The Bible "review" looks more like an attempt as a bad joke than an attempt at real review.
Bigger point - I'm not sure that some people realize when they're reading a classic that they may actually be reading something that SEEMS derivative, but may have been pretty innovative for its day. Lots of Victorian novels are like that - boring, plodding reads, but with certain concepts and styles that were original and fleshed out in later works.
The same could be said for early sci-fi. Some of HG Wells' stuff is a yawner.
On 2 - it's not just the travelers into the US and a one-time event. These guys are also in Afghanistan shooting at our troops and training and coming back over here or other parts of Europe (London bombers, etc).
True enough. I probably should have put "whoever pulled anything off or came close to it." There's a lot of back-and-forth going on, though - many of the Al-Qaeda members do a lot of back-and-forth from Pakistan to the West.
If you're not a US citizen, you're not protected by the Constitution. This partly covers that point.
Also, airlines are a private industry - there's nothing that states they have to let you fly.
Honestly, as well they should. Guess who belongs to terrorist organizations? Young middle eastern men with travel records back and forth from Pakistan.
It's a paradigm view. For many of us on the pro-life side of the equation, choice is, in a sense, a secondary right to the right of an unborn child to live. Yes, a woman has a right to "choose" what she does (more or less) with her own body...until it involves the life of another.
Of course, that means we have to define an unborn child as technically alive. If we do (as I do), then the pro-life position makes perfect sense (something that I have hardly ever heard from the "pro-choice" side of things, an honest consideration of the pro-life mindset). If not, then who cares?
Simply because someone else is footing the bill, doesn't make it economically viable. The money doesn't come out of thin air.
Maybe that's what GM was thinking the bailout money they got came from...
Anyway, I have no interest in footing the bill with my tax money to pay for something that is a net drag on energy. If they can't afford to make it commercially viable on their own, they shouldn't look to do it on the taxpayer dime.
Frankly, the more time they spend doing silly crap like this, the less time the spend screwing something important up. It's too bad it wastes tax dollars to do it, though...
A BIG part of the problem is Washington's tendency to reward economic losers at the expense of the people who know what they're doing, and I'm NOT just talking about the poor. There are plenty of the high-salary types who have some sort of governmental loophole or backing that saves them when they screw a big company up.
It's one reason we don't need to be bailing out bad companies, and instead rewarding or backing up the good ones with incentives and tax cuts so that they can really succeed and push forward.
As a conservative, part of me wants Franken to win. He's SO crazy and SO far left that he may be lucky to last an entire term, and will probably tick his state off so much that he'll be a one-termer, and may do some insane stuff that will affect the 2010 elections.
I agree with your last statement; part of my belief relies on an assumption that there must be something uncreated from the start, and I like the idea of an intelligent Being who is self-existent (hence the term "I AM THAT I AM" in Exodus) rather than unintelligent matter that was just always around somehow.
There is often the issue that many consider "faith=blind faith," when more often faith is centered around actual personal experiences - healing, odd coincidence, the right thing happening at the right time, etc. (or interpretations of such) that lead one to have faith in something - that there was evidence that leads to an initial conclusion, and leading to a further one without more evidence.
Typically, though, and I'm not saying this is your case, but there is usually some more personal - not evidential - reason that someone doesn't believe God exists.
Maybe - try being a pro-gun or pro-life democrat sometimes. On some specific issues, there is no seat at the table with the more powerful arms of the Democratic party.
Though the whole "destroying political careers" may be a bit loaded, how is it technically "dirty?" If a group of people feel strongly enough against a certain issue, then shouldn't they do what they legally can within their power to see that those who enacted such policies be voted out of office?
You're falling into the atheistic trap - that there MUST be an explanation that isn't God. Here's the problem - it does something that is non-scientific - that all options MUST be on the table until proven otherwise. No, you may not see the evidence that He doesn't exist, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't.
I get the point, but I think there is plenty of the extrapolation - or at least, there are some vehement proponents of the idea - that if there is a natural explanation, then there cannot be any room for God.
