The catholic church would likewise exhort its followers to live a holy life. We disagree on a great many things, some quite serious, but neither would claim that Christ's death exempts you from his demands of holiness. James 2 makes that crystal clear: Catholics would claim it as support of "works are required", and Protestants would claim it as evidence that "lack of works is evidence of no faith"; both would agree that one cannot be a christian and yet live as he did before. Its simply a difference of "is it causal, or indicatory".
Translation differences do not usually result in "conflicting advice". If you want to see what a translation difference looks like, here you go: 1 Peter 1:13 KJV: 13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; NIV: 13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. ESV: 13 Therefore, preparing your minds for action,[a] and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
The differences are minor, and have different "flavor" effects on the text, but have the same meaning. There are in fact bad translations-- for instance ones where the translator eschews translating what the words literally say for translating what he thinks it means (and thereby presents "the Bible according to Joe" rather than "the Bible")-- but translations tend to be clear about how they were done, explaining whether they are word-for-word or thought-for-thought. There are also translations that try to be "modern" by making structural changes to the sentences, for example by removing all references to gender even when it is syntactically incorrect to do so, and they would of course be problematic.
Most big differences you will see in christianity stem from what is seen to be authoritative. The biggest split, the reformation, is over whether the Church's traditions count as "canon" or "God's revealed word"; Catholocism says yes, Protestants say no. Other major splits like libaral chuches will argue that the Bible is symbolic, or prone to error, or in generally not an authoritative source, and so their interpretations vary widely.
Once you find 2 groups of Christians who believe the Bible to be authoritative, you can ask them to explain where they differ and you will find it to be a generally minor or incomprehensible difference. Armineanism vs Calvinism AFAICT hinges on precisely what the effect of the fall was and on how much progress one can make against sin in this life; it is "important" theologically but generally (excepting some harsh words by Jerry Falwell) is not considered to be a salvation issue.
TL;DR, differences tend to either be overblown or else stem from disagreeing with what "the source" is.
It seems to me that much partisan fighting occurs because people misunderstand or misrepresent the other side. Conservatives, myself included, tend to think that while charity is good, Government mandated charity is an incredibly bad idea, both counterproductive and inefficient. Much better are local / private charities, which tend to have
(e.g., stop bitching about taxes and pay the damned things).
We do. We still participate in the political process about what degree of taxation is appropriate.
Jesus provided free health care
If thats what you think happened in the NT, you might have missed the message.
Conservatives say "God hates fags"
The WBC says that, however the conservatives I know tend not to say hateful things like that. At the end of the day I believe (and the bible very clearly teaches) that certain sexual behavior is appropriate, and that everything else is verboten. Noone likes being told "what youre doing is wrong", especially in the realm of sexuality, so they break out "bigot" language; but so far as I am aware "disapproving of someone's behavior" does not constitute bigotry. For the record I do not think that being attracted to the same sex is much different than being inclined to sleep around, nor that acting on one impulse is much different than acting on the other.
Such nuances are lost however, and apparently if I do not approve of a person's sexual behavior Im hateful and unchristian.
but the bible says God loves everyone.
But thats an oversimplification that borders on incorrect.
And Romney
Is not what would have been considered christian by any measure for the last 2000 years. Only in the last decade has this confusion really sprung up.
Gingrich
Would probably say that Im going to hell; we believe in fundamentally different authoritative sources.
Responsibility as in the one responsible, that is the one who committed the sin. It is a non-negotiable of christianity that each person himself is the cause of his broken relationship with God and His threatened condemnation.
All Christianity teaches is that you can do nothing by yourself and you have to rely on Jesus for everything - forgiveness, salvation, knowledge.
That is a strawman and horribly inaccurate. You are supposed to rely on God, but not in a passive "I take no responsibility" sense. The entire new testament with the exception of the Gospels and Acts is a series of letters exhorting believers-- precisely because they DO have a responsibility.
See for example Romans' exhortations to live righteously: In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness.
Or in Corinthians, to avoid sexual sin: 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
Or in James, to watch your words and be charitable: 26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
People can claim that Christianity teaches you dont need to take responsibility, but they tend to be ignorant of what Christianity teaches.
Romans 6 1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?.... 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Yea, Im not seeing this "irresponsibility". A better example is a freely offered pardon issued from the judge who happens to also be the offended party as well as the head of state.
