Slashdot Mirror

IMHO that should be modded funny. Saying that the Mark of the Beast is an implanted chip is a very unreasonable interpretation of Revelations. Read the passage and then think about it. The idea that those who accept an implanted chip would be tortured eternally for it is even more crazy. Then there's the question of whether Revelations talks about the Roman Empire or some future events, and how literally it was meant to be taken. Plus, those who are not Christian should be wondering if it's all random psychotic rambling. Attempts to oppose implanted chips for privacy and other reasons should never be linked with such ideas. They could only destroy credibility.

Jesus said in John 10:30
"I and my Father are one."

There are also many indirect references to His deity:
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. -John 5:18

Judaism and Christianity are both monotheistic(belief in one God). The Jewish leaders understood that when Jesus said he was the "son of God"(incarnation of God), He was claiming to be God.

You can find many more references here.

I just read a paper by someone who obviously does not have a favorable opinion toward scientists that believe in creation: http://www.philosoraptor.com/little_essay02.html

I must admit I agree with his assessment that pro creation biologists and pro abiogenesis biologists agree a lot more than they disagree; it is the abiogenesis (new word for me) that they disagree on most.

Abiogenesis: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Abi ogenesis&btnG=Google+Search

As far as the Bible being falsifiable there is plenty of opportunity for falsification; for example, most of the Bible is prophecy which means at any point if the prophecy does not come true the Bibles is proved false.

Let me give you a couple of examples of accurate prophecy:

Psalms 22: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa022.html #top
Isaiah: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa053.html #top
Genesis 49:10: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen049.html #10

There are over 300 accurate prophecies about Jesus Christ; all of them 100 percent came true.

In the times of Jesus the Bible teachers of the day were going nuts because the scepter was finally removed from Israel, the authority to sentence someone to death and carry out the death penalty had come 1500 years after the prophecy in Genesis 49:10.

The prophecy that tells of Jesus being crucified instead of stoned to death didn't even make sense when it was foretold because stoning was the prescribed method to carry out a death sentence during the time period 1000 BC.

The entire book of Daniel was considered to be written around 150 AD until they found the Septuagint dating back 300 years before Christ proving the prophetic accuracy of the book written by Daniel 700 years before Christ, disprove a single prophecy and you will make the Bible null and void.

It turns out the Bible has more prophecy that speaks of the times we are in today and our future than any other time in the history of the world, so from that stand point there is going to be plenty of opportunity for falsification.

This is a great site if you are interested in Biblical prophecy: http://www.khouse.org/

I will leave you with the fundamental teaching of Jesus Christ, His commandment for His followers:

12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
John 15:12

God bless you and keep you.

I just read a paper by someone who obviously does not have a favorable opinion toward scientists that believe in creation: http://www.philosoraptor.com/little_essay02.html

I must admit I agree with his assessment that pro creation biologists and pro abiogenesis biologists agree a lot more than they disagree; it is the abiogenesis (new word for me) that they disagree on most.

Abiogenesis: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Abi ogenesis&btnG=Google+Search

As far as the Bible being falsifiable there is plenty of opportunity for falsification; for example, most of the Bible is prophecy which means at any point if the prophecy does not come true the Bibles is proved false.

Let me give you a couple of examples of accurate prophecy:

Psalms 22: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa022.html #top
Isaiah: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa053.html #top
Genesis 49:10: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen049.html #10

There are over 300 accurate prophecies about Jesus Christ; all of them 100 percent came true.

In the times of Jesus the Bible teachers of the day were going nuts because the scepter was finally removed from Israel, the authority to sentence someone to death and carry out the death penalty had come 1500 years after the prophecy in Genesis 49:10.

The prophecy that tells of Jesus being crucified instead of stoned to death didn't even make sense when it was foretold because stoning was the prescribed method to carry out a death sentence during the time period 1000 BC.

The entire book of Daniel was considered to be written around 150 AD until they found the Septuagint dating back 300 years before Christ proving the prophetic accuracy of the book written by Daniel 700 years before Christ, disprove a single prophecy and you will make the Bible null and void.