The article is somewhat right, though I'm going to rant some on my fellow Christians who are simply fairly ignorant on the advances in scientific thought when it particularly applies to evolution. There's simply little to no education on the matter in the church walls, just as there is probably just as much misunderstanding as to how smart some theologians are and have been in the atheistic realm.
That aside, the discussion here has again devolved into a "gee, Christians sure are stupid" type debate without looking at the bigger picture. Christians ask GOOD questions that, at times, seem to have no sensical answer - such as how does anything exist, ever? How can nothing become something?
Also from this side of things, it does appear that there is a certain stance that non-theistic scientists can take that looks a LOT like faith, in discarding certain theories once disproved, yet still holding on to certain principle ideas that God cannot be behind it all. We question the thought that if science is supposed to keep all possibilities open unless disproven, then how can something be counted out? Isn't believing that God isn't out there sometimes take just as much faith as otherwise?
Is it that He's NOT out there, or we just don't want Him to be because of the consequences it may mean for our lives?
There's some interesting theories out there that the extreme cold weather during the general time period TFA refers to is partially responsible for the sounds produced by Stradivarius violins - that the particular slower tree growth during the period resulted in a type of wood that brought about the unique sounds of those instruments. Probably a more music-savvy person can expound on the matter.
There's a stark difference between "waving a pistol around" - which is brandishing and inherently threatening - and keeping one holstered, open or concealed.
Sorry, should have expounded. Parental involvement increased when they realized there was an easy chance for a child to attend college if they could just be better than average.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the interesting part - what would be more conducive to reality? A story that is entirely feel-good, or one with a bunch of screwups and holes?
History is rarely clean, and a "clean" story is often suspect.
Two points
The Bible "review" looks more like an attempt as a bad joke than an attempt at real review.
Bigger point - I'm not sure that some people realize when they're reading a classic that they may actually be reading something that SEEMS derivative, but may have been pretty innovative for its day. Lots of Victorian novels are like that - boring, plodding reads, but with certain concepts and styles that were original and fleshed out in later works.
The same could be said for early sci-fi. Some of HG Wells' stuff is a yawner.
On 2 - it's not just the travelers into the US and a one-time event. These guys are also in Afghanistan shooting at our troops and training and coming back over here or other parts of Europe (London bombers, etc).
True enough. I probably should have put "whoever pulled anything off or came close to it." There's a lot of back-and-forth going on, though - many of the Al-Qaeda members do a lot of back-and-forth from Pakistan to the West.
You have an interesting definition of hate speech. I don't know that I've EVER seen it used in accusation against a profession.
At BEST, it's a perjorative against someone's ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc...
So HOW can it be hate speech?
If you're not a US citizen, you're not protected by the Constitution. This partly covers that point. Also, airlines are a private industry - there's nothing that states they have to let you fly.
Honestly, as well they should. Guess who belongs to terrorist organizations? Young middle eastern men with travel records back and forth from Pakistan.
Here's the rub - what about the "self" of the unborn?
It's a paradigm view. For many of us on the pro-life side of the equation, choice is, in a sense, a secondary right to the right of an unborn child to live. Yes, a woman has a right to "choose" what she does (more or less) with her own body...until it involves the life of another.
Of course, that means we have to define an unborn child as technically alive. If we do (as I do), then the pro-life position makes perfect sense (something that I have hardly ever heard from the "pro-choice" side of things, an honest consideration of the pro-life mindset). If not, then who cares?
Simply because someone else is footing the bill, doesn't make it economically viable. The money doesn't come out of thin air.
Maybe that's what GM was thinking the bailout money they got came from...
Anyway, I have no interest in footing the bill with my tax money to pay for something that is a net drag on energy. If they can't afford to make it commercially viable on their own, they shouldn't look to do it on the taxpayer dime.
Frankly, the more time they spend doing silly crap like this, the less time the spend screwing something important up. It's too bad it wastes tax dollars to do it, though...
