Slashdot Mirror

What I hate is the hypocrisy of a political party, that tries to crucify Bill Clinton for *blatantly* lying under oath about a consensual blowjob, and then proceeds to lie to the american public about terrorists seeking nuclear weapons (african uranium), to justify a war that has cost a trillion dollars. When that money could have been spent bringing true security, and even food, to *all* of God's children.

I don't hate the republicans. I fear for their souls.

You've definitely got something here.

Roddenberry's dream was that in the future, humanity will be perfect. We'll all have worked out our differences, and there will be no crime, poverty or disease. In fact, there will be no money, because everyone will have whatever they need, thanks to replicator technology. All conflict must therefore come from encounters with alien species that aren't as evolved as we are.

But that dream just doesn't fit reality. Looking back over the last several thousand years of recorded history, I've seen absolutely no indication that human nature has changed one bit. Sure, technology has changed a lot, but people are still people. The Bible is full of examples of kings committing atrocities, businessmen and religious leaders being asshats, hypocrisy, racism, corruption, greed, etc. etc. We still have these problems today, and we will still have these problems in the 24th century.

Star Trek VI hinted that there are at least some humans who don't get along with everyone, and Deep Space Nine (created after Roddenberry's death) showed that greed still exists. I'd like to see that taken a few steps further.

Step forward in time a generation or two after the return of Voyager. The Federation isn't operating efficiently, not everyone has access to everything they want, and advanced technology can't fix everyone's problems. Starfleet Command has appeared to be in great shape for a long time, but behind the scenes, things have been falling apart. Several of the outer planets have formed their own alliance and decided to secede from the Federation, which has led to civil war. Alliance spies have infiltrated Starfleet to gain military intelligence, and some members of the Federation Council are of the opinion that desperate times call for desperate measures.

You could definitely come up with all kinds of interesting stories in that kind of environment. Plan a story arc, the way Babylon 5 was planned out. This has the disadvantage that viewers may get left out if they jump in in the middle of the series or miss a few episodes here and there, but the advantage that you can actually have character development and an overall plot! You still have to wrap up the main story in 42 minutes, but it frees you to move in new directions. What if the show was about the crew of the Enterprise G, but the captain and a few bridge crew members have personal ties with friends and family on Alliance worlds, and by the end of Season 1 they've decided the moral thing to do is to switch sides and turn against the Federation, helping to defend the freedom and liberty of the Alliance from the Federation oppressors?

Surely there are some good science fiction writers out there who can come up with better plot ideas than I can. Paramount just has to be willing to turn over the reigns to somebody with real vision.

You've definitely got something here.

Roddenberry's dream was that in the future, humanity will be perfect. We'll all have worked out our differences, and there will be no crime, poverty or disease. In fact, there will be no money, because everyone will have whatever they need, thanks to replicator technology. All conflict must therefore come from encounters with alien species that aren't as evolved as we are.

But that dream just doesn't fit reality. Looking back over the last several thousand years of recorded history, I've seen absolutely no indication that human nature has changed one bit. Sure, technology has changed a lot, but people are still people. The Bible is full of examples of kings committing atrocities, businessmen and religious leaders being asshats, hypocrisy, racism, corruption, greed, etc. etc. We still have these problems today, and we will still have these problems in the 24th century.

Star Trek VI hinted that there are at least some humans who don't get along with everyone, and Deep Space Nine (created after Roddenberry's death) showed that greed still exists. I'd like to see that taken a few steps further.

Step forward in time a generation or two after the return of Voyager. The Federation isn't operating efficiently, not everyone has access to everything they want, and advanced technology can't fix everyone's problems. Starfleet Command has appeared to be in great shape for a long time, but behind the scenes, things have been falling apart. Several of the outer planets have formed their own alliance and decided to secede from the Federation, which has led to civil war. Alliance spies have infiltrated Starfleet to gain military intelligence, and some members of the Federation Council are of the opinion that desperate times call for desperate measures.

