Slashdot Mirror

I don't know that this is a surprise. This is a neat, new item for the CIA museum.

That said, the same kind of thing was developed by others. Nate Saint , (also) one of the 5 missionaries martyred in the Ecuadorean Amazon, developed a similar device for raising and lowering items. They picked up a parrot in a bucket from a Piper Cub, according to the books "Through Gates of Splendor", and "The End of the Spear".

That said, this isn't the only neat new item that could go in the CIA museum. There could be all kinds of momentos from governments overthrown, Americans murdered at the behest of international companies(in Chile, for example), the US presidency seized (Reagan / Bush at least through Bush Jr), and wreckage accomplished. Thanks, if I want to go to see a museum, I'll take my kids to see Nate Saint in the stained glass window of the National Cathedral. He, at least, accomplished some good. If I want to go see neat new devices, I'll take a look at things developed by Steve Saint, his son.

So, if Business - Jesus = Theft + Corruption, it follows that Business = Theft + Corruption + Jesus!

Both you and the GP are assuming that Business and Jesus can run together. In fact there are well fundamental incompatibilities between the output Business produces and the input expected by Jesus.

It is worth noting that other claimed incompatibilities are pure FUD.

The problem has been repeatedly highlighted by Jesus developers, and the project lead has recommended uninstalling business and similar proprietary apps. This has been unpopular with Business advocates and probably contributed to his legal difficulties.

The most reliable approach is to use only software meeting the standards set by the Christ Software Foundation. Some people have taken this approach, but they have had to be willing to accept limited access to some codecs.

Some people have managed to run Money while Jesus executes in a separate VM, but this is probably not a good idea. Jesus is really designed to run as a hypervisor.

That's Christian, not C of E. Even the C of E's own figures don't claim anything like that many.

"The early Christian writers Tertullian and Origen metion the existence of a British church in the third century AD and in the fourth century British bishops attended a number of the great concils of the Church such as the Council of Arles in 314 and the Council of Rimini in 359."

One denomination, which just happens to be by far the largest. I provided far more evidence than him who offered no source at all.

Other major denominations (orthodox and Anglican for example) share a similar point of view to the Catholic Church. This church on England document on training clergy seems to take it for granted that there is a diversity of views on the authority of the bible (see page 9). The orthodx churches are more conservative but still far from taking a fundamentalist approach.

Of course if you modified his statement to "lots of tiny denominations, mostly American based or influenced, that are in no way representative of Christianity in general", I would have no problem with that.

I can also tell you, with certainty, that many catholics believe the bible is without error, regardless of what the official policy of the higher ups in their organization may say.

Yes, with hundreds of millions of Catholics in the world, I am sure you can find "many" stupid ones.

I have been a Chatholic most of my life, and I have met very few who think that. You must only know particularly stupid or ignorant Catholics.

Anyway, now I have produced multiple sources. Can you or the GP produce any?

Actually, according to TFA, it's not a sermon-writing application, it's software used for planning a church service:
"Visual Liturgy contains all of the authorised liturgy for the Church of England. Vicars use the software to choose services, plan Bible readings and create booklets."

You can think of an Anglican church service as having a sort of standard template into which are inserted different prayers, Bible readings, and hymns depending on the day and season. Instead of making people flip through the prayer book, some churches print out the whole service in order in a sort of programme or booklet. It makes sense to me to have software that would make this publishing task easier.

Problem was that the event flew straight in the face of Psalm 119 which reads:

As it was in the beginning, is now, and always shall be: for ever and ever. Amen.

This is found in Psalm 95:11 (see this site). But it's actually not showing in any of the translations I've looking in...

this is incredible news, for those who can't get to a TV or radio to witness this breaking news

1200 articles
Prime ministers statement
Picture of the happy couple
there will be more updates on the "Richard and Judy show" later

Asked about the Prime Minister's appearance on "Richard and Judy" later today, and would they discuss the marriage announcement [Number 10 press]

stay tuned !

Those people are founding their opinion on religious beliefs that not everyone shares. I respect your beliefs, but don't legislate them on me.

Opposition to abortion does not have to be founded on a religious belief. There are many people who oppose abortion who do so out of a completely secular worldview.

On the other hand, why do you think that an opinion that is based on a religious belief is not permissible? Here's an example. I believe that incest is wrong because the practice clearly is a sinful one. Because I think it's wrong based on my religious views, you're going to say that I'm not allowed to try to promote legislation banning incest?

Furthermore, do you realize how many of our laws today are based on religious "opinions"? Who do you think it was that pushed for the abolition of slavery, for instance? If you've never read about the great abolitionist William Wilberforce, it might open your eyes a bit.

How about this biblical reference: Let he without sin cast the first stone. Wakeup call: It is not yours or anybody else's right, privelege, calling, or job to judge other human beings.

You're right that according to Jesus, we are not to judge one another, however, that's not the whole story. According to Romans 13:1, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." And in Romans 13:4 we read, "For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

So if you are going to quote the Bible to back up your arguments, you're also going to have to confront the fact that governments were established by God to establish order and peace, by force if necessary.

Arguably, some writers would have learned to spell in school (if they were so lucky to attend). But what constituted "Standard English" would vary from town to town. Many people never travelled to other towns, so much of English spelling developed in pockets.

