Slashdot Mirror

Or they were busy doing their own inquisition.

Read:
http://biblia.com/christianity/inquisition.htm#Pro testants
or
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM

Well, the The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was read to me by a teacher in grade school at a Catholic school. The entire time she drew parallels from the bible with the story and she did a fairly convincing job of it.

I'm not referring to the epic battle of good and evil part of the plot, that's fine. I'm just saying that I read his other work and he is very definitely Christian oriented. I don't agree with his beliefs. The purpose of my post was to ask /. if I should even worry about this when reading an author's works.

I'm going to go ahead and argue with you that I do believe C.S. Lewis did write with Christian themes. I'm sorry if you find this offensive.

Hey, why not? Ever notice that the Catholic and Protestant versions of the Bible differ? Or how about the Christian and Rabbinical scriptures?

PART I. ON THE CREATURE CALLED MAN

I. THE MAN IN THE CAVE

Far away in some strange constellation in skies infinitely remote, there is a small star, which astronomers may some day discover. At least I could never observe in the faces or demeanour of most astronomers or men of science any evidence that they have discovered it; though as a matter of fact they were walking about on it all the time. It is a star that brings forth out of itself very strange plants and very strange animals; and none stranger than the men of science. That at least is the way in which I should begin a history of the world, if I had to follow the scientific custom of beginning with an account of the astronomical universe. I should try to see even this earth from the outside, not by the hackneyed insistence of its relative position to the sun, but by some imaginative effort to conceive its remote position for the dehumanised spectator. Only I do not believe in being dehumanised in order to study humanity. I do not believe in dwelling upon the distances that are supposed to dwarf the world; I think there is even something a trifle vulgar about this idea of trying to rebuke spirit by size. And as the first idea is not feasible, that of making the earth a strange planet so as to make it significant, I will not stoop to the other trick of making it a small planet in order to make it insignificant. I would rather insist that we do not even know that it is a planet at all, in the sense in which we know that it is a place; and a very extraordinary place too. That is the note which I wish to strike from the first, if not in the astronomical, then in some more familiar fashion.

One of my first journalistic adventures, or misadventures, concerned a comment on Grant Allen, who had written a book about the Evolution of the Idea of God. I happened to remark that it would be much more interesting if God wrote a book about the evolution of the idea of Grant Allen. And I remember that the editor objected to my remark on the ground that it was blasphemous; which naturally amused me not a little. For the joke of it was, of course, that it never occurred to him to notice the title of the book itself, which really was blasphemous; for it was, when translated into English, 'I will show you how this nonsensical notion that there is God grew up among men.' My remark was strictly pious and proper confessing the divine purpose even in its most seemingly dark or meaningless manifestations. In that hour I learned many things, including the fact that there is something purely acoustic in much of that agnostic sort of reverence. The editor had not seen the point, because in the title of the book the long word came at the beginning and the short word at the end; whereas in my comments the short word came at the beginning and gave him a sort of shock. I have noticed that if you put a word like God into the same sentence with a word like dog, these abrupt and angular words affect people like pistol-shots. Whether you say that God made the dog or the dog made God does not seem to matter; that is only one of the sterile disputations of the too subtle theologians. But so long as you begin with a long word like evolution the rest will roll harmlessly past; very probably the editor had not read the whole of the title, for it is rather a long title and he was rather a busy man.

But this little incident has always lingered in my mind as a sort of parable. Most modern histories of mankind begin with the word evolution, and with a rather wordy exposition of evolution, for much the same reason that operated in this case. There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word and even about the idea. As a matter of

The Pi symbol /. uses for Math articles is very appropriate in this case, because Ramanujan also came up with a formula for the numerical representation of Pi
That's the first thing I thought of when I saw the article text, and I was kind of disappointed it wasn't about that particular aspect of Ramanujan.