You could definitely come up with all kinds of interesting stories in that kind of environment. Plan a story arc, the way Babylon 5 was planned out. This has the disadvantage that viewers may get left out if they jump in in the middle of the series or miss a few episodes here and there, but the advantage that you can actually have character development and an overall plot! You still have to wrap up the main story in 42 minutes, but it frees you to move in new directions. What if the show was about the crew of the Enterprise G, but the captain and a few bridge crew members have personal ties with friends and family on Alliance worlds, and by the end of Season 1 they've decided the moral thing to do is to switch sides and turn against the Federation, helping to defend the freedom and liberty of the Alliance from the Federation oppressors?

Surely there are some good science fiction writers out there who can come up with better plot ideas than I can. Paramount just has to be willing to turn over the reigns to somebody with real vision.

You've definitely got something here.

Roddenberry's dream was that in the future, humanity will be perfect. We'll all have worked out our differences, and there will be no crime, poverty or disease. In fact, there will be no money, because everyone will have whatever they need, thanks to replicator technology. All conflict must therefore come from encounters with alien species that aren't as evolved as we are.

But that dream just doesn't fit reality. Looking back over the last several thousand years of recorded history, I've seen absolutely no indication that human nature has changed one bit. Sure, technology has changed a lot, but people are still people. The Bible is full of examples of kings committing atrocities, businessmen and religious leaders being asshats, hypocrisy, racism, corruption, greed, etc. etc. We still have these problems today, and we will still have these problems in the 24th century.

Star Trek VI hinted that there are at least some humans who don't get along with everyone, and Deep Space Nine (created after Roddenberry's death) showed that greed still exists. I'd like to see that taken a few steps further.

Step forward in time a generation or two after the return of Voyager. The Federation isn't operating efficiently, not everyone has access to everything they want, and advanced technology can't fix everyone's problems. Starfleet Command has appeared to be in great shape for a long time, but behind the scenes, things have been falling apart. Several of the outer planets have formed their own alliance and decided to secede from the Federation, which has led to civil war. Alliance spies have infiltrated Starfleet to gain military intelligence, and some members of the Federation Council are of the opinion that desperate times call for desperate measures.

You could definitely come up with all kinds of interesting stories in that kind of environment. Plan a story arc, the way Babylon 5 was planned out. This has the disadvantage that viewers may get left out if they jump in in the middle of the series or miss a few episodes here and there, but the advantage that you can actually have character development and an overall plot! You still have to wrap up the main story in 42 minutes, but it frees you to move in new directions. What if the show was about the crew of the Enterprise G, but the captain and a few bridge crew members have personal ties with friends and family on Alliance worlds, and by the end of Season 1 they've decided the moral thing to do is to switch sides and turn against the Federation, helping to defend the freedom and liberty of the Alliance from the Federation oppressors?

Surely there are some good science fiction writers out there who can come up with better plot ideas than I can. Paramount just has to be willing to turn over the reigns to somebody with real vision.

You've definitely got something here.

Roddenberry's dream was that in the future, humanity will be perfect. We'll all have worked out our differences, and there will be no crime, poverty or disease. In fact, there will be no money, because everyone will have whatever they need, thanks to replicator technology. All conflict must therefore come from encounters with alien species that aren't as evolved as we are.

But that dream just doesn't fit reality. Looking back over the last several thousand years of recorded history, I've seen absolutely no indication that human nature has changed one bit. Sure, technology has changed a lot, but people are still people. The Bible is full of examples of kings committing atrocities, businessmen and religious leaders being asshats, hypocrisy, racism, corruption, greed, etc. etc. We still have these problems today, and we will still have these problems in the 24th century.

Star Trek VI hinted that there are at least some humans who don't get along with everyone, and Deep Space Nine (created after Roddenberry's death) showed that greed still exists. I'd like to see that taken a few steps further.

Step forward in time a generation or two after the return of Voyager. The Federation isn't operating efficiently, not everyone has access to everything they want, and advanced technology can't fix everyone's problems. Starfleet Command has appeared to be in great shape for a long time, but behind the scenes, things have been falling apart. Several of the outer planets have formed their own alliance and decided to secede from the Federation, which has led to civil war. Alliance spies have infiltrated Starfleet to gain military intelligence, and some members of the Federation Council are of the opinion that desperate times call for desperate measures.

