Slashdot Mirror

I'm no hardcore Bible-thumper, but you've certainly taken a few passages out of context... read them with the surrounding lines, and you'll get the full picture. 1 Corinthians 7:1-12 in its full context is better understood when one should and should not marry.

More power to you if you can build a strong argument for your case, whatever that might be. I always look forward to intelligent discourse. But you stooped rather low to get your point across.


Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

A King wanted 100 foreskins for his daughter's marriage and David brought 200.

And everyone thought DeNiro was a mean father...

"The next time believers tell you that 'separation of church and state' does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word 'trinity.' The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. If they are still unfazed (or unphrased), by this, then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural,Transcendence, Afterlife, Deity, Divinity, Theology, Monotheism, Missionary, Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Christianity, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Catholic, Pope, Cardinal, Catechism, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, Golden Rule, Moral, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Atheism, Apostasy, Conservative (Liberal is in), Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible." --Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist

Also, a true Christian likely does not support capital punishment.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2. Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

4. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

5. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

6. And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."

7. So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

8. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

9. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.

10. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11. Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.

12. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

13. And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.

14. And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

15. and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.

16. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

17. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,

18. to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.

20. And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

21. So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

22. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."

23. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.

24. And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

25. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

28. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29. Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

30. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.

The Bible is very abstract at times (a thousand years -> longer than I can think about, anyone?).

It also doesn't say whether evolution is the way we were created or not (and I know I'm going to hear this, so here: Maybe God let things evolve up to us, and then created a special one (and then another) that was capable of being with Him).

We were created by God, and were/are the first (and only) ones capable of being with Him. I'll leave it at that.

(btw, I don't check back on comments, so if you reply or want to debate about it, send me an e-mail)

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2. Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

4. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

5. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

6. And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."

7. So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

8. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

9. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.

10. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11. Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.

12. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

13. And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.

14. And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

15. and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.

16. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

17. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,

18. to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.

20. And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

21. So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

22. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."

23. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.

24. And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

25. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

28. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29. Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

30. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.

The Bible is very abstract at times (a thousand years -> longer than I can think about, anyone?).

It also doesn't say whether evolution is the way we were created or not (and I know I'm going to hear this, so here: Maybe God let things evolve up to us, and then created a special one (and then another) that was capable of being with Him).

We were created by God, and were/are the first (and only) ones capable of being with Him. I'll leave it at that.

(btw, I don't check back on comments, so if you reply or want to debate about it, send me an e-mail)

28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart

Why specifically a woman?

Why specifically "adultery"? Does this verse only apply to married people?

Well, whenever a question like that comes up about just one line, it's usually a good idea to look at the passage surrounding it. Jesus is talking about whether it's legitimate to try to interpret ethical rules literally, in order to escape their original intent-- which is exactly what you just asked.

• People were saying: The Bible says Do not murder . (So, it's OK to go around hating people-- that's not murder). Wrong: the rule was made to promote peace.
• The verses in question here: people were saying: The Bible says Do not commit adultery (so it must be OK to fantasize about having sex with people you wouldn't be allowed to have sex with IRL-- that's not murder). Wrong again-- you wouldn't do it IRL, don't do it virtually.
• People were saying: The Old Testament has rules about how to divorce someone (so divorce must be OK, and it should freely available for any little reason). Wrong yet again: trivial divorces are ignoring how important marriage was designed to be.

And so on. The specific issues aren't the point I'm making. The point is that your question is really one about "How do I interpret a passage from the Bible responsibly?". In this particular case, that's also what the passage is about anyway.

M

28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart

Why specifically a woman?

Why specifically "adultery"? Does this verse only apply to married people?

Well, whenever a question like that comes up about just one line, it's usually a good idea to look at the passage surrounding it. Jesus is talking about whether it's legitimate to try to interpret ethical rules literally, in order to escape their original intent-- which is exactly what you just asked.

• People were saying: The Bible says Do not murder . (So, it's OK to go around hating people-- that's not murder). Wrong: the rule was made to promote peace.
• The verses in question here: people were saying: The Bible says Do not commit adultery (so it must be OK to fantasize about having sex with people you wouldn't be allowed to have sex with IRL-- that's not murder). Wrong again-- you wouldn't do it IRL, don't do it virtually.
• People were saying: The Old Testament has rules about how to divorce someone (so divorce must be OK, and it should freely available for any little reason). Wrong yet again: trivial divorces are ignoring how important marriage was designed to be.