Nor is it at all true that the Catholic Church was opposed to the printing and distribution of Bible translations in vernacular languages (it did oppose some Protestant translations which it felt were inaccurate). For instance (utterly contrary to the myths in this regard which are pathetically promulgated by the movie Luther), between 1466 and the onset of Protestantism in 1517 at least sixteen editions of the Bible appeared in German, with the full approval of the Catholic Church:

High German:

Strasburg: 1466, 1470, 1485
Basel, Switzerland: 1474
Augsburg: 1473 (2), 1477 (2), 1480, 1487, 1490, 1507 [also in 1518]
Nuremburg: 1483

Low German:

Cologne: 1480 (2)
Lubeck: 1494
Halberstadt: [1522]
Delf: [before 1522]

(From Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 vols., translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891], vol. 1, 56-57, vol. 14, 388)

Was the Bible unknown in German before 1466 and the printing press? Hardly. Raban Maur (c. 776-856), had translated the Bible into the Teutonic, or old German, language. Valafrid Strabon (c. 809-849) did the same, as did Huges of Fleury. Ottfried of Wissemburg rendered it in verse. So we see that the "conspiracy" of the Catholic Church to eliminate the Bible from the common man by banning the vernacular was singularly unsuccessful.

IIRC (although I can't find a reference right now), Martin Luther said something to the effect that he doubted the canonicity of James, due to its emphasis on works as a necessary manifestation of faith. I believe he later retracted this, but the relationship between faith, works, and eternal salvation is perhaps the key theological point of the Reformation. I found an intriguing page that discusses the theology involved, but I certainly am in no position to judge its arguments.

I agree, and that is in fact what the Orthodox bioethicist Engelhardt has pointed out.

It's too bad that the Orthodox have fallen away from the teachings of the Church Fathers on this subject...

The Romans have some sort of idea that sperm are potential life or something, and that it's bad to spill them without chance of conception, or something (c.f. Onan in the Old Testament).

That has nothing to do with it. From Pope Paul VI's encyclical "Humanae Vitae":

11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy." It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

Union and Procreation

12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life - and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

Faithfulness to God's Design

13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source.

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on

Nice trolling, but I don't worship idols, I don't make statues or icons.

I didn't say you did. It's just that you seemed to be implying that a crucifix is a pagan idol, which would only make sense if you believed that Jesus is a pagan god. If I misinterpreted what you said, please let me know.

Then you try to get "must be the husband of one wife" as a requirement for being a bishop to be disclaimed because Paul was not married. Bzzzzzzt. Nowhere in scripture is Paul labelled as a bishop. Only Timothy and Titus are so labelled.

In 2 Timothy 1:6, Paul says that he had ordained Timothy. Thus Paul was a bishop.

And you continue to claim indulgences were not sold. If that were true, Martin Luther would not have gained the following he did so rapidly. The sale of indulgences was repugnant to anyone who read and believed scripture, that's why he got such a huge response - all the true believers were offended by the actions of the RCC.

Actually, Protestantism gained the following it did only because it was supported by the local rulers. See Section VIII of this page, the section in question being entitled "The Largely Political Basis of the Protestant Revolt". It includes quotes from Luther admitting that without government support for Protestantism, most people would have rejected it.

Nor is it at all true that the Catholic Church was opposed to the printing and distribution of Bible translations in vernacular languages (it did oppose some Protestant translations which it felt were inaccurate). For instance, between 1466 and the onset of the Protestant Reformation in 1517 at least fourteen editions appeared in High German, and five in Low German...

The situation was no different in other European countries. From 1450 to 1550, for example, there appeared (with express permission from Rome) more than forty Italian editions or translations of the Bible and eighteen French editions, as well as others in Bohemian, Belgian, Russian, Danish, Norwegian, Polish, and Hungarian. Spain published editions starting in 1478 with the full approval of the Spanish Inquisition. A total of 626 editions appeared, of which 198 were in the vernacular languages, with the sanction of the Catholic Church, before any Protestant version saw the light of day.

Nor is it at all true that the Catholic Church was opposed to the printing and distribution of Bible translations in vernacular languages (it did oppose some Protestant translations which it felt were inaccurate). For instance, between 1466 and the onset of the Protestant Reformation in 1517 at least fourteen editions appeared in High German, and five in Low German: Strasburg: 1466, 1470, 1485; Basel, Switzerland: 1474; Augsburg: 1473 (2),1477 (2), 1480, 1487, 1490, 1507, 1518; Nuremburg: 1483. Bible Translations in Low German include: Cologne: 1480 (2); Lubeck: 1494; Halberstadt: 1522; Delf: before 1522 (2)

The situation was no different in other European countries. From 1450 to 1550, for example, there appeared (with express permission from Rome) more than forty Italian editions or translations of the Bible and eighteen French editions, as well as others in Bohemian, Belgian, Russian, Danish, Norwegian, Polish, and Hungarian. Spain published editions starting in 1478 with the full approval of the Spanish Inquisition. A total of 626 editions appeared, of which 198 were in the vernacular languages, with the sanction of the Catholic Church, before any Protestant version saw the light of day.