You could definitely come up with all kinds of interesting stories in that kind of environment. Plan a story arc, the way Babylon 5 was planned out. This has the disadvantage that viewers may get left out if they jump in in the middle of the series or miss a few episodes here and there, but the advantage that you can actually have character development and an overall plot! You still have to wrap up the main story in 42 minutes, but it frees you to move in new directions. What if the show was about the crew of the Enterprise G, but the captain and a few bridge crew members have personal ties with friends and family on Alliance worlds, and by the end of Season 1 they've decided the moral thing to do is to switch sides and turn against the Federation, helping to defend the freedom and liberty of the Alliance from the Federation oppressors?

Surely there are some good science fiction writers out there who can come up with better plot ideas than I can. Paramount just has to be willing to turn over the reigns to somebody with real vision.

You've definitely got something here.

Roddenberry's dream was that in the future, humanity will be perfect. We'll all have worked out our differences, and there will be no crime, poverty or disease. In fact, there will be no money, because everyone will have whatever they need, thanks to replicator technology. All conflict must therefore come from encounters with alien species that aren't as evolved as we are.

But that dream just doesn't fit reality. Looking back over the last several thousand years of recorded history, I've seen absolutely no indication that human nature has changed one bit. Sure, technology has changed a lot, but people are still people. The Bible is full of examples of kings committing atrocities, businessmen and religious leaders being asshats, hypocrisy, racism, corruption, greed, etc. etc. We still have these problems today, and we will still have these problems in the 24th century.

Star Trek VI hinted that there are at least some humans who don't get along with everyone, and Deep Space Nine (created after Roddenberry's death) showed that greed still exists. I'd like to see that taken a few steps further.

Step forward in time a generation or two after the return of Voyager. The Federation isn't operating efficiently, not everyone has access to everything they want, and advanced technology can't fix everyone's problems. Starfleet Command has appeared to be in great shape for a long time, but behind the scenes, things have been falling apart. Several of the outer planets have formed their own alliance and decided to secede from the Federation, which has led to civil war. Alliance spies have infiltrated Starfleet to gain military intelligence, and some members of the Federation Council are of the opinion that desperate times call for desperate measures.

You could definitely come up with all kinds of interesting stories in that kind of environment. Plan a story arc, the way Babylon 5 was planned out. This has the disadvantage that viewers may get left out if they jump in in the middle of the series or miss a few episodes here and there, but the advantage that you can actually have character development and an overall plot! You still have to wrap up the main story in 42 minutes, but it frees you to move in new directions. What if the show was about the crew of the Enterprise G, but the captain and a few bridge crew members have personal ties with friends and family on Alliance worlds, and by the end of Season 1 they've decided the moral thing to do is to switch sides and turn against the Federation, helping to defend the freedom and liberty of the Alliance from the Federation oppressors?

Surely there are some good science fiction writers out there who can come up with better plot ideas than I can. Paramount just has to be willing to turn over the reigns to somebody with real vision.

it's the great abyss...

Abyss - Satan sealed
Abyss - Satan released
Note: It's recorded as being opened, then sealed, then opened again.

it's the great abyss...

Abyss - Satan sealed
Abyss - Satan released
Note: It's recorded as being opened, then sealed, then opened again.

The problem with this line of conversation is the use of the term "Christian" when what's actually being discussed is Roman Catholicism. Rome has certainly appropriated to itself the entire mantle of Christianity (witness Pope Benedict's recent pronouncements), but the practices of the Roman church have little to do with Christianity from a Biblical point of view. The notion that one man can excommunicate another from Christ's church is just one of Catholicism's deviations. The murder of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people throughout history who disputed Roman Catholic authority is another.

Many (most?) people who think Christianity is evil think so because they allow the Roman Catholic church the position it claims for itself. That's extraordinarily sad. If the Roman church is indeed the "harlot church" of Revelations 17, it's part of Satan's plan to keep people from God. If that's true, the plan is working.

If one wishes to dispute Christianity and is willing to do so on the basis of an honest reading of Scripture, I can respect that. (I disagree of course, but I can do it respectfully.) If one wishes to dispute Christianity based on the actions of another who happens to call himself a Christian, that's just a strawman.