It turns out the Bible has more prophecy that speaks of the times we are in today and our future than any other time in the history of the world, so from that stand point there is going to be plenty of opportunity for falsification.

This is a great site if you are interested in Biblical prophecy: http://www.khouse.org/

I will leave you with the fundamental teaching of Jesus Christ, His commandment for His followers:

12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
John 15:12

God bless you and keep you.

I just read a paper by someone who obviously does not have a favorable opinion toward scientists that believe in creation: http://www.philosoraptor.com/little_essay02.html

I must admit I agree with his assessment that pro creation biologists and pro abiogenesis biologists agree a lot more than they disagree; it is the abiogenesis (new word for me) that they disagree on most.

Abiogenesis: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Abi ogenesis&btnG=Google+Search

As far as the Bible being falsifiable there is plenty of opportunity for falsification; for example, most of the Bible is prophecy which means at any point if the prophecy does not come true the Bibles is proved false.

Let me give you a couple of examples of accurate prophecy:

Psalms 22: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa022.html #top
Isaiah: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa053.html #top
Genesis 49:10: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen049.html #10

There are over 300 accurate prophecies about Jesus Christ; all of them 100 percent came true.

In the times of Jesus the Bible teachers of the day were going nuts because the scepter was finally removed from Israel, the authority to sentence someone to death and carry out the death penalty had come 1500 years after the prophecy in Genesis 49:10.

The prophecy that tells of Jesus being crucified instead of stoned to death didn't even make sense when it was foretold because stoning was the prescribed method to carry out a death sentence during the time period 1000 BC.

The entire book of Daniel was considered to be written around 150 AD until they found the Septuagint dating back 300 years before Christ proving the prophetic accuracy of the book written by Daniel 700 years before Christ, disprove a single prophecy and you will make the Bible null and void.

It turns out the Bible has more prophecy that speaks of the times we are in today and our future than any other time in the history of the world, so from that stand point there is going to be plenty of opportunity for falsification.

This is a great site if you are interested in Biblical prophecy: http://www.khouse.org/

I will leave you with the fundamental teaching of Jesus Christ, His commandment for His followers:

12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
John 15:12

God bless you and keep you.

I agree.

I am one of those nutty creationist, but I do not expect an unbeliever to accept the biblical account. I am dead set against teaching creationism in schools along side evolution as some kind of balance. I think to do so would be a disservice to the student.

Today, a well rounded education is defined in ways that are in opposition to christian beliefs. But the answer is not for christians to demand balance in the classroom. Christians should instead teach their children discernment. We should teach our children how to recognize the patterns of this world.

What business is it of mine how an unbeliever conducts his or her life? What business is it of mine how an unbeliever raises his or her children? Maybe when we christians can demonstrate by, for example, getting that divorce rate lower than the non-christian rate, then we might have a leg to stand on in the realm of family values. Besides, Paul tells christians in I Corinthians 5 not to judge those outside the church.

I think evolution is pretty far fetched, but I can't come up with a theory that science would swallow either. If I'm fine with an account of our origins that is so awesome and far fetched to the unbeliever, why would I expect something more believable from the unbeliever?

Furthermore, while a discovery like this soft tissue business is certainly interesting, if I already believe the bible is the authority on our origins and such, why would I need external evidence like this? I'll read it and move on. It doesn't rock my world.

Referring to the current emperor as a number sounds strange. But it wouldn't have done to refer to him by name -- not if you wanted to avoid becoming lion food.

Since you will rather make up an imaginary conversation in your head, and discount the capabilities of the lab, than read what is plainly mentioned in the article, you probably love fiction rather than truth. Anyway, here is what the page I had linked to right at the top said:

Note from the editor: Although it is never possible to be absolutely certain that contamination and sources of error have been eliminated, a laboratory's reputation depends on delivering 'good' results. At the time this test was done (1985), the head of this laboratory was on the Board of Editors of the international journal Radiocarbon. Also, the author of the article rang the laboratory in October 1996. The laboratory confirmed that the determination (done in the traditional way, not by the newer AMS method) had included everything possible to eliminate contamination, which included doing what is known as a d13CPDB correction. This is a critical test in regard to the possibility that the wood may have been contaminated by more recent microbes while in the ground or later.

