Slashdot Mirror

You've still got some definitions confused. You have conflated "evidence that a person possesses faith" with "evidence that God exists."

You are very right about the fact that the phrase "faith alone" DOES occur in the Bible, and the Wikipedia article is wrong.

But "faith alone" is STILL not talking about "blind faith." When Protestants refer to "faith alone," they are referring to their doctrine that you can only be saved through faith/belief, and that there is absolutely NOTHING you can or must do in order to obtain salvation. It has nothing to do with whether the supporting evidence is present or not, or examined or not.

Relevant Bible quotes are: Romans 3:28, Romans 9:32, Galatians 2:16, and Ephesians 2:8-9. The context is not talking about whether faith falls apart when a person tries to investigate God's existence, as in the Douglas Adams quote that started this discussion.

Most Protestants wrongly use these passages to teach "there is nothing you must do to be saved; simply believe." As you have demonstrated, the Bible contradicts this, in the book of James, chapter 2. But it doesn't go on to say what you said it did. ;) "Faith alone," in addition to not being a Bible doctrine, does not mean "blind faith." It means, in the usage of Protestants (who as I have said are are not teaching the way the Bible does) "all you have to do to be saved is believe (have faith)." They use it to mean "faith without action," not "faith without logical proof."

You've still got some definitions confused. You have conflated "evidence that a person possesses faith" with "evidence that God exists."

You are very right about the fact that the phrase "faith alone" DOES occur in the Bible, and the Wikipedia article is wrong.

But "faith alone" is STILL not talking about "blind faith." When Protestants refer to "faith alone," they are referring to their doctrine that you can only be saved through faith/belief, and that there is absolutely NOTHING you can or must do in order to obtain salvation. It has nothing to do with whether the supporting evidence is present or not, or examined or not.

Relevant Bible quotes are: Romans 3:28, Romans 9:32, Galatians 2:16, and Ephesians 2:8-9. The context is not talking about whether faith falls apart when a person tries to investigate God's existence, as in the Douglas Adams quote that started this discussion.

Most Protestants wrongly use these passages to teach "there is nothing you must do to be saved; simply believe." As you have demonstrated, the Bible contradicts this, in the book of James, chapter 2. But it doesn't go on to say what you said it did. ;) "Faith alone," in addition to not being a Bible doctrine, does not mean "blind faith." It means, in the usage of Protestants (who as I have said are are not teaching the way the Bible does) "all you have to do to be saved is believe (have faith)." They use it to mean "faith without action," not "faith without logical proof."

You've still got some definitions confused. You have conflated "evidence that a person possesses faith" with "evidence that God exists."

You are very right about the fact that the phrase "faith alone" DOES occur in the Bible, and the Wikipedia article is wrong.

But "faith alone" is STILL not talking about "blind faith." When Protestants refer to "faith alone," they are referring to their doctrine that you can only be saved through faith/belief, and that there is absolutely NOTHING you can or must do in order to obtain salvation. It has nothing to do with whether the supporting evidence is present or not, or examined or not.

Relevant Bible quotes are: Romans 3:28, Romans 9:32, Galatians 2:16, and Ephesians 2:8-9. The context is not talking about whether faith falls apart when a person tries to investigate God's existence, as in the Douglas Adams quote that started this discussion.

Most Protestants wrongly use these passages to teach "there is nothing you must do to be saved; simply believe." As you have demonstrated, the Bible contradicts this, in the book of James, chapter 2. But it doesn't go on to say what you said it did. ;) "Faith alone," in addition to not being a Bible doctrine, does not mean "blind faith." It means, in the usage of Protestants (who as I have said are are not teaching the way the Bible does) "all you have to do to be saved is believe (have faith)." They use it to mean "faith without action," not "faith without logical proof."

You've still got some definitions confused. You have conflated "evidence that a person possesses faith" with "evidence that God exists."

You are very right about the fact that the phrase "faith alone" DOES occur in the Bible, and the Wikipedia article is wrong.