I myself don't actually have a Bible; I got that from my quote file, but you can compare twenty-odd versions here.

>A most interesting species of idolator, is the biblical literalist. You don't worship God, you worship a book.

Hmm. Most interesting, since Idolatry was defined in the Bible. Yes, I do take The Bible at its intended meaning, which includes the literal interpretation of Genesis. No, I do not worship a book, the book, written by God, is a handbook which leads me to the one and only Triune God. It tells me exactly how to live, but it also tells me that I cannot live as God intended me to live, because I was born into sin (rebellion from God). Instead of abandoning me, since he has the right to, he provided for me a way to be able to be with him after Judgment Day or after I die, whichever comes first. All I have to do is believe that Christ, 100% God and 100% man, is my savior. I have no intention to stop believing. Because God loved me so much that he suffered my punishment for me, I want to tell everybody I can that they also can enjoy this great blessing. Jesus is saving me from my sins, my mistakes, my pride. I fear that it will be too late for many people when they realize that they have been told a lie by this world. I will pray for you. God is the only god. There is no other.

You tell me, which is better:
1)Believing in evolution, where life is meaningless, you live, and you die, thats it, life sucks, get used to it before you die and nobody remembers or cares about you.
or
2)The belief that there is somebody that loves you just the way that you are, but loves us way to much to let us stay that way. Broken, flawed, vulnerable, people like you and me are invited to be the hands and feet of God and join him when he restores the universe to the paradise that it used to be.

Do you want to know more? Go to http://www.biblegateway.com/ and read Genesis 1-11, Exodus 20 (the Law), John, Romans, 1 Corinthians 15, and Revelation 21-22. You will find him if you set your heart out to find him.

You should check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp for all other evolution based objections.

It's a reference to Judges 12. Basically, that word was used as a test to see what dialect you spoke, to determine if you were really one of the enemy. Since there's no longer anyone (that I know of, anyway) who speaks a language that is almost, but not quite, Hebrew, it wouldn't make sense to do it today.

Here's another good URL to report.

Warning: NSFW!

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesi s%2019;&version=65;

Only males get circumcised:

"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb."

Luke 2:21

2 Peter 3:8 says, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." I'm sure He opts for "a thousand years are like a day", so he's had the patent just over 6 days. He still has a LONG time left on His patent!

13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

Following Spinoza's logic here would be like saying the author of a book must be the book itself. We are effectively living in the pages of the book, so that all of our evidence can only come from the book itself and what the author chooses to reveal of Himself (both in describing the way we are created and in what He has chosen to reveal of Himself directly).

This is the basis of Judaic, Christian and Islamic theology, we operate on the understanding of what God has done and continues to do. For we Christians at least, the highest exposition of this fact is Paul's discourse on the Unknown God (agnostos theou) to the Athenians on Mars Hill.

I believe time was not an object until after Eve ate from the forbidden fruit. Then all mankind began to age and die. I am not ruling out the Big Bang, I am stating God created the so called "Big Bang" http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genisi s%201:1&version=31 The Beginning 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

And who says that both arn't correct? The Bible says 7 days, but never defines what God sees as a day. Heck, one day to God could be one rotation of the Milky Way, not one rotation of Earth.

Not only that, but Jesus hated the religious right. The Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons of that day were called Pharisees; read what Jesus had to say about them.

God is spirit, not a Higgs boson, this is as silly as saying God is a snowflake, electron, or photon. John 4:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&ch apter=4&verse=24&version=50&context=verse

Um...Where do you get the idea that the devil is a deity? Most people think that the devil is a fallen angel, though I don't think the passages they get that from actually teach it. Myself, I think the Bible doesn't clearly address the nature of Satan, but calling him a god just isn't in the running.

As for "other gods"...Well, you're right that "You shall have no other gods before me" does not imply that there are no other gods, and does seem to imply that there are some. So if all we had were the 10 commandments, we couldn't conclude monotheism from the Bible. But other passages expand on it, like Jer. 2:11, "Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which does not profit." Paul said something similar in Gal. 4:8. Or check out the confrontation between the prophet Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18, where Elijah taunts them because the "god" is merely a mute idol, powerless. Or read Isaiah 46, where God compares himself to idols.