Job's desire to save the lives of two guests under his protection went to the extent of offering his unmarried daughters to the men of his town. Nowhere in the Bible is it said this was a righteous act. It is just plain unemotional matter of fact reporting. But Job had a smigden of faith and believed God - it was that belief that saved him from being destroyed with the rest of Sodom and it was this belief that was counted to him as righteousness in God's eyes. But having stayed from God's will, he ended up alive, but with a destroyed life.

About realistic believable stories in the Bible, the plain matter of fact spirit of the Bible wins every day. What were the relationship between Bathsheba, David, and David's prime advisor and how did it influence their actions? (Hint: you don't need to go outside the Bible and make stuff up)

Yes, Baal and similar were unclean spirits, probably the spirits of dead people. I've seen similar. Your Western upbringing handicaps you to a lot of the home truths that are obvious in the Bible.

Monty Python? I haven't seen the movie either, but apparently it's a spoof about Moses dropping a stone tablet. But I imagine the commandments were the same. The fact that this webpage ends up in several proxies didn't mean it was created millions of times.

You're right - the "hung, swelled up, fell down, and burst" theory of Judas' hanging and "fall" is a bit difficult to believe. However, there is no "tripping" mentioned in the Bible passage about his bowels gushing out. The scriptural passage simply translated commonly as "falling" is simply Greek 'ginomai' whose meaning is "becoming" or "being made" headlong. Judas must have gone and hung himself at some place as the gospels say, then was cut down, and buried in his own field (by others) thus "being made headlong". Perhaps rough handling of his body would account for the his bowels gushing out from a rotting body when he was laid into the grave.

The idea that Peter went and murdered him is silly - Christ himself told Peter to keep his sword back in the scabbard when Judas was right in front of them and Jesus taught doing good to those that despise and persecute us.

Regarding your ice cores, see this:
Furthermore, the ice sheet during the Ice Age would have been lower and warmer at the time the snow was building. This would have resulted in more melt or hoar frost layers (cloudy bands), which is one of the variables used for annual layer determinations. Therefore the uniformitarian scientists are claiming as annual variations oscillations that occur within the year.

The variables used to determine annual layers can be produced many times during a year in the creationist model. Very short term oscillations representing as little as a day or two show up in the variables (Groo

For instance, ask a fundie what he makes of Christ telling his disciples in John 6:25-70 that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood if they are to have any life in them. They'll probably tell you that Christ was just being metaphorical. But then why did all of his disciples walk off in disgust without Christ calling after them, "But I was just being metaphorical!"? There is another curious connection to this in 1 Cor 9:17-30 where St. Paul is telling the Corinthians that many among them are sick and have died because they have not discerned the Body and Blood of Christ when they have come together for the Lord's Supper. This IS NOT just a metaphor!

Umm... yeah, actualy it is a metaphor, and its pretty clear, as in no sane human could possibly argue otherwise if they have a clue what they are talking about.

Lets look at some verses:
First the verse you list where Jesus uses his body and blood as a metaphor for his death and resurection. Any one reading it knows he is using it as a metaphor, so read it for yourself here

And the verse that makes it clear if you still have trouble with the first one.

Luke 22:19-20
And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."

It is a metaphor to him being the food of life, nurturing and feeding our souls, and of his death on the cross where his blood payed for our sins.

The method is just a technicality. I sure won't have to look hard to find another faith that condones genocide (verses 10-12) repeatedly (15.2, 15.3), or moving into modern times (as opposed to holy doctrine) bombing clinics and gay bars and murdering non-believers.

I mean really, this is God's actual order? 1Sa 15.2: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Infants?!? Toddlers?!? Wow! I guess those babies sure had that coming! God condones slaughtering babies depending on the circumstances. So yeah, I guess depending on your definition of evil, there's plenty of that to go around in the scriptures for all to be inspired by. Changing the rules later doesn't erase the fact that believers can still claim "under the right circumstances..." to push their hate.