And so on. The specific issues aren't the point I'm making. The point is that your question is really one about "How do I interpret a passage from the Bible responsibly?". In this particular case, that's also what the passage is about anyway.

M

28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart

Why specifically a woman?

Why specifically "adultery"? Does this verse only apply to married people?

Well, whenever a question like that comes up about just one line, it's usually a good idea to look at the passage surrounding it. Jesus is talking about whether it's legitimate to try to interpret ethical rules literally, in order to escape their original intent-- which is exactly what you just asked.

• People were saying: The Bible says Do not murder . (So, it's OK to go around hating people-- that's not murder). Wrong: the rule was made to promote peace.
• The verses in question here: people were saying: The Bible says Do not commit adultery (so it must be OK to fantasize about having sex with people you wouldn't be allowed to have sex with IRL-- that's not murder). Wrong again-- you wouldn't do it IRL, don't do it virtually.
• People were saying: The Old Testament has rules about how to divorce someone (so divorce must be OK, and it should freely available for any little reason). Wrong yet again: trivial divorces are ignoring how important marriage was designed to be.

And so on. The specific issues aren't the point I'm making. The point is that your question is really one about "How do I interpret a passage from the Bible responsibly?". In this particular case, that's also what the passage is about anyway.

M

28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart

Why specifically a woman?

Why specifically "adultery"? Does this verse only apply to married people?

Well, whenever a question like that comes up about just one line, it's usually a good idea to look at the passage surrounding it. Jesus is talking about whether it's legitimate to try to interpret ethical rules literally, in order to escape their original intent-- which is exactly what you just asked.

• People were saying: The Bible says Do not murder . (So, it's OK to go around hating people-- that's not murder). Wrong: the rule was made to promote peace.
• The verses in question here: people were saying: The Bible says Do not commit adultery (so it must be OK to fantasize about having sex with people you wouldn't be allowed to have sex with IRL-- that's not murder). Wrong again-- you wouldn't do it IRL, don't do it virtually.
• People were saying: The Old Testament has rules about how to divorce someone (so divorce must be OK, and it should freely available for any little reason). Wrong yet again: trivial divorces are ignoring how important marriage was designed to be.

And so on. The specific issues aren't the point I'm making. The point is that your question is really one about "How do I interpret a passage from the Bible responsibly?". In this particular case, that's also what the passage is about anyway.

M

Jesus mistakenly tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime. Mt.16:28, 23:36, 24:34

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." -- John 18:36

Incidentally, Matthew 23:36 most likely refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Jesus falsely prophesies that the high priest would see his second coming. Mt.26:64, Mk.14:62.

I'd assume that everybody will, assuming there's any truth to the idea of the resurrection of the dead...

Jesus falsely prophesies that the end of the world will come within his listeners' lifetimes. Mk.9:1, 13:30

Mark 13:30 is the one interesting problem you have presented today.

Jesus falsely predicts that some of his listeners would live to see him return and establish the kingdom of God. Lk.9:27

One could assume that refers to what John saw.

Some readers may also be interested in the idea of preterism.

Oh, make your HTML a little less ugly plzthx

--

Your assertion that sexual relations are not damaging to children is simply denial.
The APA says "No responsible mental health organization, including the American Psychological Association, endorses pedophilia or denies its negative effects on children. Any statement that suggests otherwise is a serious distortion of the truth. The American Psychiatric Association writes: 'An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior.' "

Children are not simply little adults. They are cognitively and developmentally different from adults. Sexual activity involves us in the most profound physical, intellectual, and emotional risk possible. There is little in human life which is more tender and delicate than our sexual identity, perfomance, and pleasure.

To expose children to that while they are yet incapable of understanding the implications is phenominally damaging to them. Anyone who says otherwise is indescribably wrong.

I have read about, and in fact know, a large number of people who were sexually involved as children. The stories they tell about the damage inflicted on them by selfish adults who used them for sexual pleasure is a demonstration of the worst kind of evil. These adults struggle with worth and identity decades later. Their lives are colored by shame, inadequacy, rage, fear, and confusion.

They are trapped in a bondage of powerlessness, betrayal, and ambivalence.

You say that you do not involve yourself with actual children. That is a good thing. However, I submit to you that you are unlikely to be able to continue in this way. Things that we entertain in our brains become actions. These activities which you fantasize about will eventually fail to bring you the pleasure that you are currently experiencing. You know that this is true, because even today it takes far more to arouse you than it did even a year ago. This is the nature of sexual perversion.