In other words, in the 10 commandments God talks about other gods the way I sometimes do--he doesn't explicitly add, "and they are not really anyway" after every single mention.

I think that is a bit of a stretch. Re-read one of the accounts of the trial of Jesus. From John 18-20 (an account I just finished working through) it is quite clear that the Jews (or more precisely a subset of the Jews, in particular their leaders) wanted Jesus dead. Pilate quite clearly did not want Jesus dead ("I find no basis for a charge against him", Jn 18:38), but had Jesus executed under the threat of civil unrest.

Oh, and by the way, don't try pointing out statements by Paul that have to be teased through the interpretive comb to get results. I mean, really, who's missing the point badly enough to presume that anyone other than God in the person of Jesus can declare something a sin, except those who somehow venerate the a book, the product of the Nicene Council's editorial processes which elevate the writings of a man alongside those supposedly spoken by God?

Remember jesus went unto the tomb and then rose after three days to eat THE BRAINS OF THE LIVING ARRRRGH

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthe w+6

I assume I'm not the only one who had to look that up....

It happens the same day.

Check your count.
Genesis 7:2-3

Nope, according to the bible, which we have to take to mean exactly what it says (we are creationists):

Gen 3:7 - Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesi s+3

In its broadest sense, a fundamentalist is someone who believes that unvarying principles must apply to all people or every situation, in this case, the Bible as absolute truth. So, if someone believes every word of the Bible is absolute truth and nothing is metaphorical, simplified in terms that the people of the time would understand, and was completely accurate in its translation from language to language, then that would qualify them as a fundamentalist in my mind.

The Bible being absolute truth does not necessitate all those things that you expand it to in the second sentence. Of course some things are metaphorical (though a literal interpretation should always be considered where possible). Of course translations can be erroneous. Neither of these takes away from the veracity of the Bible.

In general, there is nothing wrong with that. I see no problem with believing what you believe. It's when you force that belief on other people that causes problems. Open discussion of beliefs on the other hand, is good for everyone involved.

How did we get to forcing beliefs on other people? By vary nature of the thing, you cannot force someone to believe anything. One can merely present his beliefs and the reasoning behind them and offer someone the choice of believing as they do. Anyone with a proper understanding of the Bible would agree that attempting to force anyone to believe the Bible is not only foolish, but dangerous, as coerced belief is no belief at all.

Now, what do I believe? I am a Christian, but I believe there is one problem with the Bible: it was physically written be humans.

On what do you base your assertion that you are a Christian? That is, what does "being a Christian" mean to you? I find it very odd that you claim to be a Christian, yet openly question the veracity of the Bible, the very basis of the foundation of the Christian faith.

This means two primary things to me:

1. It could only be written in terms that the person writing it could understand. This could lead to simplification of concepts. For example, in the story of creation, seven days may not necessarily equate to seven 24-hour periods. It could just mean seven stages, where each stage could take years, centuries, millenniums, etc.
2. Because humans are flawed, some of those who physically wrote the Bible may have injected their views of the world into it. It then becomes a problem to decipher what may have been written by a human voice and not God's. This can only be done through self reflection which will be different for each person.

Let me see if I can show you where these ideas lead. In making these statements, you are limiting God and saying that He is not capable of perfectly inspiring the writers of the Bible to write His word as He intended it. If God is all powerful, all knowing, and everything that Christians normally believe He is, then why could He not direct people to correctly record His word so that people could know Him? 2 Timothy 3:16 states that "All scripture is God-breathed" (NIV) or "inspired by God" (NASB). There are other very strong assertions that the Bible as a whole is the very word of God. It should be noted that the Bible never claims to be a scientific book.

The issue with questioning parts of the Bible is that, if parts of it are erroneous, then how can any of it be trusted? Then you end up with every variation of belief from some throwing out different parts of the Bible that they think have errors. Why, then, even associate your beliefs with the Bible?

This is just what I believe and I have no expectations of other pe

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

This is not God endorsing rape, it is a report of the actions of Lot.

The apostle Peter in the New Testament says Lot was a righteous man: 2 Peter 2:7-8.