The use of the local (Tuscan) dialect of Italian rather than Latin was a daring gamble at the time; most serious writing was done in Latin because the vernacular languages kept changing and people were afraid that no one would be able to read them in a few years. Some dialects lasted better than others and luckily, Tuscan did pretty well that way.

An other really good book is "The Ultimate History of Video Games" by Steven Kent. Starts with pinballs and goes past N64. It has lots of good quotes from the people that where there at the time.

If this turns out to be true, the discovery will also cast a shadow of doubt over the big bang theory

On a more serious note, the theory will simply get re-engineered and tweaked and plastered over until a new unproveable conjecture happens along. But it must be one which doesn't smack of Young Earth Creationism, or otherwise - as Richard Lewontin wrote - ``allow a Divine Foot in the door''.

which also features a singularity.

If it involves balloons, though, MacDonalds will want it attributed to Ronald.

Add some factual information, indeed.

Per your link to the CDC:
"Inhalation: Initial symptoms may resemble a common cold. After several days, the symptoms may progress to severe breathing problems and shock. Inhalation anthrax is usually fatal."

Yes, anthrax is treatable. They can give you an IV of 2 million units of penicillin every two hours and you will die anyway, the vast majority of the time. Note that I didn't say all anthrax is fatal, just inhalational. I am unsure about gastrointestinal or cutaneous infection, but it is my understanding that it can be treated with good success.

Per the Defence Journal
"Within twenty-four to thirty-six hours, the victim experiences the rapid onset of shock and subsequent death. Inhalation anthrax has a mortality of 95-100% despite antibiotic treatment."

Per the Biological Weapons FAQ
"Some authors maintain that anthrax is an even more deadly agent. According to one study, in principle, if its spores were distributed appropriately, a single gram would be sufficient to kill more than one-third of the population of the US. Of course, the authors were quick to point out that an attack of such magnitude would not be feasible. However, more realistic, smaller-scale scenarios still posit large numbers of casualties. For example, the US Law Enforcement Assistance Administration reported in March 1977 that a single ounce of anthrax introduced into the air-conditioning system of a domed stadium could infect 70-80,000 spectators within an hour). And a 1972 study by the Advanced Concepts Research Corporation of Santa Barbara, California, postulated that an aerosol attack with anthrax spores on the New York City area would result in more than 600,000 deaths."

I agree wholeheartedly that getting hysterical is not going to solve anything. However, it is just as naive to discount real, viable threats as it is to fret about weak or unlikely threats. Certainly it is true that anthrax is not going to cause a plague; it doesn't really spread very well. But it just as certainly is true that anthrax is a very potent, low-tech weapon for the psychotically discontent when spores are directly blown into the air.

Certainly it is not safe to produce biological weapons. I think that goes without saying.

Thanks for the link to Bioport, btw! I hadn't found that. And thanks also for the note about Aum Shinrikyo. I hadn't known of any publicized anthrax attacks in modern times. The sources I've looked at so far casually mention that he tried one attack. If it is in fact true that there is some factor that I haven't seen yet that invalidates anthrax as such an easy and potent weapon, I would love to know about it so I can find something else to worry about : )

More links on anthrax:
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/phnr/prot_res/anth ra x.htm

My point? A few people stopped it. "Eternal vigilance *is* the price of liberty", folks. Sometimes there's just no substitute for showing up and raising hell.(You'll be happily suprised at the amount of covert support you'll find.)

P.S. Hooray for GREX: community-built, community-supported, and community-utilized computing resources!!!

Written back in 1993(!) as a master's thesis, it is, as far as I know, the *first* history of the net. Maybe you even read it in school; it's been downloaded thousands of times and translated into many languages. Here is a quote from the beginning:

"Why write a history of the Net? It's not enough to say merely that it's never been done.

The Net is a unique creation of human intelligence.

The Net is the first intelligent artificial organism.

The Net represents the growth of a new society within the old.

The Net represents a new model of governance.

The Net represents a threat to civil liberties.

The Net is the greatest free marketplace of ideas that has ever existed.

The Net is in imminent danger of extinction.

The Net is immortal. "

Check it out at The History of The Net.