But "faith alone" is STILL not talking about "blind faith." When Protestants refer to "faith alone," they are referring to their doctrine that you can only be saved through faith/belief, and that there is absolutely NOTHING you can or must do in order to obtain salvation. It has nothing to do with whether the supporting evidence is present or not, or examined or not.

Relevant Bible quotes are: Romans 3:28, Romans 9:32, Galatians 2:16, and Ephesians 2:8-9. The context is not talking about whether faith falls apart when a person tries to investigate God's existence, as in the Douglas Adams quote that started this discussion.

Most Protestants wrongly use these passages to teach "there is nothing you must do to be saved; simply believe." As you have demonstrated, the Bible contradicts this, in the book of James, chapter 2. But it doesn't go on to say what you said it did. ;) "Faith alone," in addition to not being a Bible doctrine, does not mean "blind faith." It means, in the usage of Protestants (who as I have said are are not teaching the way the Bible does) "all you have to do to be saved is believe (have faith)." They use it to mean "faith without action," not "faith without logical proof."

You've still got some definitions confused. You have conflated "evidence that a person possesses faith" with "evidence that God exists."

You are very right about the fact that the phrase "faith alone" DOES occur in the Bible, and the Wikipedia article is wrong.

But "faith alone" is STILL not talking about "blind faith." When Protestants refer to "faith alone," they are referring to their doctrine that you can only be saved through faith/belief, and that there is absolutely NOTHING you can or must do in order to obtain salvation. It has nothing to do with whether the supporting evidence is present or not, or examined or not.

Relevant Bible quotes are: Romans 3:28, Romans 9:32, Galatians 2:16, and Ephesians 2:8-9. The context is not talking about whether faith falls apart when a person tries to investigate God's existence, as in the Douglas Adams quote that started this discussion.

Most Protestants wrongly use these passages to teach "there is nothing you must do to be saved; simply believe." As you have demonstrated, the Bible contradicts this, in the book of James, chapter 2. But it doesn't go on to say what you said it did. ;) "Faith alone," in addition to not being a Bible doctrine, does not mean "blind faith." It means, in the usage of Protestants (who as I have said are are not teaching the way the Bible does) "all you have to do to be saved is believe (have faith)." They use it to mean "faith without action," not "faith without logical proof."

I define true Christianity by proving it against the Bible. The Catholic Church's own Bible condemns them. Size and numbers have nothing to do with it. I'm just identifying true Christianity as those who actually follow the tenets of their religion.

Very quick way to check this: I Timothy 3 states that a bishop must be married. Does the Catholic Church do that?

I guess n-1/n is the percentage of them being wrong (where n is the number of sects, n -> infinite).

Well, Jesus said in the Bible that not many would be saved and also that many who call him Lord would discover on the last day that they were wrong. The Bible further states that there would be false prophets among Christians constantly. So while the math you posted above might be counterintuitive, it is at least consistent with the tenets of the religion.

It should be a simple thing for someone, even one who does not accept the Bible, to compare a church against its teachings and see if they are really the church talked about in the Bible or not. What might be far harder is covering all N churches in one lifetime. :)

I define true Christianity by proving it against the Bible. The Catholic Church's own Bible condemns them. Size and numbers have nothing to do with it. I'm just identifying true Christianity as those who actually follow the tenets of their religion.

Very quick way to check this: I Timothy 3 states that a bishop must be married. Does the Catholic Church do that?

I guess n-1/n is the percentage of them being wrong (where n is the number of sects, n -> infinite).

Well, Jesus said in the Bible that not many would be saved and also that many who call him Lord would discover on the last day that they were wrong. The Bible further states that there would be false prophets among Christians constantly. So while the math you posted above might be counterintuitive, it is at least consistent with the tenets of the religion.

It should be a simple thing for someone, even one who does not accept the Bible, to compare a church against its teachings and see if they are really the church talked about in the Bible or not. What might be far harder is covering all N churches in one lifetime. :)

I define true Christianity by proving it against the Bible. The Catholic Church's own Bible condemns them. Size and numbers have nothing to do with it. I'm just identifying true Christianity as those who actually follow the tenets of their religion.