In the next chapter it is described how those who don't believe in his God will be punished with fire 2 Peter 3:7. So if there is a creator God, and he created some people to not believe in the supernatural (ghosts (holy or not), people rising from the dead...) but instead to see experiment as the best way to find the truth and value the truth over wishfull thinking; why does he punish them "where the fire never goes out" Mark 9:43?

See Isaiah 13:16-17 for another rape command (with a side order of infants dashed to pieces).

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

This is not God endorsing rape, it is a report of the actions of Lot.

The apostle Peter in the New Testament says Lot was a righteous man: 2 Peter 2:7-8.

In the next chapter it is described how those who don't believe in his God will be punished with fire 2 Peter 3:7. So if there is a creator God, and he created some people to not believe in the supernatural (ghosts (holy or not), people rising from the dead...) but instead to see experiment as the best way to find the truth and value the truth over wishfull thinking; why does he punish them "where the fire never goes out" Mark 9:43?

See Isaiah 13:16-17 for another rape command (with a side order of infants dashed to pieces).

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

This is not God endorsing rape, it is a report of the actions of Lot.

The apostle Peter in the New Testament says Lot was a righteous man: 2 Peter 2:7-8.

In the next chapter it is described how those who don't believe in his God will be punished with fire 2 Peter 3:7. So if there is a creator God, and he created some people to not believe in the supernatural (ghosts (holy or not), people rising from the dead...) but instead to see experiment as the best way to find the truth and value the truth over wishfull thinking; why does he punish them "where the fire never goes out" Mark 9:43?

See Isaiah 13:16-17 for another rape command (with a side order of infants dashed to pieces).

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

This is not God endorsing rape, it is a report of the actions of Lot.

The apostle Peter in the New Testament says Lot was a righteous man: 2 Peter 2:7-8.

In the next chapter it is described how those who don't believe in his God will be punished with fire 2 Peter 3:7. So if there is a creator God, and he created some people to not believe in the supernatural (ghosts (holy or not), people rising from the dead...) but instead to see experiment as the best way to find the truth and value the truth over wishfull thinking; why does he punish them "where the fire never goes out" Mark 9:43?

See Isaiah 13:16-17 for another rape command (with a side order of infants dashed to pieces).

I dunno, let's ask jesus. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthe w%203:13-15;&version=46; Jesus says, " Yes, you should."

If everybody told these jerks to go jump in a lake when they claim God wants people to do (x), then there would be a whole lot fewer acts of extremism in the world.

Point taken but where I come from, one would get their grammatical knuckles rapped for that sort of thing. My Hacker Guide (Diana Hacket, not computer hacker) indicates no such use for their in that context.

In any event, I think that English needs a huge makeover anyway, especially as it pertains to pronouns. Along with gender-neutral pronouns, we need an obvious third-person plural, such as y'all. This is a glaring flaw that causes many misunderstandings.

One of the things that I found recently is a total misunderstanding of an important Bible passage, Luke 22:31. In this passage, Jesus says to Petter, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat..." Almost everyone I talked to thought that the third person pronoun "you," was singular--it is not. Since I read and write in Spanish, I noticed that it isactually plural ("ustedes").

Point taken but where I come from, one would get their grammatical knuckles rapped for that sort of thing. My Hacker Guide (Diana Hacket, not computer hacker) indicates no such use for their in that context.

In any event, I think that English needs a huge makeover anyway, especially as it pertains to pronouns. Along with gender-neutral pronouns, we need an obvious third-person plural, such as y'all. This is a glaring flaw that causes many misunderstandings.

One of the things that I found recently is a total misunderstanding of an important Bible passage, Luke 22:31. In this passage, Jesus says to Petter, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat..." Almost everyone I talked to thought that the third person pronoun "you," was singular--it is not. Since I read and write in Spanish, I noticed that it isactually plural ("ustedes").

where do you so-called Christians get off making shit up and then claiming, "God said so?"

This bothers me too, and is called taking God's name in vain, which is clearly commanded against in Exodus 20:7.

didn't God say to dominate nature for our own purposes, putting fear and terror into the hearts of all animals?