Let's face it: Fringes exist in Islam, Christianity, Judaism who can and will find plenty of scriptual justification for their bloodthirsty hate, and all three groups have that fringe actively promoting mindless violence and murder.

When one group labels the others as "evil" based on the fringe maniacs, they may as well be pointing in a mirror.

Yeah, indeed, in Genesis 9-11 he did...

He never promised that he wouldn't send a category 4 hurricane after those who steal others' bandwidth.

He never promised either that he wouldn't send holy warriors with box-cutters onto 4 planes ... That too can be considered to be a punition for having voted so stupidly... (Hey, if Cheney can say it...)

You sound like the Christians you're so opposed to. "It's a parable!" It sure is. Your plan for salvation is similarly couched in poetic phrases.

I can pluck all of the verses out of all the chapters in the Bible that have anything to do with salvation and you would have no hope of reconciling them.

Didn't you just do that? You just summed up salvation into Five E-Z Points. Now you're saying there's more? Smells like bullshit in here.

I am completely evil and living for my own selfish desires, right?

Yep. So am I. So is every other human--including Christians. The ones who don't believe that are a) fooling themselves, and b) totally wrong. The fallen nature of Man is a well-versed and easily defended article of faith.

If not, then please show me the chapter and verse that indicates that slavery is not part of "God's plan".

Jesus covered it. The rest of the "slavery" argument largely deals with the "argument from silence" charge that Jesus never explicitly condemned it. Jesus never explicitly condemned a lot of stuff. Being an Internet jackhole, for instance. Lucky for you.

Your defenses suck and my points stand.

Like this one? Not only is my son allowed to rape little girls, but he must also beat and murder them as well. Ask a stupid question and you'll get a stupid answer. Way to totally dodge the question. You handwaved away the simplest challenge to your nonsense belief system, proving that your philosophy is fragile bullshit.

The extreme--raping little girls--is just for kicks and to illustrate the point. The challenge scales very well. How about crack? Dope? Masturbation until he reinvents fire from first principles? Your philosohpy also seems to missing your "Big Win"--slavery. If your son believes himself to be good, and having a slave makes him happy--he's golden? You can't defend your position, so you blow it off. Way to go, coward, maybe you should hit the drawing board again. Or open another fortune cookie--maybe there's a new philosophy to be had over your Sum Dim Fuk.

To cover the other defenses, how do they suck? You're looking at them one-by-one, without the finial point--that Jesus clarified the Law, making it impossible for man to follow on his own. Watch and learn, you simple-minded Randian: Angry with his brother without cause == murder. If "Thou shalt not kill" expands to cover getting pissed off, I think it just might apply to torture as well. D'ya think? Moron.

What happened to "I've read the Bible", Mr. Theology? Guess you missed some spots. Your philosophy, and now your argument, looks like locusts got to it, and your face looks like you ate live coals. Sucker.

(BTW, adultery is not just sex with a married person. It is also sex outside of marriage. For a "Bible reader", you sure do seem awfully ignorant. Which Bible did you read? Bible for Dummies?)

You sound like the Christians you're so opposed to. "It's a parable!" It sure is. Your plan for salvation is similarly couched in poetic phrases.

I can pluck all of the verses out of all the chapters in the Bible that have anything to do with salvation and you would have no hope of reconciling them.

Didn't you just do that? You just summed up salvation into Five E-Z Points. Now you're saying there's more? Smells like bullshit in here.

I am completely evil and living for my own selfish desires, right?

Yep. So am I. So is every other human--including Christians. The ones who don't believe that are a) fooling themselves, and b) totally wrong. The fallen nature of Man is a well-versed and easily defended article of faith.

If not, then please show me the chapter and verse that indicates that slavery is not part of "God's plan".

Jesus covered it. The rest of the "slavery" argument largely deals with the "argument from silence" charge that Jesus never explicitly condemned it. Jesus never explicitly condemned a lot of stuff. Being an Internet jackhole, for instance. Lucky for you.

Your defenses suck and my points stand.