Until the rise of mercantilism in the 1500s and 1700s, variations in spelling and grammar were of minor importance. In time, the move from guilds to mercantalism required precision in business dealings, and the language had to be standardized. For example, English speakers dropped "they" as a singular, finding agreement in number more important than gender neutrality.

Much of "standard English" grammar is based on Latin rules of grammar. The reason we avoid splitting infinitives is that you can't split a Latin infinitive -- it's one word!

Well, that about sums up my English degree. :) I knew I'd use it again one day.

Romans: 41 to 50 yrs

Persians: ? yrs

Chinese: ? yrs

-AD

While an English translation was probably aimed to get control over the people compared to the church, James did not establish a separate church without the pope as its head. This was done by Hnery VIII in 1534's since the pope wouldn't annul his marriage to Catherine. He set up the church of England, with himself as head, and he annulled his own marriage, no thanks to the pope.

James, grandson of Henry and Anne Boleyn, did reinforce the Church of England, however, and the English bible would have fit with this motive.

Here's a link on Church of England History.

The last link is to 'A Brief Guide to Liturgical Copyright' by the Church of England. If anyone knows about copyright on the AV (KJV), the Church of England certainly should:

Authorized Version (AV), also known as the King James Version (KJV)
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building
Shaftesbury Road
Cambridge CB2 2RU
Tel: (01223) 312393
Fax: (01223) 315052.
(Applications should be addressed to The Permissions Controller.)
Application not required for liturgical use up to a maximum of 500 verses (not including a complete biblical book).

Acknowledgement:
From The Authorized (King James) Version. Rights in the Authorized Version are vested in the Crown. Reproduced by permission of the Crown's patentee, Cambridge University Press.

> At the request of the civil authorities without the support of the Pope.

Now you will have to prove it. References, please.

> Southern Spain was taken and occupied by the Turks

You are mixing up the Turks and the Moors.

> and was in serious danger of falling completely.

By the time of Reformation, the Moors were already being totally routed from Spain, but the Inquisition continued in full force to erradicate the Reformation wherever it lacked civil authorities support or at leat protection.

Even pre-reformists in Central Europe were killed by the Inquisition (OK, by civil authorities because of Inquisition trials) and other branch of Romanism even if they were not connected neither to Turks nor to Moors, and very far away from the places of conflagration. One of them was assassinated by a Council even after the Emperor had guaranteed his personal safety.

As an Anglican (as opposed to Roman) Catholic, I have to say with you, "Where to start?"

Despite your apparent attempt to villify catholics for some reason (are you an American fundamentalist of some stripe?) your summary of the theology is pretty universal. I don't know where the original poster got this idea of charity being a way of buying your way into heaven, but the notion of grace being unearned is pretty fundamental. There have been various distortions of it over the years (Roman indulgances, and Calvinist work ethic to name two) but to say that Christians are charitable because they are saving their own soul is heretical (i.e. against accepted denominational teaching) in just about any sect I am aware of, including the Roman church.

Now there is a good argument to be made that one should try to discern where one's gifts are best used before doing anything, but this is just general good advice and I have heard the same argument from a Zen monk. On the other side of that coin is the argument that giving as a form of self-discipline will make you more charitable, but the motivation here is to bring your inner emotional life into line with your reason, not to earn anything. Grace motivates you to be more charitable.

And please don't claim that Roman Catholics are not Christians. I have no trouble accepting both them and you as fellow Christians. Despite the fact that the three of us would have some very spirited arguments on all sorts of topics (starting with biblical authority), the fact that we all accept the basic truth of what you describe gives us an awful lot in common.

This book has been rightfully lambasted as being long on cyberjargon and short on content. A response to this book was prepared by Dr. Brian Reid, one of the designers of Altavista and long a presence behind the scenes of the Internet. He is one of the founders of The Society of Archbishop Justus a non-profit organization which maintains the anglican.org domain in trust for the world's Anglicans. Their excellent site, Anglicans Online is a weekly must read for Anglicans.

His response to Cybernauts Awake!, The Church and the Internet, while written for a non-technical audience, is definately worth a read.

After having personally participated in a large, worldwide Anglican mailing list for several years and running my own list for Clergy Spouses, I know that the Anglican Church is alive and well on the Internet.

This book has been rightfully lambasted as being long on cyberjargon and short on content. A response to this book was prepared by Dr. Brian Reid, one of the designers of Altavista and long a presence behind the scenes of the Internet. He is one of the founders of The Society of Archbishop Justus a non-profit organization which maintains the anglican.org domain in trust for the world's Anglicans. Their excellent site, Anglicans Online is a weekly must read for Anglicans.

His response to Cybernauts Awake!, The Church and the Internet, while written for a non-technical audience, is definately worth a read.

After having personally participated in a large, worldwide Anglican mailing list for several years and running my own list for Clergy Spouses, I know that the Anglican Church is alive and well on the Internet.

This book has been rightfully lambasted as being long on cyberjargon and short on content. A response to this book was prepared by Dr. Brian Reid, one of the designers of Altavista and long a presence behind the scenes of the Internet. He is one of the founders of The Society of Archbishop Justus a non-profit organization which maintains the anglican.org domain in trust for the world's Anglicans. Their excellent site, Anglicans Online is a weekly must read for Anglicans.

His response to Cybernauts Awake!, The Church and the Internet, while written for a non-technical audience, is definately worth a read.

After having personally participated in a large, worldwide Anglican mailing list for several years and running my own list for Clergy Spouses, I know that the Anglican Church is alive and well on the Internet.