B0054INKOG/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2X3T1FSNTIQCL&colid=1M5AHT055QDT9

The game has received good reviews from players and critics.

Very ineresting, A lot of the origin of mythology come from the fallen angels of the antediluvian period, including Zeus as a fallen angel, some say he is the character Azazel from the book Enoch, this would be interesting cause the Bible also mentions Azazel. This game is a good point of view of the pre-flood period, good graphics. Have you read the book of Enoch loco, I can't get enough of it, unbelievable. I believe it to be accurate, it has a few versus that have been in circulation longer then the New Testament that have been repeated by The New Testament, example....."the Lord cometh with ten thousanths of his angels"

[Butterbean]

Very ineresting, A lot of the origin of mythology come from the fallen angels of the antediluvian period, including Zeus as a fallen angel, some say he is the character Azazel from the book Enoch, this would be interesting cause the Bible also mentions Azazel. This game is a good point of view of the pre-flood period, good graphics. Have you read the book of Enoch loco, I can't get enough of it, unbelievable. I believe it to be accurate, it has a few versus that have been in circulation longer then the New Testament that have been repeated by The New Testament, example....."the Lord cometh with ten thousanths of his angels"

Is the book of Enoch in the Catholic version of the bible? 

[OTHstrong]

Is the book of Enoch in the Catholic version of the bible? 

As in the Apocrypha?, actually the Book of Enoch is not part of the Apocrypha nor was it canonized (for lack of a better term), but you will find references of The Book of Enoch throughout the Catholic Bible and it was it in heavy circulation at that time right up until 300AD and then all of a sudden disappeared and no one cared for it until the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the spring of 1947 Which included The Book of Enoch. I think that the Bible tried to include as little as possible of the pre-flood era which is the reason that it wasn't included, but others feel it wasn't include cause it wasn't inspired. I think Christians should be more opened minded and think that if there was a civilization pre-flood with a fully populated earth, would God not have a scriptural book for the people of that generation? and if so could The Book of Enoch not be a fraction of those scriptures?...Just something to consider afterall more then half of the Book is praising and giving glory to our Lord.

[Roger Bacon]

Do you own any video games Mr. Magoo?

Do you ever eat steak?

You've got a great way of summing things up!