Like this one? Not only is my son allowed to rape little girls, but he must also beat and murder them as well. Ask a stupid question and you'll get a stupid answer. Way to totally dodge the question. You handwaved away the simplest challenge to your nonsense belief system, proving that your philosophy is fragile bullshit.

The extreme--raping little girls--is just for kicks and to illustrate the point. The challenge scales very well. How about crack? Dope? Masturbation until he reinvents fire from first principles? Your philosohpy also seems to missing your "Big Win"--slavery. If your son believes himself to be good, and having a slave makes him happy--he's golden? You can't defend your position, so you blow it off. Way to go, coward, maybe you should hit the drawing board again. Or open another fortune cookie--maybe there's a new philosophy to be had over your Sum Dim Fuk.

To cover the other defenses, how do they suck? You're looking at them one-by-one, without the finial point--that Jesus clarified the Law, making it impossible for man to follow on his own. Watch and learn, you simple-minded Randian: Angry with his brother without cause == murder. If "Thou shalt not kill" expands to cover getting pissed off, I think it just might apply to torture as well. D'ya think? Moron.

What happened to "I've read the Bible", Mr. Theology? Guess you missed some spots. Your philosophy, and now your argument, looks like locusts got to it, and your face looks like you ate live coals. Sucker.

(BTW, adultery is not just sex with a married person. It is also sex outside of marriage. For a "Bible reader", you sure do seem awfully ignorant. Which Bible did you read? Bible for Dummies?)

>I think they're still dancing over the fact that dinosaurs were never mentioned in the Bible.

Dude, Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible in Job 40:15-24, but not by the name "dinosaur" but the hebrew word that is translated "behemoth".

• The Bible does not say the ark landed on Mt. Ararat rather the "mountains of Ararat" (plural, implying somewhere in a mountain range). Genesis 8:4
  
  
• Mt. Ararat is a volcano. Volcanic activity likely is harmful to wooden boats (if it were there). Mt. Ararat, Turkey
  
  

• The Bible does not say the ark landed on Mt. Ararat rather the "mountains of Ararat" (plural, implying somewhere in a mountain range). Genesis 8:4
  
  
• Mt. Ararat is a volcano. Volcanic activity likely is harmful to wooden boats (if it were there). Mt. Ararat, Turkey
  
  

Actually, if you read the Bible; there were no carnivores before the flood ended. Man (and animals) were not given permission by God to eat meat until after the flood.

John 10:16

Here's just one of many quotes (Taken from here :

Acts 16:31:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."

Like I said elsewhere, most so-called Christians haven't read all the bible (I've read it cover to cover over 20 times, and can quote much of it from memory). Funny how they can say they believe the Bible, even though they've never read it.

When Mother Theresa visited Montreal, she confided that SHE had never read the whole bible to her local handlers either ..

According to Strong's Concordance, the word in the original Greek is "praus" (latinized spelling) which means mildness of disposition, gentleness of spirit, or meekness. If this page doesn't load, go here, type "meek" into the first line, submit, find Matthew 5:5 and click on the number 4239. This word is close to the modern Greek "praos" which also means "meek."

In other words, Jesus was saying that the humble and mild-mannered will inherit the Earth. You can find this same word commonly translated as meek in 1st Peter 3:4. Also, if you look at the context of Matthew 5:1-13, the opening of one of Jesus's sermons, it's quite clear that he's saying that rewards await the humble and downtrodden. They "are the salt of the Earth" and there is not an aggressive or angry group among "the poor in spirit," "those who mourn," "the meek," "those who hunger for righteousness," "the merciful," "the pure of heart," or "the peacemakers."

I'd be very surprised if Strong's Concordance was wrong on the issue given the context and the modern descendant of the word. I'd love to see some evidence for your professor's claims.

I wish the specifications I get were that detailed :)

No, more pointing out that the Bible has references to social responsibility that weren't surpassed for over 2000 years, if you believe the system we have today is better than it was then. You'll note I said they accused him of it. Upon his response, they knew they couldn't go any further. I'm just amused that people take the views of extreminsts, of whatever religion, and say that is what the religion is about. They ignore that you couldn't indebt yourself for more than 7 years, slavery wasn't permanent the first time around, and you chose for it to be permanent. Also, women were allowed to buy land, and thought well of for it. It doesn't quite sound like the repressive patriarchal (sp?) society most feminists make it out to be, does it? There may have been a lot of duties attributed to them, but that also comes with the freedom to accomplish it.

