Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: biblegateway.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to biblegateway.com.

Comments · 1,248

  1. Re:You know... by Caspian · · Score: -1, Flamebait · on NASA Confirms Solar Storm Near 2012

    Christ on a cracker... Can you fundamentalist lunatics stay out of ANY discussion? EVER? Please take your homophobic, misogynistic, pro-slavery, mass-murdering, jealous ASSHOLE of a God and go the fuck AWAY with him.

  2. Re:You know... by Caspian · · Score: -1, Flamebait · on NASA Confirms Solar Storm Near 2012

    Christ on a cracker... Can you fundamentalist lunatics stay out of ANY discussion? EVER? Please take your homophobic, misogynistic, pro-slavery, mass-murdering, jealous ASSHOLE of a God and go the fuck AWAY with him.

  3. Re:You know... by Caspian · · Score: -1, Flamebait · on NASA Confirms Solar Storm Near 2012

    Christ on a cracker... Can you fundamentalist lunatics stay out of ANY discussion? EVER? Please take your homophobic, misogynistic, pro-slavery, mass-murdering, jealous ASSHOLE of a God and go the fuck AWAY with him.

  4. Re:You know... by Caspian · · Score: -1, Flamebait · on NASA Confirms Solar Storm Near 2012

    Christ on a cracker... Can you fundamentalist lunatics stay out of ANY discussion? EVER? Please take your homophobic, misogynistic, pro-slavery, mass-murdering, jealous ASSHOLE of a God and go the fuck AWAY with him.

  5. Re:You know... by Caspian · · Score: -1, Flamebait · on NASA Confirms Solar Storm Near 2012

    Christ on a cracker... Can you fundamentalist lunatics stay out of ANY discussion? EVER? Please take your homophobic, misogynistic, pro-slavery, mass-murdering, jealous ASSHOLE of a God and go the fuck AWAY with him.

  6. Re:You know... by Caspian · · Score: -1, Flamebait · on NASA Confirms Solar Storm Near 2012

    Christ on a cracker... Can you fundamentalist lunatics stay out of ANY discussion? EVER? Please take your homophobic, misogynistic, pro-slavery, mass-murdering, jealous ASSHOLE of a God and go the fuck AWAY with him.

  7. Re:hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on How to Turn A Music Lover to Piracy

    > For the vast majority of that fifteen thousand years you speak of, music wasn't a service that people (regular folk, that is)
    > provided each other at all. For the lion's share of the first 14/15ths, nearly all music was for religious purposes

    I don't think that is true. If you read the book of Psalms there are many of them that start out with the annotation of
    'to the tune of X' where X is some non-religious song that has long been lost to history (examples:
    Psalm 9,
    Psalm 22,
    Psalm 45).

    I think it would be more correct to say that it is only the religious songs that survived the ravages of time.

  8. Re:hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on How to Turn A Music Lover to Piracy

    > For the vast majority of that fifteen thousand years you speak of, music wasn't a service that people (regular folk, that is)
    > provided each other at all. For the lion's share of the first 14/15ths, nearly all music was for religious purposes

    I don't think that is true. If you read the book of Psalms there are many of them that start out with the annotation of
    'to the tune of X' where X is some non-religious song that has long been lost to history (examples:
    Psalm 9,
    Psalm 22,
    Psalm 45).

    I think it would be more correct to say that it is only the religious songs that survived the ravages of time.

  9. Re:hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on How to Turn A Music Lover to Piracy

    > For the vast majority of that fifteen thousand years you speak of, music wasn't a service that people (regular folk, that is)
    > provided each other at all. For the lion's share of the first 14/15ths, nearly all music was for religious purposes

    I don't think that is true. If you read the book of Psalms there are many of them that start out with the annotation of
    'to the tune of X' where X is some non-religious song that has long been lost to history (examples:
    Psalm 9,
    Psalm 22,
    Psalm 45).

    I think it would be more correct to say that it is only the religious songs that survived the ravages of time.

  10. Re:So THAT's where the flood water CAME FROM by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1 · on Huge Reservoir Discovered Beneath Asia

    This could explain why IIRC Amernian Christian sect believes Noah's Ark lies on top of mount Ararat.
    Or it could just be that it is recorded as being on top of Mount Ararat (Also here, for reference within this discussion)? Now as to what mount the text is referring to as Mount Ararat may not be what we presently identify as Mount Ararat; but given how some locations have been the same for thousands of years, it is probably not far from it.

    However, even if the ark was found, many would still likely deny it. But finding it is highly unlikely.
  11. Re:So THAT's where the flood water CAME FROM by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1 · on Huge Reservoir Discovered Beneath Asia

    This could explain why IIRC Amernian Christian sect believes Noah's Ark lies on top of mount Ararat.
    Or it could just be that it is recorded as being on top of Mount Ararat (Also here, for reference within this discussion)? Now as to what mount the text is referring to as Mount Ararat may not be what we presently identify as Mount Ararat; but given how some locations have been the same for thousands of years, it is probably not far from it.

    However, even if the ark was found, many would still likely deny it. But finding it is highly unlikely.
  12. Re:there is No god by Grrreat · · Score: 1 · on Humans Hardwired to Believe in Supernatural Deity?
    I am of the belief that God has given everyone the ability to use faith.

    "...measure of faith God has given you."