In Genesis 1:26-30 God is depicted giving man rule over animals.

where do you so-called Christians get off making shit up and then claiming, "God said so?"

This bothers me too, and is called taking God's name in vain, which is clearly commanded against in Exodus 20:7.

didn't God say to dominate nature for our own purposes, putting fear and terror into the hearts of all animals?

In Genesis 1:26-30 God is depicted giving man rule over animals.

There are several injunctions in the Bible commanding Christians to obey their government. For example, in Romans 13:1-7, Christians are told that God has placed rulers in their positions, and therefore, they should be obeyed. Remember that this must have been very controversial, since at the time Paul wrote this, Rome was very much against Christianity, and regularly persecuted the radical sect. Jesus made similar recommendations, specifically he John 19:9-11 told Pilate during his "trial" that it was God who granted Pilate his authority. Jesus also controversially told the Jews to pay taxes to the hated Caesar.

Why? Even though the government was doing repulsive and unfair and unjust things to them, Christians were commanded to obey.

I think the reason is because Jesus and Paul were very careful to point out that they were fundamentally concerned about sin and God, and not government. It's not that they didn't have a sense of justice, it's just that it is a lower priority. They want to fight the battles that are most worth fighting. Since Christianity on a fundamental level tears apart human allegiances by surrendering to God, Jesus and Paul did not want to make it worse by picking fights with human governments, which as Paul argues, are for the good of humanity in the first place. This is visible in China today, where the underground church emphatically states that they are not against the Chinese government. Unfortunately, this mindset is often taken advantage of by fascists (I believe Franco was supported by the Catholic church), and I feel that American Christians are to some degree abused in this way by the Republican party. Also, in many cases this message that I'm outlining is missed since for example, many Christian organizations were recently unfairly kicked out of Venezuela by Chavez who associates missionaries with CIA spies. Christians in the middle east have a *very* difficult time disassociating themselves with the CIA and US government. Christians want to be concerned about the things of God, not politics.

Of course many public figure Christians do not model this mindset by believing that the US should be turned into a theocracy modeled upon ancient Israel, and I think it's a mistake on their part. Other Christians make fools of themselves by recommending Chavez be assassinated, and others get bored and make audacious claims. On the other hand, they wouldn't be so visible unless they weren't so belligerent in the first place, so it's an unfair sampling of Christianity.

All that said... Christianity is obviously fundamentally concerned about justice, and many notable Christians stand up for what is right. Although I'm not a Catholic, I highly respect people like the Catholic Zimbabwe guy who is taking a stand against Mugabe, the Philippine Cardinal Sin who stood up against Marcos, Wilberforce who made a stand against slavery in Britain, Martin Luther King Jr who took a stand against racism, and many others. As good citizens, Christians are willing to take patriotic stands.

What Christians tell each other is that they'll obey authority figures unless they're told to do something that goes against Biblical principles, which is relatively rare in many Western countries. In the absence of clear Biblical direction, the official Christian position is unclear, and many Christians take advantage of the situation, and many other Christians are taken advantage of.

There are several injunctions in the Bible commanding Christians to obey their government. For example, in Romans 13:1-7, Christians are told that God has placed rulers in their positions, and therefore, they should be obeyed. Remember that this must have been very controversial, since at the time Paul wrote this, Rome was very much against Christianity, and regularly persecuted the radical sect. Jesus made similar recommendations, specifically he John 19:9-11 told Pilate during his "trial" that it was God who granted Pilate his authority. Jesus also controversially told the Jews to pay taxes to the hated Caesar.

Why? Even though the government was doing repulsive and unfair and unjust things to them, Christians were commanded to obey.

I think the reason is because Jesus and Paul were very careful to point out that they were fundamentally concerned about sin and God, and not government. It's not that they didn't have a sense of justice, it's just that it is a lower priority. They want to fight the battles that are most worth fighting. Since Christianity on a fundamental level tears apart human allegiances by surrendering to God, Jesus and Paul did not want to make it worse by picking fights with human governments, which as Paul argues, are for the good of humanity in the first place. This is visible in China today, where the underground church emphatically states that they are not against the Chinese government. Unfortunately, this mindset is often taken advantage of by fascists (I believe Franco was supported by the Catholic church), and I feel that American Christians are to some degree abused in this way by the Republican party. Also, in many cases this message that I'm outlining is missed since for example, many Christian organizations were recently unfairly kicked out of Venezuela by Chavez who associates missionaries with CIA spies. Christians in the middle east have a *very* difficult time disassociating themselves with the CIA and US government. Christians want to be concerned about the things of God, not politics.