No, more pointing out that the Bible has references to social responsibility that weren't surpassed for over 2000 years, if you believe the system we have today is better than it was then. You'll note I said they accused him of it. Upon his response, they knew they couldn't go any further. I'm just amused that people take the views of extreminsts, of whatever religion, and say that is what the religion is about. They ignore that you couldn't indebt yourself for more than 7 years, slavery wasn't permanent the first time around, and you chose for it to be permanent. Also, women were allowed to buy land, and thought well of for it. It doesn't quite sound like the repressive patriarchal (sp?) society most feminists make it out to be, does it? There may have been a lot of duties attributed to them, but that also comes with the freedom to accomplish it.

No, more pointing out that the Bible has references to social responsibility that weren't surpassed for over 2000 years, if you believe the system we have today is better than it was then. You'll note I said they accused him of it. Upon his response, they knew they couldn't go any further. I'm just amused that people take the views of extreminsts, of whatever religion, and say that is what the religion is about. They ignore that you couldn't indebt yourself for more than 7 years, slavery wasn't permanent the first time around, and you chose for it to be permanent. Also, women were allowed to buy land, and thought well of for it. It doesn't quite sound like the repressive patriarchal (sp?) society most feminists make it out to be, does it? There may have been a lot of duties attributed to them, but that also comes with the freedom to accomplish it.

Funny, I got into computing via my interest in brainwaves. I (no doubt like many others who read SF in the 1960's) came up with the notion that, since our brains are the best pattern recognition engines around, that amplifying brainwaves and transmitting them to another person wearing a matching set of electrodes, then using a controlled series of basic experiential trials (start with things like "red light", "green light", etc., work up to basic emotional states), a person could be trained to recognize the patterns - voila, basic telepathy - if telepathy is electromagnetic that is.

I did have some circuit designs done but never actually got anything built due to poverty and procrastination, but early successful work at Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) in using an IBM 360 to recognize basic pre-vocalized words in brain waves spurred me to get involved in computers. It's funny how some addictions get started...

This is probably flamebait for someone, but it's not meant to be...

As for the neuroscience idea that the 'God experience' is mere electronic fu, it's not that easy. While some researchers see this as evidence of a mechanistic view of the Universe, others see this as evidence that we were given the ability to experience God. In other words, cause and effect may be the opposite. And there's no way to tell from the evidence.

The alternate model says that these kinds of experiences show we are created with the ability to experience God in whatever way. (by analogy, we see blue because we're created with that ability. Interestingly, our retinas are sensitive to IR but our corneas block it, IIRC - what does that mean?) In that case, the neuroscientist is just tickling the mechanism ('organ'). It's not unreasonable that such an 'organ' could be fooled, just as aspirin fools the pain receptors. From that point of view, the same facts are just confirmation of faith.

It's like that picture - is it a vase, or two faces? For every mechanistic view of the Universe, there is an equally powerful and reasonable view of the Universe that says it was created. And there is literally no way to prove either one in contradiction to the other. Either view requires faith in that view.

I emphatically believe that both views deserve respect, and understanding that the other may well be correct. Both views are probably correct and incorrect in different aspects. One example - in my grade school textbooks, "all reputable scientists believe Hoyle's view that the Universe has always existed and will always exist." - the fact that the Bible asserted a creation and an end was evidence that it was wrong, until 1962 when the microwave echo of the Big Bang was first 'heard'. Then, for the last 40 years, "the Universe is expanding but the expansion is slowing. We don't know if it will stop and end in a Big Crunch or continue expanding." Now it appears that the expansion (if that is what it is) is accelerating.