No, it does not, otherwise you could log in with someone else's creative cloud account, download the software, and then try to claim that you now own a license as you obtained the software from Adobe.
An unauthorized download is an unauthorized download, whether or not it was password protected.
That license is specifically for folks who already have a license. It is provided because their activation servers are down for good; the downloads are VolumeLicense and the serial goes with it (at least so I am told).
Again, they have explicitly said that the displayed serial does not constitute giving away a license, it constitutes fulfilling their obligation to existing licensees.
Isnt this the slashdot that gets all bent out of shape about the evils of EOL'd activation servers? And here Adobe is doing the right thing as they twilight their activation servers, and everyone wants to screw them because "LOL FREE PHOTOSHOP". Its honestly a little disgusting, especially to watch people try to rationalize it.
I have "NotScripts", Adblock, and use Chrome's "click-to-play" functionality for plugins. I imagine theres something for requestpolicy.
Generally extensions ARE better on firefox than chrome, but I dont use many of them, and Chrome is better at what it does support-- being able to dynamically load, unload, install, and remove extensions is REALLY nice.
Security-wise, their implementation of "private browsing" is also the best-- other browsers tend to hit the disk cache at least temporarily, and can be sniffed with an undelete tool (like photorec). Chrome's private browsing operates completely out of RAM. Its also a lot better with plugin security and in-general sandboxing.
Both tend to be decent browsers, but unless you have really specialized extension needs, id give Chrome another whirl. Theres a lot to love about it.
Chrome has full blown official MSIs, ADM templates, and full GPO support. It supports pulling in the system proxy and certificate store. It supports smart-card readers.
It is, aside from IE, the most corporate friendly browser out there. That you think otherwise makes me think you havent done much research on the matter; certainly its lightyears ahead of firefox in a corporate environment. Its only big failing is that it utterly dies when used in a TS scenario, and I have a feeling it is an architectural problem that cannot be resolved without a rewrite.
It appears that there are workarounds for the roaming profiles issue, but dont say "cant even handle roaming profiles" as if thats a gross failing-- a lot of apps fail horribly when run from a network share. You ever hear Microsoft's stance on using Outlook with network-stored PSTs?
Firefox has admitted basically forever that "Corporate is not our target". If it were, we would have all sorts of things: ADM templates / GPO support, MSI installers, longer support terms, support for the OS certificate store (AKA an easy way to seed trusted root certs), support for smartcard readers, etc.
Incidentally, Chrome has all of that, and I believe you can even pin a certain version if you need to.
If both of those are unacceptable, use IE. Your environment is not one that Firefox has ever stated a commitment to supporting; their goal is to make a good general purpose browser, and if thats no good to you then oh well. These changes theyre making are generally a REALLY good thing for the average internet user.
Sounds like a corrupt profile or installation. See if moving your firefox profile elsewhere for testing fixes the issue-- ive run into that a few times over the years.
Relying on a third-party for security in what is seen as "standard functionality" seems like a really bad idea, especially given Acrobat's (and even Foxit's) security record.
Unless Im mistaken, as pdf.js is written in JS, it IS sandboxed, and in a way that Acrobat is not / cannot be. Remember that Firefox's JS implementation has to be secure enough to interpret code from all over the internet, and has had a LOT more "battle-hardening" as well as a better security record than Acrobat.
I imagine the only downside is rendering speed, but it seems pretty quick.
I can: Unpatched acrobat installations infecting all my family / friends' computers with malware because PDF plugins are the bane of all security.
Auto-updating flash and pdf handlers is one of the reasons ive been suggesting Chrome to everyone, and why it has reduced the number of viruses I deal with enormously. This is wonderful that firefox is jumping on the wagon. Now that both Chrome and Firefox also block vulnerable java, we just need a long-term fix to the flash question in firefox.
Slashdot Mirror
People can use EBT cards to buy legit things and then trade them for other goods; for example buying Tide detergent and using it as a currency.
This isnt a problem you can solve with "allowed purchase lists".
The catholic church would likewise exhort its followers to live a holy life. We disagree on a great many things, some quite serious, but neither would claim that Christ's death exempts you from his demands of holiness. James 2 makes that crystal clear: Catholics would claim it as support of "works are required", and Protestants would claim it as evidence that "lack of works is evidence of no faith"; both would agree that one cannot be a christian and yet live as he did before. Its simply a difference of "is it causal, or indicatory".