Of course many public figure Christians do not model this mindset by believing that the US should be turned into a theocracy modeled upon ancient Israel, and I think it's a mistake on their part. Other Christians make fools of themselves by recommending Chavez be assassinated, and others get bored and make audacious claims. On the other hand, they wouldn't be so visible unless they weren't so belligerent in the first place, so it's an unfair sampling of Christianity.

All that said... Christianity is obviously fundamentally concerned about justice, and many notable Christians stand up for what is right. Although I'm not a Catholic, I highly respect people like the Catholic Zimbabwe guy who is taking a stand against Mugabe, the Philippine Cardinal Sin who stood up against Marcos, Wilberforce who made a stand against slavery in Britain, Martin Luther King Jr who took a stand against racism, and many others. As good citizens, Christians are willing to take patriotic stands.

What Christians tell each other is that they'll obey authority figures unless they're told to do something that goes against Biblical principles, which is relatively rare in many Western countries. In the absence of clear Biblical direction, the official Christian position is unclear, and many Christians take advantage of the situation, and many other Christians are taken advantage of.

There are several injunctions in the Bible commanding Christians to obey their government. For example, in Romans 13:1-7, Christians are told that God has placed rulers in their positions, and therefore, they should be obeyed. Remember that this must have been very controversial, since at the time Paul wrote this, Rome was very much against Christianity, and regularly persecuted the radical sect. Jesus made similar recommendations, specifically he John 19:9-11 told Pilate during his "trial" that it was God who granted Pilate his authority. Jesus also controversially told the Jews to pay taxes to the hated Caesar.

Why? Even though the government was doing repulsive and unfair and unjust things to them, Christians were commanded to obey.

I think the reason is because Jesus and Paul were very careful to point out that they were fundamentally concerned about sin and God, and not government. It's not that they didn't have a sense of justice, it's just that it is a lower priority. They want to fight the battles that are most worth fighting. Since Christianity on a fundamental level tears apart human allegiances by surrendering to God, Jesus and Paul did not want to make it worse by picking fights with human governments, which as Paul argues, are for the good of humanity in the first place. This is visible in China today, where the underground church emphatically states that they are not against the Chinese government. Unfortunately, this mindset is often taken advantage of by fascists (I believe Franco was supported by the Catholic church), and I feel that American Christians are to some degree abused in this way by the Republican party. Also, in many cases this message that I'm outlining is missed since for example, many Christian organizations were recently unfairly kicked out of Venezuela by Chavez who associates missionaries with CIA spies. Christians in the middle east have a *very* difficult time disassociating themselves with the CIA and US government. Christians want to be concerned about the things of God, not politics.

Of course many public figure Christians do not model this mindset by believing that the US should be turned into a theocracy modeled upon ancient Israel, and I think it's a mistake on their part. Other Christians make fools of themselves by recommending Chavez be assassinated, and others get bored and make audacious claims. On the other hand, they wouldn't be so visible unless they weren't so belligerent in the first place, so it's an unfair sampling of Christianity.

All that said... Christianity is obviously fundamentally concerned about justice, and many notable Christians stand up for what is right. Although I'm not a Catholic, I highly respect people like the Catholic Zimbabwe guy who is taking a stand against Mugabe, the Philippine Cardinal Sin who stood up against Marcos, Wilberforce who made a stand against slavery in Britain, Martin Luther King Jr who took a stand against racism, and many others. As good citizens, Christians are willing to take patriotic stands.

What Christians tell each other is that they'll obey authority figures unless they're told to do something that goes against Biblical principles, which is relatively rare in many Western countries. In the absence of clear Biblical direction, the official Christian position is unclear, and many Christians take advantage of the situation, and many other Christians are taken advantage of.