So it's important to keep an open mind and accept that others as smart as we are may get different conclusions from the same facts. I am quite comfortable with a created Universe, although I have different ideas from many others with similar beliefs. I'm also quite comfortable with the science, but I maintain an acute awareness that the interpretation and the evidence is continually changing, correcting and expanding. From what I've seen over a long period of time is that the areas where science and faith seem to disagree are those areas in which knowledge is least complete. But you may disagree! :-)

In the Christian tradition, the Bereans are held up as the example of a 'more noble' way - they 'received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.' In other words, they made sure that Paul wasn't blowing smoke. From the earliest days of the church, rigorous inquiry into both the Word and the World

Praise Yahweh or he'll kick you in the nuts and poop on your face.

There was not, and has ever been, any religious reason for Christians to have burned the Library of Alexandria.

Acts 19:19-20:

Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all [men]: and they counted the price of them, and found [it] fifty thousand [pieces] of silver.

One can argue about the specific direction a Christian should take from this (should you burn only your own books or other people's too?) but there is no doubt that book burning has been seen as something of value to Christians from very nearly the beginning. The books described in Acts were probably arcana of various kinds, primarily judicial astrology and the like. To a Christian many of the books in the Royal Library would have fallen into the same category.

I don't believe that Christians were responsible for burning the Royal Library at Alexandria. But they have certainly been responsible for burning many other books--in Alexandria and elsewhere--over the past 2000 years. They have no monopoly on this behavior, though: book-burning is one of the pass-times that all tyrants, religious or secular, engage in.

To pose the question of the burning of large collections of books in Alexandria as an either-or is to forget that, given how long Alexandria has been a center of learning, there have been more than enough books there for everyone to have their fair share of burnings, hatred and destruction.

--Tom

Isa 40:22

[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in...

Typcial argument proceeds from here along the lines that a circle is not a sphere, that Isaiah actually thought the world was a flat disk, etc.

100% effective: abstinence

Tell that to Mary.

Doesn't Luke the Physician have a trademark on the "Acts of the Apostles"?

And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, [if] the prophet had bid thee [do some] great thing, wouldest thou not have done [it]? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?

Perhaps there are fewer such verses in the Xian Bible, but check out Matthew 10 for some Xian "smite the infidel" rhetoric. True, Islam does not teach its followers that if someone smacks you upside the head you should turn your cheek and let them get a good shot at the other side, but why should any religion teach such nonsense anyway?

Good points, it's a whole different picture realizing there were _millions_ of people in the crossing. Likewise the narrow crossing portrayed in some movies is unlikely given the numbers that made the journey that night.

[from David Guzik Study Guide on the Blue Letter Bible site]
a. The Hebrew phrase for Red Sea is yam suph, which clearly means "Reed Sea." "The term aptly describes the lake region north of the Gulf of Suez comprising the Bitter Lakes and Lake Timsah. It is possible that the Israelites went along the narrow neck of land on which Baal-zephon stood and that the Biblical Sea of Reeds was modern Lake Sirbonis. We are certain that the crossing was in this area because the Israelites found themselves in the Wilderness of Shur after crossing the sea (Exod. 15:22)." (Pfeiffer)

i. We don't know exactly where the place was, and what the exact geography was (an area like this will change geography every flood or drought season); we do know there was enough water present to trap the Israelites, and then later to drown the Egyptians - perhaps 10 feet of water or so; and we know there had to be enough room for the Israelites to cross over in one night - perhaps a mile wide stretch

b. Could this really have happened? Isn't this just another interesting legend? It is completely plausible, according to a Los Angeles Times article by Thomas H. Maugh titled "Research Supports Bible's Account of Red Sea Parting" (3/14/92):
"Sophisticated computer calculations indicate that the biblical parting of the Red Sea, said to have allowed Moses and the Israelites to escape from bondage in Egypt, could have occurred precisely as the Bible describes it.

Because of the peculiar geography of the northern end of the Red Sea, researchers report Sunday in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, a moderate wind blowing constantly for about 10 hours could have caused the sea to recede about a mile and the water level to drop 10 feet, leaving dry land in the area where many biblical scholars believe the crossing occurred."