Very quick way to check this: I Timothy 3 states that a bishop must be married. Does the Catholic Church do that?

I guess n-1/n is the percentage of them being wrong (where n is the number of sects, n -> infinite).

Well, Jesus said in the Bible that not many would be saved and also that many who call him Lord would discover on the last day that they were wrong. The Bible further states that there would be false prophets among Christians constantly. So while the math you posted above might be counterintuitive, it is at least consistent with the tenets of the religion.

It should be a simple thing for someone, even one who does not accept the Bible, to compare a church against its teachings and see if they are really the church talked about in the Bible or not. What might be far harder is covering all N churches in one lifetime. :)

I define true Christianity by proving it against the Bible. The Catholic Church's own Bible condemns them. Size and numbers have nothing to do with it. I'm just identifying true Christianity as those who actually follow the tenets of their religion.

Very quick way to check this: I Timothy 3 states that a bishop must be married. Does the Catholic Church do that?

I guess n-1/n is the percentage of them being wrong (where n is the number of sects, n -> infinite).

Well, Jesus said in the Bible that not many would be saved and also that many who call him Lord would discover on the last day that they were wrong. The Bible further states that there would be false prophets among Christians constantly. So while the math you posted above might be counterintuitive, it is at least consistent with the tenets of the religion.

It should be a simple thing for someone, even one who does not accept the Bible, to compare a church against its teachings and see if they are really the church talked about in the Bible or not. What might be far harder is covering all N churches in one lifetime. :)

I've got the American Standard Version at my site. However, I recently learned that the majority of online Bible sites have a humongous number of errors in their ASV (we are all using the same etext). I recently found the SWORD project, which appears to have a good ASV etext; I intend to extract it and put it on my site, soon.

... and copyright of modern translations has been controversial since it began (in 1901 with the American Standard Version, I believe). And it really puts a damper on my goreadthebible.com project, where I'd like to have multiple modern translations of the Bible available for reading without some of the doctrinal teachings found on other websites that I believe are incorrect. Unfortunately, I'm just a small fry, and can't afford whatever royalties would be needed for such a project (and they doubtless would disapprove of my intended site policy that anyone in the world be able to print or save the entire contents of the website).

I'm taking training courses in hymnwriting and intend on anything I publish being freely redistributable. My father has been a hymnwriter since the 1960s; I remember when he first explained copyright to me as a boy. It didn't seem right to me, then, and he's now changed his stance so much that he pretty much doesn't care where his hymns go. I think he decided it was more important that people actually SING his hymns than respect his copyright. I know some other great hymnists and wish they would see things the same way.

The difference between scientology and Christianity is that in scientology the originals are copyrighted, while in Christianity someone could conceivably make a new translation and own the rights to it. There are actually people called Freezoners who believe in the scientology principles but not the organization. These people are forced to purchase their religious texts from an organization they find morally repugnant, perhaps violating their religious principles. That doesn't sound right.

Actually, copyright has been a big issue in Bible publication since 1901, when the American Standard Version translation was published. The religious public did not like the idea that the text was "owned" by the publishers, Thomas Nelson and Sons. The publishers, however, claimed that their translation was copyrighted "to ensure purity of text." History has demonstrated for 2000 years that people like to hack up the Bible to make it say things it does not, so this seemed like a valid concern.

Ironically, the ASV is the only major English translation other than the King James Version of 1611 (and its later revisions in the 1700s and 1800s) that is not under copyright. With the current racket of extending copyrights, that will remain true indefinitely since most other major English translations were published after 1922.

The ASV text is thriving on the Internet and Palm Pilots, since it's one of the few English Bible texts that can redistributed. I haven't heard of anyone trying to alter and distribute the text, so it would seem that Thomas Nelson and Sons' concerns about purity of text were just a smokescreen that paved the way for legitimizing in the public's eye the profiteering off of Bible translations, an activity that seems perfectly palatable in our era of "intellectual property," but seemed repugnant and sacreligious to this country a century ago.