[quote]6gaireohvwaaahwaaahwaaahwhateverjn3rehnv5rje6oahgre[/quote]
There, fixed that for you.
Seriously...with THAT big a target...
A BIG part of the problem is Washington's tendency to reward economic losers at the expense of the people who know what they're doing, and I'm NOT just talking about the poor. There are plenty of the high-salary types who have some sort of governmental loophole or backing that saves them when they screw a big company up.
It's one reason we don't need to be bailing out bad companies, and instead rewarding or backing up the good ones with incentives and tax cuts so that they can really succeed and push forward.
1. Be a woman. 2. ?????? 3. Profit!
As a conservative, part of me wants Franken to win. He's SO crazy and SO far left that he may be lucky to last an entire term, and will probably tick his state off so much that he'll be a one-termer, and may do some insane stuff that will affect the 2010 elections.
I agree with your last statement; part of my belief relies on an assumption that there must be something uncreated from the start, and I like the idea of an intelligent Being who is self-existent (hence the term "I AM THAT I AM" in Exodus) rather than unintelligent matter that was just always around somehow.
There is often the issue that many consider "faith=blind faith," when more often faith is centered around actual personal experiences - healing, odd coincidence, the right thing happening at the right time, etc. (or interpretations of such) that lead one to have faith in something - that there was evidence that leads to an initial conclusion, and leading to a further one without more evidence. Typically, though, and I'm not saying this is your case, but there is usually some more personal - not evidential - reason that someone doesn't believe God exists.
Maybe - try being a pro-gun or pro-life democrat sometimes. On some specific issues, there is no seat at the table with the more powerful arms of the Democratic party.
Though the whole "destroying political careers" may be a bit loaded, how is it technically "dirty?" If a group of people feel strongly enough against a certain issue, then shouldn't they do what they legally can within their power to see that those who enacted such policies be voted out of office?
What are they supposed to do?
Define "evidence." What would be convincing?
You're falling into the atheistic trap - that there MUST be an explanation that isn't God. Here's the problem - it does something that is non-scientific - that all options MUST be on the table until proven otherwise. No, you may not see the evidence that He doesn't exist, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't.
I get the point, but I think there is plenty of the extrapolation - or at least, there are some vehement proponents of the idea - that if there is a natural explanation, then there cannot be any room for God.
Maybe it's what Christians hear, in any case.
The article is somewhat right, though I'm going to rant some on my fellow Christians who are simply fairly ignorant on the advances in scientific thought when it particularly applies to evolution. There's simply little to no education on the matter in the church walls, just as there is probably just as much misunderstanding as to how smart some theologians are and have been in the atheistic realm.
That aside, the discussion here has again devolved into a "gee, Christians sure are stupid" type debate without looking at the bigger picture. Christians ask GOOD questions that, at times, seem to have no sensical answer - such as how does anything exist, ever? How can nothing become something?
Also from this side of things, it does appear that there is a certain stance that non-theistic scientists can take that looks a LOT like faith, in discarding certain theories once disproved, yet still holding on to certain principle ideas that God cannot be behind it all. We question the thought that if science is supposed to keep all possibilities open unless disproven, then how can something be counted out? Isn't believing that God isn't out there sometimes take just as much faith as otherwise?
Is it that He's NOT out there, or we just don't want Him to be because of the consequences it may mean for our lives?
Obama didn't emancipate anyone who didn't already have the right to vote.
There's some interesting theories out there that the extreme cold weather during the general time period TFA refers to is partially responsible for the sounds produced by Stradivarius violins - that the particular slower tree growth during the period resulted in a type of wood that brought about the unique sounds of those instruments. Probably a more music-savvy person can expound on the matter.
There's a stark difference between "waving a pistol around" - which is brandishing and inherently threatening - and keeping one holstered, open or concealed.
Sorry, should have expounded. Parental involvement increased when they realized there was an easy chance for a child to attend college if they could just be better than average.