Translation differences do not usually result in "conflicting advice". If you want to see what a translation difference looks like, here you go:
1 Peter 1:13
KJV: 13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
NIV: 13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.
ESV: 13 Therefore, preparing your minds for action,[a] and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
The differences are minor, and have different "flavor" effects on the text, but have the same meaning. There are in fact bad translations-- for instance ones where the translator eschews translating what the words literally say for translating what he thinks it means (and thereby presents "the Bible according to Joe" rather than "the Bible")-- but translations tend to be clear about how they were done, explaining whether they are word-for-word or thought-for-thought. There are also translations that try to be "modern" by making structural changes to the sentences, for example by removing all references to gender even when it is syntactically incorrect to do so, and they would of course be problematic.
Most big differences you will see in christianity stem from what is seen to be authoritative. The biggest split, the reformation, is over whether the Church's traditions count as "canon" or "God's revealed word"; Catholocism says yes, Protestants say no. Other major splits like libaral chuches will argue that the Bible is symbolic, or prone to error, or in generally not an authoritative source, and so their interpretations vary widely.
Once you find 2 groups of Christians who believe the Bible to be authoritative, you can ask them to explain where they differ and you will find it to be a generally minor or incomprehensible difference. Armineanism vs Calvinism AFAICT hinges on precisely what the effect of the fall was and on how much progress one can make against sin in this life; it is "important" theologically but generally (excepting some harsh words by Jerry Falwell) is not considered to be a salvation issue.
TL;DR, differences tend to either be overblown or else stem from disagreeing with what "the source" is.
Kind of demonstrates that someone can ostensibly be on your side, and yet do your side no good by the way he expresses himself.
That kind of discourse doesnt really help anyone nor make anyone look good.
Its a shame that such an insightful post need be posted AC lest people attack you.
Conservatives hate the poor
It seems to me that much partisan fighting occurs because people misunderstand or misrepresent the other side. Conservatives, myself included, tend to think that while charity is good, Government mandated charity is an incredibly bad idea, both counterproductive and inefficient. Much better are local / private charities, which tend to have
(e.g., stop bitching about taxes and pay the damned things).
We do. We still participate in the political process about what degree of taxation is appropriate.
Jesus provided free health care
If thats what you think happened in the NT, you might have missed the message.
Conservatives say "God hates fags"
The WBC says that, however the conservatives I know tend not to say hateful things like that. At the end of the day I believe (and the bible very clearly teaches) that certain sexual behavior is appropriate, and that everything else is verboten. Noone likes being told "what youre doing is wrong", especially in the realm of sexuality, so they break out "bigot" language; but so far as I am aware "disapproving of someone's behavior" does not constitute bigotry. For the record I do not think that being attracted to the same sex is much different than being inclined to sleep around, nor that acting on one impulse is much different than acting on the other.
Such nuances are lost however, and apparently if I do not approve of a person's sexual behavior Im hateful and unchristian.
but the bible says God loves everyone.
But thats an oversimplification that borders on incorrect.
And Romney
Is not what would have been considered christian by any measure for the last 2000 years. Only in the last decade has this confusion really sprung up.
Gingrich
Would probably say that Im going to hell; we believe in fundamentally different authoritative sources.
Kierkegaard was Christian, was he not? Im not strong on this subject, but from what I know of his leanings they are in line with much of Christianity.
Im not aware of a political soapbox being a good source of Christian teaching, perhaps that explains a lot of the misconceptions floating around.
Responsibility as in the one responsible, that is the one who committed the sin. It is a non-negotiable of christianity that each person himself is the cause of his broken relationship with God and His threatened condemnation.
All Christianity teaches is that you can do nothing by yourself and you have to rely on Jesus for everything - forgiveness, salvation, knowledge.
That is a strawman and horribly inaccurate. You are supposed to rely on God, but not in a passive "I take no responsibility" sense. The entire new testament with the exception of the Gospels and Acts is a series of letters exhorting believers-- precisely because they DO have a responsibility.
See for example Romans' exhortations to live righteously:
In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness.
Or in Corinthians, to avoid sexual sin:
18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
Or in James, to watch your words and be charitable:
26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
People can claim that Christianity teaches you dont need to take responsibility, but they tend to be ignorant of what Christianity teaches.
Romans 6
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?....
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Yea, Im not seeing this "irresponsibility". A better example is a freely offered pardon issued from the judge who happens to also be the offended party as well as the head of state.