    Romans 12:3

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans %2012:3;&version=64;

  13. Re:Son, what are you doing in there? by jfredett · · Score: 1 · on Christian Group Prepares To Mark Wii as 'Porn Portal'

    I direct you to any of the following. Noting that I have not seen (nor do I plan to see) "swap.avi", I would assume that it is a relatively gruesome display of a number of sex acts. I'm not interested in scarring my brain with such things. So you can tell me if this par's up. Also note, I am a relatively (as much as I can be) unbiased Agnostic, I don't particularly care what side you are on, this is just a response to Crizp's request. Ezekial 23 link to online version http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekie l%2023;&version=9; Highlights: 2) Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother: 3) And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. 4) And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah. 5) And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours, 6) Which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses. 7) Thus she committed her whoredoms with them, with all them that were the chosen men of Assyria, and with all on whom she doted: with all their idols she defiled herself. 8) Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her. 9) Wherefore I have delivered her into the hand of her lovers, into the hand of the Assyrians, upon whom she doted. 10) These discovered her nakedness: they took her sons and her daughters, and slew her with the sword: and she became famous among women; for they had executed judgment upon her The passage goes on to describe how Aholah's sister is even more promiscuous than Aholah. Her fare is similar. The story of Lot's escape from Sodom & Gomhorrah Genesis 19 Link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&cha pter=19&version=9 Highlights: (just one verse, I think that should cover it.) 5) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. For those who do not know the story, the "men" they are talking about are actually angels, eventually, Lot decides to give the mob his two daughters to rape instead of the two men. Later (I think in chapter 20, if memory serves) Lot's two daughters commit incest with their father, because they thought that it was the end of the world, and they would need to repopulate it. There are several more examples, I think of Joseph and his Master's wife -- though I must admit, that one is significantly more tame than the former two. Revelation's treatise of the "Whore of Babylon, mother of Abominations" (I think that was the title.) All the verses were in the King James Version.

  14. Re:Son, what are you doing in there? by jfredett · · Score: 1 · on Christian Group Prepares To Mark Wii as 'Porn Portal'

    I direct you to any of the following. Noting that I have not seen (nor do I plan to see) "swap.avi", I would assume that it is a relatively gruesome display of a number of sex acts. I'm not interested in scarring my brain with such things. So you can tell me if this par's up. Also note, I am a relatively (as much as I can be) unbiased Agnostic, I don't particularly care what side you are on, this is just a response to Crizp's request. Ezekial 23 link to online version http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekie l%2023;&version=9; Highlights: 2) Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother: 3) And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. 4) And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah. 5) And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours, 6) Which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses. 7) Thus she committed her whoredoms with them, with all them that were the chosen men of Assyria, and with all on whom she doted: with all their idols she defiled herself. 8) Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her. 9) Wherefore I have delivered her into the hand of her lovers, into the hand of the Assyrians, upon whom she doted. 10) These discovered her nakedness: they took her sons and her daughters, and slew her with the sword: and she became famous among women; for they had executed judgment upon her The passage goes on to describe how Aholah's sister is even more promiscuous than Aholah. Her fare is similar. The story of Lot's escape from Sodom & Gomhorrah Genesis 19 Link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&cha pter=19&version=9 Highlights: (just one verse, I think that should cover it.) 5) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. For those who do not know the story, the "men" they are talking about are actually angels, eventually, Lot decides to give the mob his two daughters to rape instead of the two men. Later (I think in chapter 20, if memory serves) Lot's two daughters commit incest with their father, because they thought that it was the end of the world, and they would need to repopulate it. There are several more examples, I think of Joseph and his Master's wife -- though I must admit, that one is significantly more tame than the former two. Revelation's treatise of the "Whore of Babylon, mother of Abominations" (I think that was the title.) All the verses were in the King James Version.

  15. Re:So THAT's where the flood water CAME FROM by TemporalBeing · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Huge Reservoir Discovered Beneath Asia

    It is certainly possible that the Noah flood was a localized event, without invalidating the Scriptures (as seen in the original language).
    Except that has a different issue with Genesis 7:17-23 - "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet." (versus 19 & 20 specifically quoted here)

    How exactly do you cover "all the high mountains" and not cover the entire earth?

    If, in fact, a hill or mountain, etc keeps the water from spilling over onto another area of land, then in fact not all the high mountains have been covered. In other words, everything would have had to be covered in order to qualify, thus the context puts the word "eretz" as translating to the largest, most vast sense of the word, making it a globalized event.

    For reference, here's an alternative translation. I am not familiar with how accurate the translation is - but it is an alternative to the 'norm'. Someone who can understand hebrew could verify how literal it is. Since it is from 1898, it seems to have withstood the 'test of time'.
  16. Re:So THAT's where the flood water CAME FROM by TemporalBeing · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Huge Reservoir Discovered Beneath Asia

    It is certainly possible that the Noah flood was a localized event, without invalidating the Scriptures (as seen in the original language).
    Except that has a different issue with Genesis 7:17-23 - "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet." (versus 19 & 20 specifically quoted here)

    How exactly do you cover "all the high mountains" and not cover the entire earth?

    If, in fact, a hill or mountain, etc keeps the water from spilling over onto another area of land, then in fact not all the high mountains have been covered. In other words, everything would have had to be covered in order to qualify, thus the context puts the word "eretz" as translating to the largest, most vast sense of the word, making it a globalized event.

    For reference, here's an alternative translation. I am not familiar with how accurate the translation is - but it is an alternative to the 'norm'. Someone who can understand hebrew could verify how literal it is. Since it is from 1898, it seems to have withstood the 'test of time'.
  17. Re:So THAT's where the flood water CAME FROM by TemporalBeing · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Huge Reservoir Discovered Beneath Asia

    It is certainly possible that the Noah flood was a localized event, without invalidating the Scriptures (as seen in the original language).
    Except that has a different issue with Genesis 7:17-23 - "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet." (versus 19 & 20 specifically quoted here)

    How exactly do you cover "all the high mountains" and not cover the entire earth?