I don't agree with the concept of copyright in a general sense, and I think it is a crying shame that I can't post a major modern English translation of the Bible on the Bible website I run so that people can read it without extraneous commentary I believe to be irrelevant and erroneous, which they will find if they look on any of the sites that pay for the expensive licenses to reproduce these Bibles online.

I read some Hebrew, but not enough to answer definitively. The point is that the Latin translation (the Vulgate), and English translations (the KJV) are not the standard. The fact that both chose to translate it "kill" may support a position, but the definitive proof is the original Hebrew.

Now, in context, it is apparent that the same law that said "Do not kill," also commanded the death penalty and certain wars, so it is apparent from context in ANY language that it is not an absolute prohibition on all killing.

Of course, the Old Testament is not the law for Christians today, so all of this is academic. There are no admonitions for the death penalty or war in the New Testament. I'm a pacifist because of my Christian beliefs, but I can certainly see where the other side is coming from. And I'd hate to be associated with much of the anti-war crowd, because their strongest arguments seem to be "I don't like war," and "Bush is stupid."

But the Old Testament most definitely did not prohibit all killing. Whether the word implicitly carries the meaning of "murder" or "kill," the context shows it did not preclude war or the death penalty.

Hate to tell you, but it was actually Solomon, in the Bible. The book of Proverbs says something to that effect multiple times, in fact.

Lincoln has gotten credit for reusing or slightly rewording Biblical sayings before, including "A house divided cannot stand."

Hate to tell you, but it was actually Solomon, in the Bible. The book of Proverbs says something to that effect multiple times, in fact.

Lincoln has gotten credit for reusing or slightly rewording Biblical sayings before, including "A house divided cannot stand."

I'd say the Bible strongly implies evolution did not happen. HOWEVER, the Bible most certainly does not say life does not exist on other planets.

C.S. Lewis once said atheists wanted to have it both ways with extraterrestrial life. If life exists on other planets, that proves we're not unique and not special, and so there's no God. On the other hand, if life doesn't exist on other planets, that proves we're an accident, and therefore there's no God. (Gross simplification of what he said, from memory.)

To my atheist/agnostic friends: the Bible makes no comments about whether there is life elsewhere or not. Anybody who tells you otherwise is taking something out of context. If you don't believe me, ask them for the reference and go read it for yourself.

Some will say the sacrifice of Jesus makes no sense if there is life on other planets, because how could those races be saved? There are two possibilities. Perhaps such races never sinned, as we did, and thus don't need salvation. (C.S. Lewis treated this possibility in his Space Trilogy.) Or, perhaps the Son of God was born on multiple worlds to save multiple lost races. The Bible DOES NOT SAY.

So, evidence of life on other worlds should not faze a Bible-believer.

I thought you hadn't taken the OS X plunge yet?

I still remember with fondness the day I installed MacPerl on my dad's LCIII. Finally I had a machine I could program again! It's hard for me to get through life without the ability to write little programs to answer questions and solve small problems. After I got MacPerl on that machine (1998 I think), I have never used another language to program on the Macintosh again.

My MacPerl use hasn't been as fancy as your examples, perhaps because I've been slowly migrating away from the Mac. (It's a G3, now, but in my lap is a blueberry ibook running Linux. And 5.6.1.)

I remember using MacPerl to make a local mirror of a website once or twice. (Never seen wget for Mac, and besides, it was more fun in Perl.) I also used MacPerl the first time I split up the input data files for one of my websites. I remember how nice it was to set the creator/type codes on files from within the program.

Considering I rarely write Perl programs that need to fork in UNIX (and I write Perl programs 5+ days a week for a living), it seems strange to me that people can't understand how MacPerl would be useful without forking.

This post not guaranteed to be coherent as I should be in bed right now instead of reading /.

One last thought, upon hitting the preview button. If a person thinks you need to fork subprocesses in Perl all the time, maybe he/she needs to go look at CPAN to see if there's a module to do what they want instead of running a subprocesses. I doubt anyone finds it necessary to fork a Perl program without exec'ing some other program; whatever it is you're going after with system or qx// can probably be gotten cheaper (processing wise) with a module.