I have not seen this thing where religion gets a free pass. Are we reading the same slashdot?
While this might be interpreted as Adobe giving away software for free, we did it to help our customers.
This is ambiguous?
"People who have no business relationship with us" hardly constitutes "customers".
No, it does not, otherwise you could log in with someone else's creative cloud account, download the software, and then try to claim that you now own a license as you obtained the software from Adobe.
An unauthorized download is an unauthorized download, whether or not it was password protected.
That license is specifically for folks who already have a license. It is provided because their activation servers are down for good; the downloads are VolumeLicense and the serial goes with it (at least so I am told).
Again, they have explicitly said that the displayed serial does not constitute giving away a license, it constitutes fulfilling their obligation to existing licensees.
Isnt this the slashdot that gets all bent out of shape about the evils of EOL'd activation servers? And here Adobe is doing the right thing as they twilight their activation servers, and everyone wants to screw them because "LOL FREE PHOTOSHOP". Its honestly a little disgusting, especially to watch people try to rationalize it.
Paint.net is free (as in beer), and is miles superior to GIMP at least from an interface perspective. Im not really sure why that is, but it is.
I have "NotScripts", Adblock, and use Chrome's "click-to-play" functionality for plugins. I imagine theres something for requestpolicy.
Generally extensions ARE better on firefox than chrome, but I dont use many of them, and Chrome is better at what it does support-- being able to dynamically load, unload, install, and remove extensions is REALLY nice.
Security-wise, their implementation of "private browsing" is also the best-- other browsers tend to hit the disk cache at least temporarily, and can be sniffed with an undelete tool (like photorec). Chrome's private browsing operates completely out of RAM. Its also a lot better with plugin security and in-general sandboxing.
Both tend to be decent browsers, but unless you have really specialized extension needs, id give Chrome another whirl. Theres a lot to love about it.
Needs change as circumstances change, and if the software doesn't change with the customer, it tends to disappear.
Or become entrenched, irreplaceable, and utterly loathed by all of its users.
Chrome has full blown official MSIs, ADM templates, and full GPO support. It supports pulling in the system proxy and certificate store. It supports smart-card readers.
It is, aside from IE, the most corporate friendly browser out there. That you think otherwise makes me think you havent done much research on the matter; certainly its lightyears ahead of firefox in a corporate environment. Its only big failing is that it utterly dies when used in a TS scenario, and I have a feeling it is an architectural problem that cannot be resolved without a rewrite.
It appears that there are workarounds for the roaming profiles issue, but dont say "cant even handle roaming profiles" as if thats a gross failing-- a lot of apps fail horribly when run from a network share. You ever hear Microsoft's stance on using Outlook with network-stored PSTs?
Firefox has admitted basically forever that "Corporate is not our target". If it were, we would have all sorts of things: ADM templates / GPO support, MSI installers, longer support terms, support for the OS certificate store (AKA an easy way to seed trusted root certs), support for smartcard readers, etc.
Incidentally, Chrome has all of that, and I believe you can even pin a certain version if you need to.
If both of those are unacceptable, use IE. Your environment is not one that Firefox has ever stated a commitment to supporting; their goal is to make a good general purpose browser, and if thats no good to you then oh well. These changes theyre making are generally a REALLY good thing for the average internet user.
....You mean Server 2012, right?
Sounds like a corrupt profile or installation. See if moving your firefox profile elsewhere for testing fixes the issue-- ive run into that a few times over the years.
Relying on a third-party for security in what is seen as "standard functionality" seems like a really bad idea, especially given Acrobat's (and even Foxit's) security record.
Correcting link: it is case sensitive...
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Show_PDF_inline
Unless Im mistaken, as pdf.js is written in JS, it IS sandboxed, and in a way that Acrobat is not / cannot be. Remember that Firefox's JS implementation has to be secure enough to interpret code from all over the internet, and has had a LOT more "battle-hardening" as well as a better security record than Acrobat.
I imagine the only downside is rendering speed, but it seems pretty quick.
I can: Unpatched acrobat installations infecting all my family / friends' computers with malware because PDF plugins are the bane of all security.
Auto-updating flash and pdf handlers is one of the reasons ive been suggesting Chrome to everyone, and why it has reduced the number of viruses I deal with enormously. This is wonderful that firefox is jumping on the wagon. Now that both Chrome and Firefox also block vulnerable java, we just need a long-term fix to the flash question in firefox.