    If, in fact, a hill or mountain, etc keeps the water from spilling over onto another area of land, then in fact not all the high mountains have been covered. In other words, everything would have had to be covered in order to qualify, thus the context puts the word "eretz" as translating to the largest, most vast sense of the word, making it a globalized event.

    For reference, here's an alternative translation. I am not familiar with how accurate the translation is - but it is an alternative to the 'norm'. Someone who can understand hebrew could verify how literal it is. Since it is from 1898, it seems to have withstood the 'test of time'.
  18. Re:So THAT's where the flood water CAME FROM by Phroggy · · Score: 5, Funny · on Huge Reservoir Discovered Beneath Asia

    "Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more."
    Proverbs 31:6-7 (NIV)

    I defy anyone to find a better passage to take out of context.

  19. Re:As a Christian myself... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting · on Christian Group Prepares To Mark Wii as 'Porn Portal'

    So not only is your god mutable

    What's the point in being God if the rules don't follow your whim? :P

    Actually, the law is based on a single promise. The promise of eternal life to Adam and Eve. The problem was that Adam and Eve failed to follow the single law they were given (don't eat from the tree at the center of the garden) and were cast out. But that's not entirely fair to their descendents, so they each had the choice to live their life according to the promise given. The 10 Commandments were a set of laws God gave to the Jewish civilization so that they would know how to conduct themselves in a pure form. If one sinned, they were required to atone for that sin. The most common atonement was to slaughter a lamb as a sacrifice. This was symbolic of the fate that would await the savior. You see, in Judaism, they believed in Christ before he came. Those who continue to practice Judaism believe that he hasn't arrived yet.

    The harshest penalty (death) was reserved for only the highest crimes, murder being the most obvious. Even then, you'll note that God was merciful in many sitations, sparing the the life of the individual.

    at one point in time (approximately two thousand years ago) it punished people for myriad minutiae (I'm thinking of Leviticus here)

    You need to be more specific. Leviticus set up the laws under which the Jewish people lived. They did not differ all that significantly from the laws we live under today. The only thing that's changed is that today's laws are not as hard and fast as those of the old testament. e.g. When you sleep with a virgin woman outside of marriage, it may be "wrong" from a Christian perspective, but the law doesn't require you to marry her and pay the father 100 shekels of silver. Today's law in Christian societies recognizes grace, which the old testament did not. This follows a general societal pattern of placing greater value on life. If you look back in history to the period in which Leviticus was written, the humans of the world did not place a very high value on an individual's right to live.

    I'm curious why you think your omnipotent god changed its mind all of a sudden?

    He didn't "suddenly change his mind". First off, the savior was promised to the Jews long before he arrived. The primary purpose of the Bible is to track his lineage, going all the way back to Adam and Eve. It was important that Jesus be a son of man and not of the Niphilim. The Bible also tells us that Jesus spent time in the place of imprisioned spirits (hell? purgatory? I'll leave that to the scholars) preaching to them so that they might also be saved.
  20. Re:Why wouldn't they? by burndive · · Score: 1 · on Old Islamic Tile Patterns Show Modern Math Insight

    Personally, I think that a society who follows those tenets because they believe them to be right, rather than because that's what their god supposedly wants, is a more enlightened society.
    I've heard a rabbi comment on that... He said that following some principles because you believe them to be right is easy; following them just because your god commands you is hard. And that, he said, is why religious people have it harder and why their sacrifice is more worthy or something like that.
    it seems to me that taking a published list of principles and altering it to arrive at your own set of principles that seem fairest to you is hard, while following it directly just because you're commanded to is easy. it may be that looking at the list and altering it based on your viewpoint doesn't bring you to a better or more generally fair set of rules (you may be factoring in your own bias and self-interest). but if you're really putting effort into thinking of the reasons behind those rules, that's got to be more work than just following without question doesn't it?

    As a Christian, I do not consider God's statements of what is and is not contrary to his nature a challenge to put myself through some sort of ordeal. No, God's commandments do not "jive" with us sinful humans. They are hard; in fact, they are impossible to live up to, especially in principle. The difficulty of following them is not what makes them good. At all. There is no sense in which "more work"=="better".

    Thrashing yourself against God's standard of morality, and then thinking that doing so somehow obligates God to recognize your effort is the height of arrogance.

    When Abraham believed God, it was credited to his account as righteousness. So, what are the promises of God? If we believe them because we trust God, we will be counted righteous.

  21. Re:Why wouldn't they? by burndive · · Score: 1 · on Old Islamic Tile Patterns Show Modern Math Insight

    Personally, I think that a society who follows those tenets because they believe them to be right, rather than because that's what their god supposedly wants, is a more enlightened society.
    I've heard a rabbi comment on that... He said that following some principles because you believe them to be right is easy; following them just because your god commands you is hard. And that, he said, is why religious people have it harder and why their sacrifice is more worthy or something like that.
    it seems to me that taking a published list of principles and altering it to arrive at your own set of principles that seem fairest to you is hard, while following it directly just because you're commanded to is easy. it may be that looking at the list and altering it based on your viewpoint doesn't bring you to a better or more generally fair set of rules (you may be factoring in your own bias and self-interest). but if you're really putting effort into thinking of the reasons behind those rules, that's got to be more work than just following without question doesn't it?

    As a Christian, I do not consider God's statements of what is and is not contrary to his nature a challenge to put myself through some sort of ordeal. No, God's commandments do not "jive" with us sinful humans. They are hard; in fact, they are impossible to live up to, especially in principle. The difficulty of following them is not what makes them good. At all. There is no sense in which "more work"=="better".