We take no action without previously having thoughts about it. Your fantasies will eventually become actions of one sort or another.

Lust is always demanding, and never satisfied.

You assert that you did not choose your sexual orientation. I will not challenge that. I don't think that science has advanced sufficiently to determine the root cause of our sexual desires. Regardless, sexual relations with someone who is not your spouse is not acceptable. Sexual activity with children is loathsome and damaging to you and to children. A good reference on the damage caused to these children is called "The Wounded Heart" and can be found here:

Romans 1:18-24 says:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another."

I strongly urge you to get the help that you need before it is too late.

God loves you and wants relationship with you.

If you would like to know how you can avoid God's wrath, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com

Your assertion that sexual relations are not damaging to children is simply denial.
The APA says "No responsible mental health organization, including the American Psychological Association, endorses pedophilia or denies its negative effects on children. Any statement that suggests otherwise is a serious distortion of the truth. The American Psychiatric Association writes: 'An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior.' "

Children are not simply little adults. They are cognitively and developmentally different from adults. Sexual activity involves us in the most profound physical, intellectual, and emotional risk possible. There is little in human life which is more tender and delicate than our sexual identity, perfomance, and pleasure.

To expose children to that while they are yet incapable of understanding the implications is phenominally damaging to them. Anyone who says otherwise is indescribably wrong.

I have read about, and in fact know, a large number of people who were sexually involved as children. The stories they tell about the damage inflicted on them by selfish adults who used them for sexual pleasure is a demonstration of the worst kind of evil. These adults struggle with worth and identity decades later. Their lives are colored by shame, inadequacy, rage, fear, and confusion.

They are trapped in a bondage of powerlessness, betrayal, and ambivalence.

You say that you do not involve yourself with actual children. That is a good thing. However, I submit to you that you are unlikely to be able to continue in this way. Things that we entertain in our brains become actions. These activities which you fantasize about will eventually fail to bring you the pleasure that you are currently experiencing. You know that this is true, because even today it takes far more to arouse you than it did even a year ago. This is the nature of sexual perversion.

We take no action without previously having thoughts about it. Your fantasies will eventually become actions of one sort or another.

Lust is always demanding, and never satisfied.

You assert that you did not choose your sexual orientation. I will not challenge that. I don't think that science has advanced sufficiently to determine the root cause of our sexual desires. Regardless, sexual relations with someone who is not your spouse is not acceptable. Sexual activity with children is loathsome and damaging to you and to children. A good reference on the damage caused to these children is called "The Wounded Heart" and can be found here:

Romans 1:18-24 says:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another."

I strongly urge you to get the help that you need before it is too late.

God loves you and wants relationship with you.

If you would like to know how you can avoid God's wrath, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com

HTML made it easy for _people_ to create and distribute hypertext information. Mozilla helped immensely to popularize it - it made the viewing easier on the eyes with the nonstandard img tags and such. But overall it was simple enough for people to create more and more pages by themselves.

And the result is billions of webpages. Many of them made by people, some even fresh from AOL ;).

In contrast SGML doesn't seem to be simple for people - as someone has claimed that Tim Berners-Lee misunderstood it. And I'm sure Tim has above average intelligence.

I guess if you shove SGML down everyone's throats, we'll have maybe a few thousand public pages in comparison. Sure they'll be nice and logical, very tidy and very organized, easy parseable by machines.

And you won't have silly people abusing blink tags and stuff or the big red button that does nothing. ;)

Maybe Tim did misunderstand SGML. But I think someone somewhere has misunderstood what languages are for ;). When a language is being discussed more than used, it's an utter failure.

Cheerio,
Link.

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise

I'll second that. Taking your suggestion to a broader level, it's very important for young people to establish a firm foundation that will enable them to apply their knowledge in a responsible and ethical manner. Think: white hat hackers vs. black hat hackers, or Allies vs. Axis Powers (Nazis).

The ethics issue is especially important in this age of nanotech, biotech, cloning, spying technology, and advanced warfare. What kind of perspective toward people do you want to be possessed by the future leaders of [Big Brother] governments and [evil, greedy] mega-corporations?

Fill in the blank: All humans are _________ .
a) accidents
b) monkey mutants
c) sacred creations of God
d) figments of your imagination
e) CowboyNeal

How one answers this question is far more crucial than which branch of science one studies. Having realized this, I can't suggest a better study material than the Bible.