The control over computer software that Microsoft has achieved through its dominance of operating systems has limited competition and innovation throughout the computer field. Through .NET, it is attempting to exert the same control over all Internet commerce. Just as kings got to grant or deny royal charters to businesses, the Redmond giant, if successful, may be able to say who can do business on the Net and who can't.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
(Revelation 13:16-17)

Now... I'm not saying that Bill Gates (or anyone else, for that matter) is "the beast", but such an infrastructure as this brings us (as in "people" especially the ignorant sheep that are the majority) closer to (1) acceptance of complete centralized control over our finances, commerce, and eventually - when, e.g., you can only buy gas or a 'plane ticket, or even food through .NET, for example - our lives, and (2) the position of being able to technologically implement such control. Sure, Microsoft may fail the first time. And the second time. But when governments and other megacorporations band together and get behind such an effort, then even Windows may be up to the job :).

Too radical? Too extreme? I'm sure people scoffed at the idea of Hitler bringing the world to war and exterminating 6 million Jews, too... and central control doesn't look half so bad on the surface, unless you value your freedom.

Revelation 13.

It amazes me that you could write so innocently on this topic. You unknowingly gave a revelatory insight into the way MS programmers think, and how they are able to justify the work they do.

Before you can understand anything I will write in this short essay, you must realize that MS programmers think fundamentally differently than most free software/open source programmers. And that way of thinking is clipped by a desire for money which does not exist in the Open Source environment.

In essence, as you so eloquently made clear, we open sourcers do not work for money. We work primarily for passion, with money as a secondary issue. MS employees are the opposite, they tend to work for money first, and passion second. Thus 'they were continually amazed at the amount of work that is poured into free software,' as you said. To Open Sourcers, this is not a source of amazement. This is simply a moment of recognizing the fact that others enjoy programming as much as I do. Lots of others.

Work For Money vs. Work For No Money? It's not quite that simple, but you can understand a lot if you use that as a reference point in building principles to understand what is happening. Here is why I prefer this as a reference point:

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

If you stand back from the whole MS/Open Source debate from any distance, this kind of generalization becomes possible, and necessary if you want to comprehend it in a meaningful way. There are many complicated issues stemming from this single duality, none of which I want to address here.

My point is that MS employees work within the "old" American Dream, where all you need to do is get a decent job making money, work at it for a number of years, and voila! You're retired, driving your RV around the country, untrammeled by the daily woes of the great masses.

This doesn't work for the artist. The artist doesn't want to live a life dreaming of the future. The artist LIVES in the future, and makes his own life beautiful each day. Thus, you'll never find an artist in an RV. He can't afford one, and thus has no desire for one. Instead, he creates something beautiful each day, and sleeps well that night.

Sleeping that well at night is a mystery to the man who seeks money. Artists have all kinds of problems we don't need to get into, so I'm not glorifying the art of being an artist, I'm only presenting it side-by-side with the typical MS programmer, who works for money, not for passion. I work for passion. I create an entirely different kind of product than my co-worker, also a programmer, who works for money. Sure, he has passion, but it is sublimated beneath his desire to fulfill his portion of the "American Dream." I chuckle wrily at his earnest efforts to get something THAT ALWAYS MOVES AWAY FROM HIM.

I say, Major Burrito, latch on to the American Dream which is not an illusion. Let Nikola Tesla be your role model, not Thomas Edison. Both were phenomenal inventors. But a close study of their two lives reveals that one worked for money and the other worked for passion. (Both were money hungry, but one more than the other). Same with Salieri and Mozart, Plato and Aristotle, Freud and Jung, and so many other great dualities.

The point I want to make is that the MS perspective is only half the spectrum. The other half is populated by people who wonder what MS would be like if it were programmed by people with REAL passion, not one sublimated by other desires.

This is an easy thing to see for most Open Source programmers. As for whether Open Source programmers have talent or not... we do it the hard way. -Water Paradox

I don't know any creationists who believe that dinosaurs are a hoax. In fact, every creationist I know believes they are described in the Bible, in Job 40 and Job 41.

Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com

I don't know any creationists who believe that dinosaurs are a hoax. In fact, every creationist I know believes they are described in the Bible, in Job 40 and Job 41.

Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com