    Thrashing yourself against God's standard of morality, and then thinking that doing so somehow obligates God to recognize your effort is the height of arrogance.

    When Abraham believed God, it was credited to his account as righteousness. So, what are the promises of God? If we believe them because we trust God, we will be counted righteous.

  22. Re:Why wouldn't they? by burndive · · Score: 1 · on Old Islamic Tile Patterns Show Modern Math Insight

    Personally, I think that a society who follows those tenets because they believe them to be right, rather than because that's what their god supposedly wants, is a more enlightened society.
    I've heard a rabbi comment on that... He said that following some principles because you believe them to be right is easy; following them just because your god commands you is hard. And that, he said, is why religious people have it harder and why their sacrifice is more worthy or something like that.
    it seems to me that taking a published list of principles and altering it to arrive at your own set of principles that seem fairest to you is hard, while following it directly just because you're commanded to is easy. it may be that looking at the list and altering it based on your viewpoint doesn't bring you to a better or more generally fair set of rules (you may be factoring in your own bias and self-interest). but if you're really putting effort into thinking of the reasons behind those rules, that's got to be more work than just following without question doesn't it?

    As a Christian, I do not consider God's statements of what is and is not contrary to his nature a challenge to put myself through some sort of ordeal. No, God's commandments do not "jive" with us sinful humans. They are hard; in fact, they are impossible to live up to, especially in principle. The difficulty of following them is not what makes them good. At all. There is no sense in which "more work"=="better".

    Thrashing yourself against God's standard of morality, and then thinking that doing so somehow obligates God to recognize your effort is the height of arrogance.

    When Abraham believed God, it was credited to his account as righteousness. So, what are the promises of God? If we believe them because we trust God, we will be counted righteous.

  23. Re:"God Says it" by jamesmrankinjr · · Score: 1 · on Kansas Adopts New Science Standards

    In one place he's smiling on David, who is stealing other men's wives and having them killed so that they're widows and he can marry them.

    Huh? Smiling?

    -jimbo

  24. Re:Does it matter? by Baricom · · Score: -1, Offtopic · on SCO Vs. Groklaw

    There are countless times in the New Testament when Jesus asserts his divinity. See, for example, Matthew 26:63-65, Mark 14:60-62, Luke 22:67-70, John 4:25-26, John 8:58, John 10:30, and John 18:33-37. Also, remember that Jesus was given to the Romans by the Jewish authorities because he claimed to be God.

    The passage you quoted (either Mark 10:17-18 or Luke 18:18-19) leaves out important context: Jesus is responding to the rich man who asked him what he "must do to inherit eternal life." Most Biblical scholars agree that the question was rhetorical in nature - Jesus was probing to understand the man's faith, not denying his divinity.

  25. Re:Does it matter? by Baricom · · Score: -1, Offtopic · on SCO Vs. Groklaw

    There are countless times in the New Testament when Jesus asserts his divinity. See, for example, Matthew 26:63-65, Mark 14:60-62, Luke 22:67-70, John 4:25-26, John 8:58, John 10:30, and John 18:33-37. Also, remember that Jesus was given to the Romans by the Jewish authorities because he claimed to be God.

    The passage you quoted (either Mark 10:17-18 or Luke 18:18-19) leaves out important context: Jesus is responding to the rich man who asked him what he "must do to inherit eternal life." Most Biblical scholars agree that the question was rhetorical in nature - Jesus was probing to understand the man's faith, not denying his divinity.

  26. Re:Does it matter? by Baricom · · Score: -1, Offtopic · on SCO Vs. Groklaw

    There are countless times in the New Testament when Jesus asserts his divinity. See, for example, Matthew 26:63-65, Mark 14:60-62, Luke 22:67-70, John 4:25-26, John 8:58, John 10:30, and John 18:33-37. Also, remember that Jesus was given to the Romans by the Jewish authorities because he claimed to be God.

    The passage you quoted (either Mark 10:17-18 or Luke 18:18-19) leaves out important context: Jesus is responding to the rich man who asked him what he "must do to inherit eternal life." Most Biblical scholars agree that the question was rhetorical in nature - Jesus was probing to understand the man's faith, not denying his divinity.

  27. Re:Does it matter? by Baricom · · Score: -1, Offtopic · on SCO Vs. Groklaw

    There are countless times in the New Testament when Jesus asserts his divinity. See, for example, Matthew 26:63-65, Mark 14:60-62, Luke 22:67-70, John 4:25-26, John 8:58, John 10:30, and John 18:33-37. Also, remember that Jesus was given to the Romans by the Jewish authorities because he claimed to be God.

    The passage you quoted (either Mark 10:17-18 or Luke 18:18-19) leaves out important context: Jesus is responding to the rich man who asked him what he "must do to inherit eternal life." Most Biblical scholars agree that the question was rhetorical in nature - Jesus was probing to understand the man's faith, not denying his divinity.

  28. Re:Does it matter? by Baricom · · Score: -1, Offtopic · on SCO Vs. Groklaw

    There are countless times in the New Testament when Jesus asserts his divinity. See, for example, Matthew 26:63-65, Mark 14:60-62, Luke 22:67-70, John 4:25-26, John 8:58, John 10:30, and John 18:33-37. Also, remember that Jesus was given to the Romans by the Jewish authorities because he claimed to be God.

    The passage you quoted (either Mark 10:17-18 or Luke 18:18-19) leaves out important context: Jesus is responding to the rich man who asked him what he "must do to inherit eternal life." Most Biblical scholars agree that the question was rhetorical in nature - Jesus was probing to understand the man's faith, not denying his divinity.