Lest you dissent from my opinion (a little Ginsberg lingo :-), check out the Skeptics Center.

I agree Church and State should be kept apart. I didn't realise what it was like in the US... here in the UK it doesn't seem to be so much of an issue.
But a coziness between church and state is good for the state and bad for the church (GK Chesterton). The church can never acheive its aims through politics anyway, Jesus certainly didn't do it that way, and I certainly can't imagine any government enacting the set of laws that Jesus sets out in the Sermon on the Mount! :-) (Matthew 5-7. The Bible)

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth... etc etc

Hey, maybe some of those screaming protestant fundamentalists should try reading some of it ;-)

But seriously though, in a democracy of course everybody should have a voice, so every religious group has a right to speak out. Though I think Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement is a good example of how the church should be involved in politics ie. tackling real issues with grace, humility, love and coutesy.

The word piss can be found several times in the Old Testament of the King James Bible.

the first major bible printed in the West available online

"New Jerusalem" is an allusion to Revelation 21. It has little to do with today's Jerusalem.

It's an allusion to Revelation 21. The "new Jerusalem" has little to do with the Jerusalem we know.

The problem was to distribute assets to a divorcing couple. This is not a Knapsack problem, it's not a computing or algorithmic problem.

This is a Solomon class problem [1] :).

You could solve the surface problem in a legalistic or academic way, but if you are not wise you can overlook the real problem.

Of course if a particular couple respects the results of computers and fancy algorithms then you could use this method - but ONLY if they agree from the start to use that particular method. If not... Hooboy.

Cheerio,
Link.

[1] Solomon class problem

Sorry, no. :-)

In fact, the word "rounding" doesn't even occur in the Bible. Run a search and see for yourself. This further reinforces my convictions that He is Precise. And that Frymaster is wrong. Sorry, Fry.

Ryan

Okay, I will buy your creationist story if you're willing to stand up to the same level of proof that you subject neo-darwinists to. To whit:

Show me one insect that naturally has four legs (Leviticus 11:23)
I even have a photo!

Show me one.. just one fossil or sekeleton of a Nephilim or giant (gen 6:4)... I'll take a partial!
Unfortunately the Nephilim were drowned in the salt sea you mention below. Their bones turned to limestone along with the shellfish.

Hey, gen 7 tells me that the earth was covered in salt water for an entire year. You show me one species of flower that can survive a year under dozens of meters of salt water. Just one.
European flowers, for one. Also, Noah was commanded to take every kind of food with him on the ark, presumably this includes nuts and seeds.

Ryan

> the square root of 9 is three
But the Bible says pi is 3. And if you square pi you get about 9.87, not 9. Either you're wrong or the Bible's wrong. C'mon Frymaster, fess up. And you shirt is aqua, not blue.

I refer naysayers to Kings 7:23. Identical wording is present in Chronicles 4:2.

Ryan

> the square root of 9 is three
But the Bible says pi is 3. And if you square pi you get about 9.87, not 9. Either you're wrong or the Bible's wrong. C'mon Frymaster, fess up. And you shirt is aqua, not blue.

I refer naysayers to Kings 7:23. Identical wording is present in Chronicles 4:2.

Ryan

How soon before people start being killed for their digital IDs? Even for those who don't believe the bible, consider how lucrative a target for muggers this will be, if you can easily gain access to someone's money and possesions just by killing them and extracting a tiny piece of kit from their skull.

This is perhaps the worst idea I have heard in a long, long time.

I am currently working on design for a multiplatform B2B 3D collaboration system and feel the block setting in frequently. Once a friend showed me God's desire to have a relationship with me on a day to day minute to minute basis. I was more likely to ask Him for help and peace, and boy does it come. God has since shown me over and over again He does care and is listening. BTW you can pray when you are getting exercise or drinking a beer too :-) It's free like freedom as well.

--

--

Gospelcom.net hosts the websites for nearly 200 Christian ministries. They're based around open-source tools - Apache, PHP, Perl, mySQL, etc. I'm confident that an email to Gospelcom would result in a list of the different ministries that needed work done on a volunteer bases.

See http://www.gospelcom.net/.

I went to PETA's website and clicked the links. I found a Website called Jesus was a vegetarian. So I surfed the site and read an article that said that the world was meant to vegetarian from Eden to the Apocalypse. Now I'm no expert but it seems to me that the animals God created range from herbivores to carnivores to omnivores. I just don't think the lion ever sustained itself with grass. However if you do look up the passages from the Bible they mention you will find that if you interpret it so narrowly that they have a point. And if you don't have a point goto Bible.com. This link takes you to the new american standard version.

Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

We (nerds) need adequate time in the Big Blue Room and to get out of ourselves and surroundings once in a while to see a bigger picture.

You might as well lease everything because, you're not taking it with you.

Surely every man walks about as a phantom;
Surely they make an uproar for nothing;
He amasses riches and does not know who will gather them...

Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

We (nerds) need adequate time in the Big Blue Room and to get out of ourselves and surroundings once in a while to see a bigger picture.

You might as well lease everything because, you're not taking it with you.

Surely every man walks about as a phantom;
Surely they make an uproar for nothing;
He amasses riches and does not know who will gather them...

Where did this guy learn ethics?

In fact no known moral law implies that purchase cost should even be related to production cost.

An example: ursury. [My aplogies to ./ readers who are not from a Judaeo - Christian moral background: I am, so forgive the limited range of sources for my examples, and please, PLEASE, add any from other cultures. That's the point of discussion, isn't it?]

I guess the references in the traditional texts are Lev 25:36-27, Deut 23:19-20, Ps 15:5, Ezek 18:8, 13, 17, Ezek 22:12.

The point is that there is a tradition where the moral/religious law implies a relationship between the cost and price.

I guess that this and similar rules are based on a general belief that you should not profit unreasonable at the expense of your fellow-man. It is the tenth commandment.

2535. The sensitive appetite leads us to desire pleasant things we do not have, e.g. the desire to eat when we are hungry, or to warm ourselves when we are cold. These desires are good in themselves; but often they exceed the limits of reaon and drive us to covert unjustly what is not ours and belongs to another or is owed to him.

2537. It is not a violation of this commandment to desire to obtain things that belongs to one's neighbour, provided this is done by just means. Traditional catechesis realistically mentions 'those who have a harder struggle against their criminal desires' and so who 'must be urged the more to keep this commandment':

...merchants who desire scarcity and and rising prices, who cannot bear not to be the only ones buying and selling so that they themselves can sell ore dearly and buy more cheaply; those who hope that their peers will be impoverished, in order to realize a profit either by selling to them or buying from them ... physicans who wish disease to spread; lawyers who are eager for many important cases and trials.

[Catechism of the Catholic Church]

Bertrand may not agree with this ethics, but he should say so instead of claiming that it does not exist.

Where did this guy learn ethics?

In fact no known moral law implies that purchase cost should even be related to production cost.

An example: ursury. [My aplogies to ./ readers who are not from a Judaeo - Christian moral background: I am, so forgive the limited range of sources for my examples, and please, PLEASE, add any from other cultures. That's the point of discussion, isn't it?]

I guess the references in the traditional texts are Lev 25:36-27, Deut 23:19-20, Ps 15:5, Ezek 18:8, 13, 17, Ezek 22:12.

The point is that there is a tradition where the moral/religious law implies a relationship between the cost and price.

I guess that this and similar rules are based on a general belief that you should not profit unreasonable at the expense of your fellow-man. It is the tenth commandment.

2535. The sensitive appetite leads us to desire pleasant things we do not have, e.g. the desire to eat when we are hungry, or to warm ourselves when we are cold. These desires are good in themselves; but often they exceed the limits of reaon and drive us to covert unjustly what is not ours and belongs to another or is owed to him.

2537. It is not a violation of this commandment to desire to obtain things that belongs to one's neighbour, provided this is done by just means. Traditional catechesis realistically mentions 'those who have a harder struggle against their criminal desires' and so who 'must be urged the more to keep this commandment':

...merchants who desire scarcity and and rising prices, who cannot bear not to be the only ones buying and selling so that they themselves can sell ore dearly and buy more cheaply; those who hope that their peers will be impoverished, in order to realize a profit either by selling to them or buying from them ... physicans who wish disease to spread; lawyers who are eager for many important cases and trials.

[Catechism of the Catholic Church]

Bertrand may not agree with this ethics, but he should say so instead of claiming that it does not exist.

Where did this guy learn ethics?

In fact no known moral law implies that purchase cost should even be related to production cost.

An example: ursury. [My aplogies to ./ readers who are not from a Judaeo - Christian moral background: I am, so forgive the limited range of sources for my examples, and please, PLEASE, add any from other cultures. That's the point of discussion, isn't it?]