  29. Re:Does it matter? by Baricom · · Score: -1, Offtopic · on SCO Vs. Groklaw

    There are countless times in the New Testament when Jesus asserts his divinity. See, for example, Matthew 26:63-65, Mark 14:60-62, Luke 22:67-70, John 4:25-26, John 8:58, John 10:30, and John 18:33-37. Also, remember that Jesus was given to the Romans by the Jewish authorities because he claimed to be God.

    The passage you quoted (either Mark 10:17-18 or Luke 18:18-19) leaves out important context: Jesus is responding to the rich man who asked him what he "must do to inherit eternal life." Most Biblical scholars agree that the question was rhetorical in nature - Jesus was probing to understand the man's faith, not denying his divinity.

  30. Re:Does it matter? by Baricom · · Score: -1, Offtopic · on SCO Vs. Groklaw

    There are countless times in the New Testament when Jesus asserts his divinity. See, for example, Matthew 26:63-65, Mark 14:60-62, Luke 22:67-70, John 4:25-26, John 8:58, John 10:30, and John 18:33-37. Also, remember that Jesus was given to the Romans by the Jewish authorities because he claimed to be God.

    The passage you quoted (either Mark 10:17-18 or Luke 18:18-19) leaves out important context: Jesus is responding to the rich man who asked him what he "must do to inherit eternal life." Most Biblical scholars agree that the question was rhetorical in nature - Jesus was probing to understand the man's faith, not denying his divinity.

  31. Re:Does it matter? by Baricom · · Score: -1, Offtopic · on SCO Vs. Groklaw

    There are countless times in the New Testament when Jesus asserts his divinity. See, for example, Matthew 26:63-65, Mark 14:60-62, Luke 22:67-70, John 4:25-26, John 8:58, John 10:30, and John 18:33-37. Also, remember that Jesus was given to the Romans by the Jewish authorities because he claimed to be God.

    The passage you quoted (either Mark 10:17-18 or Luke 18:18-19) leaves out important context: Jesus is responding to the rich man who asked him what he "must do to inherit eternal life." Most Biblical scholars agree that the question was rhetorical in nature - Jesus was probing to understand the man's faith, not denying his divinity.

  32. Re:Does it matter? by Baricom · · Score: -1, Offtopic · on SCO Vs. Groklaw

    There are countless times in the New Testament when Jesus asserts his divinity. See, for example, Matthew 26:63-65, Mark 14:60-62, Luke 22:67-70, John 4:25-26, John 8:58, John 10:30, and John 18:33-37. Also, remember that Jesus was given to the Romans by the Jewish authorities because he claimed to be God.

    The passage you quoted (either Mark 10:17-18 or Luke 18:18-19) leaves out important context: Jesus is responding to the rich man who asked him what he "must do to inherit eternal life." Most Biblical scholars agree that the question was rhetorical in nature - Jesus was probing to understand the man's faith, not denying his divinity.

  33. Re:Other arguments against Christians. by adrianmonk · · Score: 1 · on Two Ways Not To Handle Free Speech

    Not being one myself, I consider a religion Christian if it's based on Jesus. If that particular religion adds a bunch of crazy nonsense to the Jesus worshiping, it doesn't make its followers non-Christians, it just makes them Christians who also believe a bunch of crazy nonsense.

    What if it's fairly easy to objectively show that some key parts of the "crazy nonsense" they've added is in direct conflict with the words of Jesus? Then can you really say the religion is "based on Jesus"?

    For the record, the particular words of Jesus I'm talking about relate to marriage after death. The LDS ("Mormon") church is very clear that they think marriage continues after death. In fact, it's a key part of their religion. It's not an exaggeration to call it a cornerstone of Mormonism. (I have personally spoken to a man who converted to Mormonism specifically because it included this belief.) Jesus seems very clear on the subject as well, and it's also hard to mistake his intent since three gospel writers give almost the exact same version of this story: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The only problem here is that Jesus and the Mormons have the exact opposite position of each other. Mormons say marriage is eternal; Jesus says it isn't.

    Now, I'm sure this has come up before, and I'm sure the Mormons have a way of explaining it, but I have a feeling it'll be one of those "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" kinds of explanations.

  34. Re:Other arguments against Christians. by adrianmonk · · Score: 1 · on Two Ways Not To Handle Free Speech

    Not being one myself, I consider a religion Christian if it's based on Jesus. If that particular religion adds a bunch of crazy nonsense to the Jesus worshiping, it doesn't make its followers non-Christians, it just makes them Christians who also believe a bunch of crazy nonsense.

    What if it's fairly easy to objectively show that some key parts of the "crazy nonsense" they've added is in direct conflict with the words of Jesus? Then can you really say the religion is "based on Jesus"?

    For the record, the particular words of Jesus I'm talking about relate to marriage after death. The LDS ("Mormon") church is very clear that they think marriage continues after death. In fact, it's a key part of their religion. It's not an exaggeration to call it a cornerstone of Mormonism. (I have personally spoken to a man who converted to Mormonism specifically because it included this belief.) Jesus seems very clear on the subject as well, and it's also hard to mistake his intent since three gospel writers give almost the exact same version of this story: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The only problem here is that Jesus and the Mormons have the exact opposite position of each other. Mormons say marriage is eternal; Jesus says it isn't.

    Now, I'm sure this has come up before, and I'm sure the Mormons have a way of explaining it, but I have a feeling it'll be one of those "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" kinds of explanations.

  35. Re:Other arguments against Christians. by adrianmonk · · Score: 1 · on Two Ways Not To Handle Free Speech

    Not being one myself, I consider a religion Christian if it's based on Jesus. If that particular religion adds a bunch of crazy nonsense to the Jesus worshiping, it doesn't make its followers non-Christians, it just makes them Christians who also believe a bunch of crazy nonsense.

    What if it's fairly easy to objectively show that some key parts of the "crazy nonsense" they've added is in direct conflict with the words of Jesus? Then can you really say the religion is "based on Jesus"?

    For the record, the particular words of Jesus I'm talking about relate to marriage after death. The LDS ("Mormon") church is very clear that they think marriage continues after death. In fact, it's a key part of their religion. It's not an exaggeration to call it a cornerstone of Mormonism. (I have personally spoken to a man who converted to Mormonism specifically because it included this belief.) Jesus seems very clear on the subject as well, and it's also hard to mistake his intent since three gospel writers give almost the exact same version of this story: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The only problem here is that Jesus and the Mormons have the exact opposite position of each other. Mormons say marriage is eternal; Jesus says it isn't.

    Now, I'm sure this has come up before, and I'm sure the Mormons have a way of explaining it, but I have a feeling it'll be one of those "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" kinds of explanations.

  36. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by freakmn · · Score: 1 · on Scientology Critic Arrested After 6 Years
    I know that Wikipedia is not the best place to quote from, but it is one that most people here would be familiar with. The sources that you are citing are much better, but I think the language in them requires a large base knowledge of the Church that many here don't have. Let me try to explain.

    "when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church"

    I don't know if you intended it this way, but this is not a way for the Pope to "make up" a sin. It is intended to be used as clarification of the Church's official stance on a moral issue or doctrine. Though the Bible is believed to be the Word of God, the Catholic Church believes that there is more than just the Bible to guide us. Some of the reasons for that are just logical. If the Apostles were told to write in the Bible that aborting fetuses for practices of stem cell research are not in line with the Church's teaching, they wouldn't have a clue what that meant. There are issues in modern society that are not explicitly defined in the Bible. There are the Two Great Commandments, which sum up the intentions of the 10 Commandments, as well as provide guidance for other things not explicitly defined in the Bible. When Jesus was asked which Commandment was the most important, he replied:

    "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

    What I am trying to say is that Papal Infallibility is to clarify doctrine, rather than to create doctrine that is simply to cause other people to be in sin. I would argue that the Pope clarifying does not damn people, as God may have already decided to judge based on whatever that particular moral issue is, and the Pope just points it out. Finally, depending on the severity of the issue, if it is not a serious sin, then it does not send someone to Hell. As I've said in other posts, perfection is not expected to be reached, but it is the goal. We all are not perfect, everyone in a different way. So, even if someone does not follow that particular teaching, it is not a guarantee that they will go to Hell, and therefore, not a damning.

    On your note about this setting the Pope above others, I would have to respectfully disagree. I understand that you are saying that since he has this ability, then he must be set above others. I would agree that he has privileges that others do not have, since he is the deciding word on those issues, but what I mean about being set above others was in the spiritual sense. I mean to say that he is still judged according to his actions, and cannot simply change what is and is not a sin to fit his own liking.

    OK, on to Anathema. I have to admit that although I am familiar with the concept of Anathema, it is not within my area of expertise. One thing that sticks out to me, down at the bottom of the Anathema article that you have linked, is the following quote:

    The Church, animated by the spirit of God, does not wish the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live. This explains why the most severe and terrifying formulas of excommunication, containing all the rigours of the Maranatha have, as a rule, clauses like this: Unless he becomes repentant, or gives satisfaction, or is corrected.

    The purpose of Anathema, as well as all forms of excommunication, is to serve as a warning. They are extremely severe warnings, but the intention of them both is repentance. I believe that this isn't a damning in the way that we are discussi

  37. Re:Tom Cruise Missile by freakmn · · Score: 1 · on Scientology Critic Arrested After 6 Years

    Well, the burning is representative of the feeling of being without God. There are countless references to Hell, as well as its various names (Gehenna, Hades, Sheol) in the Bible. One example is Matthew 10:28: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

  38. Re:Scary by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Interesting · on Scientology Critic Arrested After 6 Years

    I'm not in the least contesting the idea that Scientologists aren't loony to their very core; I'm just curious why you seem to think that Scientologists are worse than Christians somehow. Most of the differences I can think of leave the Christians as the worse offenders.

    Two points.

    1) You're probably unaware of the offenses of Scientologists. They're relatively obscure.
    2) There are a LOT more Christians and the religion has had a LOT longer time to have offenses committed in its name.

    Combining these two means that you don't really have a good concept of the relative densities of craziness in the two religions. The larger a population is, the greater the violent fringe that can exist. Every major religion in existence has had its share of bloodshed, but that's not the fault of religion per se so much as the natural human tendency to form groups and to think less of people not in your group. Since Christianity is larger and more established, it has a greater capacity to harbor a lunatic fringe. That does not reflect necessarily on the relative merits of the core beliefs of the two faiths.

    Don't recall any Scientologists blowing up any abortion clinics, for instance, nor can I think of them trying to tell me, a non-believer - or worse, getting a law put in place that coerces me - such that I can't marry two willing people.

    While there isn't any solid evidence of murders committed in the name of Scientology, there is a long history of intimidation, harassment, and property damage in defense of the religion. (There is evidence for negligent death, but no first-degree murder.) The religion is relatively young, so it's hard to say whether that's a matter of time or not.

    However, there is a marked difference in the canonical stance on violence towards outsiders between mainstream Christianity and mainstream Scientology. Scientology views those who interfere with Scientology to be fair game. That is to say that there's no moral laws protecting the enemies of Scientology and no sanction of any activities taken to harm them. Christianity, at its core, states that you should love your enemy. Few Christians are capable of holding themselves to that standard, but the difference in what you're supposed to do is marked.