I guess the references in the traditional texts are Lev 25:36-27, Deut 23:19-20, Ps 15:5, Ezek 18:8, 13, 17, Ezek 22:12.

The point is that there is a tradition where the moral/religious law implies a relationship between the cost and price.

I guess that this and similar rules are based on a general belief that you should not profit unreasonable at the expense of your fellow-man. It is the tenth commandment.

2535. The sensitive appetite leads us to desire pleasant things we do not have, e.g. the desire to eat when we are hungry, or to warm ourselves when we are cold. These desires are good in themselves; but often they exceed the limits of reaon and drive us to covert unjustly what is not ours and belongs to another or is owed to him.

2537. It is not a violation of this commandment to desire to obtain things that belongs to one's neighbour, provided this is done by just means. Traditional catechesis realistically mentions 'those who have a harder struggle against their criminal desires' and so who 'must be urged the more to keep this commandment':

...merchants who desire scarcity and and rising prices, who cannot bear not to be the only ones buying and selling so that they themselves can sell ore dearly and buy more cheaply; those who hope that their peers will be impoverished, in order to realize a profit either by selling to them or buying from them ... physicans who wish disease to spread; lawyers who are eager for many important cases and trials.

[Catechism of the Catholic Church]

Bertrand may not agree with this ethics, but he should say so instead of claiming that it does not exist.

Where did this guy learn ethics?

In fact no known moral law implies that purchase cost should even be related to production cost.

An example: ursury. [My aplogies to ./ readers who are not from a Judaeo - Christian moral background: I am, so forgive the limited range of sources for my examples, and please, PLEASE, add any from other cultures. That's the point of discussion, isn't it?]

I guess the references in the traditional texts are Lev 25:36-27, Deut 23:19-20, Ps 15:5, Ezek 18:8, 13, 17, Ezek 22:12.

The point is that there is a tradition where the moral/religious law implies a relationship between the cost and price.

I guess that this and similar rules are based on a general belief that you should not profit unreasonable at the expense of your fellow-man. It is the tenth commandment.

2535. The sensitive appetite leads us to desire pleasant things we do not have, e.g. the desire to eat when we are hungry, or to warm ourselves when we are cold. These desires are good in themselves; but often they exceed the limits of reaon and drive us to covert unjustly what is not ours and belongs to another or is owed to him.

2537. It is not a violation of this commandment to desire to obtain things that belongs to one's neighbour, provided this is done by just means. Traditional catechesis realistically mentions 'those who have a harder struggle against their criminal desires' and so who 'must be urged the more to keep this commandment':

...merchants who desire scarcity and and rising prices, who cannot bear not to be the only ones buying and selling so that they themselves can sell ore dearly and buy more cheaply; those who hope that their peers will be impoverished, in order to realize a profit either by selling to them or buying from them ... physicans who wish disease to spread; lawyers who are eager for many important cases and trials.

[Catechism of the Catholic Church]

Bertrand may not agree with this ethics, but he should say so instead of claiming that it does not exist.

Where did this guy learn ethics?

In fact no known moral law implies that purchase cost should even be related to production cost.

An example: ursury. [My aplogies to ./ readers who are not from a Judaeo - Christian moral background: I am, so forgive the limited range of sources for my examples, and please, PLEASE, add any from other cultures. That's the point of discussion, isn't it?]

I guess the references in the traditional texts are Lev 25:36-27, Deut 23:19-20, Ps 15:5, Ezek 18:8, 13, 17, Ezek 22:12.

The point is that there is a tradition where the moral/religious law implies a relationship between the cost and price.

I guess that this and similar rules are based on a general belief that you should not profit unreasonable at the expense of your fellow-man. It is the tenth commandment.

2535. The sensitive appetite leads us to desire pleasant things we do not have, e.g. the desire to eat when we are hungry, or to warm ourselves when we are cold. These desires are good in themselves; but often they exceed the limits of reaon and drive us to covert unjustly what is not ours and belongs to another or is owed to him.

2537. It is not a violation of this commandment to desire to obtain things that belongs to one's neighbour, provided this is done by just means. Traditional catechesis realistically mentions 'those who have a harder struggle against their criminal desires' and so who 'must be urged the more to keep this commandment':

...merchants who desire scarcity and and rising prices, who cannot bear not to be the only ones buying and selling so that they themselves can sell ore dearly and buy more cheaply; those who hope that their peers will be impoverished, in order to realize a profit either by selling to them or buying from them ... physicans who wish disease to spread; lawyers who are eager for many important cases and trials.