    As for attempting to force their morality on others, Scientology simply hasn't had the power to enforce its views on outsiders due to a lack of critical mass. What makes you think they'd be different from any other segment of society bound by a common code of behavior?

    They have, however, lobbied for broad government powers to enforce copyright because they protect their inner secrets with copyright law and have been responsible for a number of DMCA takedown notices. They were notable advocates for the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA itself.

  39. Re:Ah ha! by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1 · on Pillars of Creation Destroyed
    A couple things...(1) what I was stating earlier has nothing to do with this, and was simply saying that even if one reads it literally there are certain things we must admit - namely that even assuming a full literal reading of ages and assuming all Biblical records are accurate historically that there is still a time gap that must be admitted and the timeline provided cannot say to creation but simply to the fall of man. That is all.

    However, as to your accusations:
    Why there are numerous contradictions in the 2 accounts of creation [*]
    There is no contraction there. If you notice the tense of the verbs. In Genesis 2 it refers to the creation of the animals in the past tense. They are still perfectly in line with each other.

    Why Day 2 of creation is not called Good...
    So? That has no impact on anything else.

    What did the Church Father Origen write?
    The things of God are higher than ours, and in creation He can do what He wills. What sense does it need to make to us? For to a fool things appear foolish and so the fool believes not; but the wise may see the error of their ways and yet accept it on faith.

    Whether or not to read a passage as literal, figurative, historical, etc. has been up to debate for thousands of years. Yet, many passages hold truths in all of the methods of readings, and context often shows certain passages to be purely figurative (e.g. the parables in the four gospels). However, with respect to this conversation, my point is that there are Christians that do read some passages (justly or not) as pure figurative, and in doing so with the respect to the Genesis account, there are certain things that we must admit - namely the existence of time gaps, which are often overlooked. By doing so, we can no longer claim a fixed age of the Earth itself, but only a fixed amount of time to a certain event (namely the Fall of Man) that occurs within the Biblical record. Whether or not you or anyone on Slashdot believes it, etc. is up to the reader.

    Many assume science and Christian faith are incompatible. They are not. This is one area especially where they seem incompatible and many justify them by using the ideas of Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution, yet in doing so they break the Biblical record to do so. By admitting what is there that we do not usually see (e.g. time gaps), a lot of things can fall into place. That does not mean that science is 100% correct (it has many assumptions that are not admitted), but neither is a belief in faith that does not admit its assumptions either.
  40. Re:Let's draw back... by malaire · · Score: 1 · on Why Software Sucks, And Can Something Be Done About It?
    Reminds me of that Bible story where Moses was taking some escaped slaves for a walk in a desert that lasted some 40 years.
    When asked why it took him so long to get to a free land, he replied that they had to wait for all the former slaves to die off, since only their kids could be trully free.

    That's not true. Please read Numbers 13-14 for true reason why that "walk in the desert" took so long.

    Short version:

    After a relatively short time, they were already near their goal. They send 12 men to spy on the land for 40 days, as commanded by God.

    Two spies reported:
    Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.

    Ten spies reported:
    We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.


    People believed the report of 10 spies:
    [14:1] And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night.
    [2] And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness!
    [3] And wherefore hath the LORD brought us unto this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be a prey? were it not better for us to return into Egypt?
    [4] And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt.


    God did NOT like that:

    [26] And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
    [27] How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, which murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against me.
    [28] Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you:
    [29] Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me,
    [30] Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.
    [31] But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised.
    [32] But as for you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness.
    [33] And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness.
    [34] After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
    [35] I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.


    So, the 40-year journey was a punishment.
  41. Re:So Did Jesus walk on water using cornstarch? by Arthur+Dent+'99 · · Score: 1 · on 5 Strangest Materials

    I've heard the ice explanation before, but it's simply not plausible given the information in the text of Matthew 14:22-33.

    1. If the lake was solidified enough for someone to walk across it, a wind-powered wooden boat wouldn't be able to sail across it.
    2. It's very difficult for ice to make waves.
    3. Most people forget that not only did Jesus walk on the water, but so did Peter. Peter jumped out of the boat and walked toward Jesus while Jesus was still approaching. At first, Peter did fine, but once he started to notice the waves, he began to sink, something that is also difficult to do on ice. Once Jesus caught him, though, they walked into the boat. If, as some may contend, there was ice under the surface of the water, why would it sink under the weight of one person, then suddenly bouy back up with the weight of an additional person?
    4. Finally, there's nothing miraculous about walking on ice. I'm sure there are hundreds of Canadians walking on frozen lakes right now. No one in their right mind would go up to one of them and claim that they are the Son of God.
  42. Re:quadrouple dipped by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 0 · on RIAA Goes for the Max Against AllofMP3

    I've already paid my taxes to the RIAA Gods several times over.

    Well, technically, you don't pay taxes to gods.

    "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Matthew 22:21 (NIV)

  43. Re:Praise Jesus! by starrsoft · · Score: -1, Offtopic · on Birth of an Island

    ...blessed be the name of the Lord. (Job 1:21)

  44. Science pushing materialism is foolishness by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 0 · on Neuroscience, Psychology Eroding Idea of Free Will

    First evolution came on the scene, and science was used not only to oppose the beliefs of religious authorities, but to try to disprove God. Galileo and his followers never tried to disprove God - the evolutionists do - many upon many are atheist and use the theory of evolution to try to prove there is no God.

    Now they say there is no free will. No moral responsibility either. Next, no consciousness without the body and no soul. When we are dead we cease to perceive (and cease to BE) and even when alive, have no thoughts or will aside from what biochemistry determines. Finally, they'll say there is no God. See Ps 10:4; 14:1 for the truth about that. Scientist that think they own the Truth should read 1 Cor 3:19 for wisdom.