[Catechism of the Catholic Church]

Bertrand may not agree with this ethics, but he should say so instead of claiming that it does not exist.

Genesis 5:2 reads "He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them 'man'." I expect the anti-Christian flaming to start about now.

It is quite clearly defined in any English dictionary that one of the meanings of "man" is "the human race". It is true that another meaning is "a male adult of the human race", but it is fact that "mankind" means "the whole general mish-mash of humans and their society".

If you are that bitter about the use of the word "mankind" I advise you to chill out a bit. Focusing on imaginary and trivial issues like that will not help improve the sexism in the world, it will only give "those militant feminists" a worse reputation.

Ooh - off-topic and (IMHO) insightful! What will the moderators do?! "(-1, Fool)"?

ac.uk

The simple answer is because my job provides me with a computer. :-)

Here are the sources of the actual quote you mentioned (courtesy of the Bible Gateway):

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on." Mark 12:41-44 NIV

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on." Luke 21:1-4 NIV

Notice that in this Jesus is talking about giving offerings to the temple (church). The rich were very showy about their offerings, since they wanted the recognition of others. They were trusting in their wealth. But the poor woman gave not for recognition, but because it was the right thing to do. She was putting her trust in God to provide her needs.

Now, why haven't I sold everything I have to give to the poor? Good question. I think a better question is, does God really call everyone to give everything to the poor? The really wealthy guy in Luke 18:18-27 is so enamored of his wealth that he thinks he's lived a perfect life. His money is his god. Like everything else we have, money is provided for us by God (part of "our daily bread"). How we steward our time, talents, and treasures (money) is the real issue at hand. Suffice it to say, I give to charities, I support my church, and I give support to missionaries. I think giving everything at this point away would make me personally less effective for the kingdom of God (when I decide to hang up engineering and become a full-time missionary, that'll change). But I do give, and do my best to be a good steward of what I have!

Besides that, I find the computer to be an effective way of sharing the Gospel of Christ with all nations! :-)

JimD

Info on the Boston Church of Christ

Two murderers are in prison, and you chalk this up to persecution of Christians?

I suggest you actually start studying Christianity as it was preached by Jesus, as opposed to the hate-filled legacy we have today. A good starting place would be John 8( Here is a copy online so you don't have to dig your Bible out from under the "Focus on the Family" propoganda sheets.)

Sometimes I am ashamed to call myself a Christian. Never afraid of persecution, just ashamed of the image many "Christians" have earned.

Why would a just God, who (remember) is in control of everything, allow anyone to get into heaven? You have to be perfect to earn your way into heaven...

I don't think God wants people to be destroyed, but if you don't ask for Grace then you get what you deserve, and I think that God will respect your descision to be judged.

If I truly believed that the majority of mankind, including most of my friends, were going to hell, I'd never stay sane.

matrix("What you've got to realize is that most of these people are not ready to be unplugged")

Christ says: "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

But enough with the religious debate. I hate to see anyone die for such reasons as suicide. And my hart cries for her family and loved ones.

Actually, you can get the full text of the New International Version, as well as a number of other versions and languages, at: http://bible.gospelcom.net/

The original texts (well, the canonical texts anyway - there are no original copies) were in circulation 1700 years ago. Copyright law allows at most 90 years after the authors' deaths. Even ignoring the pragmatic reasons, no it could never be copyrighted.

Translations are a whole different matter. The King James version is over 500 years old and thus in the public domain for the same reasons as the early texts. A number of other older Bibles are also in the public domain.

The NIV (the best of the contemporary English translations in my opinion) is copyrighted - every copy plainly states that it is licensed by The International Bible Society. The terms of use are more liberal than the standard fair use provisions (see the NIV copyright statement.)

Other modern translations have different requirements, but since Bible translators tend to do so out as a missionary calling rather than a source of income, the terms are often very liberal. A good comparison would be the World English Bible copyright or the New American Standard.

I believe there is a project to do a new, explicitly public domain translation, but I can't find their URL and I've forgotten the name.

The original texts (well, the canonical texts anyway - there are no original copies) were in circulation 1700 years ago. Copyright law allows at most 90 years after the authors' deaths. Even ignoring the pragmatic reasons, no it could never be copyrighted.