    The world will be seen as a Newtonian fully deterministic machine. Too bad quantum mechanics says that isn't true and there really is a "ghost in the machine".

    Information theory says information can not be created, only lost. Entropy is forever increasing. So where did the original order and information come from? You can try to set the starting value of entropy as low as you want, but you can't set the starting amount of information as high as you want, it just doesn't make sense. We are rolling downhill according to conventional science (entropy and information wise) and are not getting any push up (as that is impossible within those models) and there is a point beyond which we cannot fall (no information, no energy differences, "heat death" of universe - actually very cold). Nothingness wouldn't be higher than that, so how did we start "up the hill" to begin with?

  45. Science pushing materialism is foolishness by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 0 · on Neuroscience, Psychology Eroding Idea of Free Will

    First evolution came on the scene, and science was used not only to oppose the beliefs of religious authorities, but to try to disprove God. Galileo and his followers never tried to disprove God - the evolutionists do - many upon many are atheist and use the theory of evolution to try to prove there is no God.

    Now they say there is no free will. No moral responsibility either. Next, no consciousness without the body and no soul. When we are dead we cease to perceive (and cease to BE) and even when alive, have no thoughts or will aside from what biochemistry determines. Finally, they'll say there is no God. See Ps 10:4; 14:1 for the truth about that. Scientist that think they own the Truth should read 1 Cor 3:19 for wisdom.

    The world will be seen as a Newtonian fully deterministic machine. Too bad quantum mechanics says that isn't true and there really is a "ghost in the machine".

    Information theory says information can not be created, only lost. Entropy is forever increasing. So where did the original order and information come from? You can try to set the starting value of entropy as low as you want, but you can't set the starting amount of information as high as you want, it just doesn't make sense. We are rolling downhill according to conventional science (entropy and information wise) and are not getting any push up (as that is impossible within those models) and there is a point beyond which we cannot fall (no information, no energy differences, "heat death" of universe - actually very cold). Nothingness wouldn't be higher than that, so how did we start "up the hill" to begin with?

  46. Re:Give Bibles by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1 · on Give an Internet Freedom Disk

    Unfortunately, the most well-quoted parts of the Bible are the densest, and more often than not are quoted from the King James Version. It's not obvious to the modern reader that "Greater love hath no man than this" is in object-verb-subject order, and such concerns get in the way of really understanding the text.

    Some of the Old Testament stories are pretty decent to read, though...try 1 Samuel 20 from the Contemporary English Version. (I don't necessarily endorse this version -- I just got a physical copy two days ago -- but it reads well.)

    The entire book of Esther also is pretty good, as are parts of Acts, such as Acts 27 in a translation called The Message.

    Of course, these aren't necessarilly the parts that relate to recent woes (when was the last time the king wanted to kill you or you were caught in a shipwreck off Malta?), but they're as theologically important as "My cup runneth over; surely goodness and mercy shall follow me" and similar parts.

    (The New International Version and other more well-known versions are all good (you probably have heard quotes or readings from the NIV, even if you haven't heard the name), but it puts a large emphasis on faithfulness to the original text, which doesn't always use the same idioms as modern English.)

  47. Re:Give Bibles by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1 · on Give an Internet Freedom Disk

    Unfortunately, the most well-quoted parts of the Bible are the densest, and more often than not are quoted from the King James Version. It's not obvious to the modern reader that "Greater love hath no man than this" is in object-verb-subject order, and such concerns get in the way of really understanding the text.

    Some of the Old Testament stories are pretty decent to read, though...try 1 Samuel 20 from the Contemporary English Version. (I don't necessarily endorse this version -- I just got a physical copy two days ago -- but it reads well.)

    The entire book of Esther also is pretty good, as are parts of Acts, such as Acts 27 in a translation called The Message.

    Of course, these aren't necessarilly the parts that relate to recent woes (when was the last time the king wanted to kill you or you were caught in a shipwreck off Malta?), but they're as theologically important as "My cup runneth over; surely goodness and mercy shall follow me" and similar parts.

    (The New International Version and other more well-known versions are all good (you probably have heard quotes or readings from the NIV, even if you haven't heard the name), but it puts a large emphasis on faithfulness to the original text, which doesn't always use the same idioms as modern English.)

  48. Re:Give Bibles by Thng · · Score: 1 · on Give an Internet Freedom Disk
    The New International Version and Good News are translations. There are a few that are somewhere among a translation, rewrite, and a paraphrase.

    The New Living Translation (NLT) is written so that it is similar to conversational modern english, with a conversational flow.

    God's Word is like the NLT, and is free to download in PDF.

    The Message is less of a translation and more of a paraphrase in again, conversational modern english. Think of taking each book and giving it novel-like formatting. Chapters and verses still present, but they're basically footnotes. It's not a Neal Stephenson novel, but it's a long way from the language and format of the KJV. Judging the author's literary skill is left as an exercise to the reader.

  49. Re:Give Bibles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Give an Internet Freedom Disk

    There are a lot of different translations of the Bible, some much more readable than others. Personally, I think the New International Reader's Version is a better choice for most.

    If you want to compare the text of some different versions, check out Bible Gateway

  50. Re:What's a "progressive Christian"? by dcam · · Score: 1 · on Wal-Mart Asked to Drop Christian Video Game

    It doesn't say when the persecution will come (aside from armageddon) and it doesn't outline what being blessed means - aside from that you get to go to heaven.

    It does provide some information.

    It still makes no testable predictions and thus cannot be tested scientifically.

    I'd agree that the predictions are not testable.

    This is okay, since religion is about faith anyway.

    This is roughly equivalent to saying all science is about gut feeling.