Translations are a whole different matter. The King James version is over 500 years old and thus in the public domain for the same reasons as the early texts. A number of other older Bibles are also in the public domain.

The NIV (the best of the contemporary English translations in my opinion) is copyrighted - every copy plainly states that it is licensed by The International Bible Society. The terms of use are more liberal than the standard fair use provisions (see the NIV copyright statement.)

Other modern translations have different requirements, but since Bible translators tend to do so out as a missionary calling rather than a source of income, the terms are often very liberal. A good comparison would be the World English Bible copyright or the New American Standard.

I believe there is a project to do a new, explicitly public domain translation, but I can't find their URL and I've forgotten the name.

The original texts (well, the canonical texts anyway - there are no original copies) were in circulation 1700 years ago. Copyright law allows at most 90 years after the authors' deaths. Even ignoring the pragmatic reasons, no it could never be copyrighted.

Translations are a whole different matter. The King James version is over 500 years old and thus in the public domain for the same reasons as the early texts. A number of other older Bibles are also in the public domain.

The NIV (the best of the contemporary English translations in my opinion) is copyrighted - every copy plainly states that it is licensed by The International Bible Society. The terms of use are more liberal than the standard fair use provisions (see the NIV copyright statement.)

Other modern translations have different requirements, but since Bible translators tend to do so out as a missionary calling rather than a source of income, the terms are often very liberal. A good comparison would be the World English Bible copyright or the New American Standard.

I believe there is a project to do a new, explicitly public domain translation, but I can't find their URL and I've forgotten the name.

The original texts (well, the canonical texts anyway - there are no original copies) were in circulation 1700 years ago. Copyright law allows at most 90 years after the authors' deaths. Even ignoring the pragmatic reasons, no it could never be copyrighted.

Translations are a whole different matter. The King James version is over 500 years old and thus in the public domain for the same reasons as the early texts. A number of other older Bibles are also in the public domain.

The NIV (the best of the contemporary English translations in my opinion) is copyrighted - every copy plainly states that it is licensed by The International Bible Society. The terms of use are more liberal than the standard fair use provisions (see the NIV copyright statement.)

Other modern translations have different requirements, but since Bible translators tend to do so out as a missionary calling rather than a source of income, the terms are often very liberal. A good comparison would be the World English Bible copyright or the New American Standard.

I believe there is a project to do a new, explicitly public domain translation, but I can't find their URL and I've forgotten the name.

Go look at Genesis 10 from the KJV.

I started using this scheme when I acquired an old VT terminal named "nimrod" (it had a label that said so) and needed something to name my new linux box that I was hooking this terminal up to. So my box became "cush". When I re-habilitated an old 386 to be my scratch, testing box it became "seba".

If for some reason Genesis 10 doesn't have enough names for you, start in on 1 Chronicles.

Another advantage of this scheme is that there are some who feel that logging into a server named "zeus" or "athena" is somehow doing homage to a pagan god. These names are straight out of the bible, and they're minor enough characters that no one is going to be offended that you're insulting some great leader by naming the server that. (I can just imagine the uproar over naming a server "jesus")

And while I admit that Hazarmaveth is a bit hard to pronounce or, more importantly, type, there are plenty of easily useable names in there.

Religion has no evidence either way, and therefore currently falls outside the scientific method. [...] Deeply religious people like this are prejudiced against science.

Not everything can be submitted to the scientific method such as repeating and recording data from a miracle. The miracles were done to convince people that whoever was talking/teaching had power from God and His approval.

If you value reason primarily, look into Christian apologetics (reasoned defense of Christianity). There is active scientific research and debate on many issues from Christian scientists.

Also, the Bible instructs us to gain knowledge and wisdom. The book of Proverbs contains many verses instructing people to seek knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.

It may seem that deeply religious people are prejudiced against science, but I don't think that is true. They reject some of the conclusions of scientists. They are wary of scientists conclusions on things like the origin of the universe and evolution, but readily accept conclusions on health, technology, or physics. Some may go overboard and reject all science, but that is the fault of the person, not taught by God.

Luke 12

15 Then he said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."
16 And he told them this parable: "The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop.
17 He thought to himself, `What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.'
18 "Then he said, `This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods.
19 And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry."'
20 "But God said to him, `You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?'
21 "This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God."
22 Then Jesus said to his disciples: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear.
23 Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes."

Flame away, ye unbelievers! But seriously, if you harbour any belief of God's existence, then earthly things pale into insignificance.

ac.uk