I would be interested to see where you think slavery is condoned in the Bible-- giving a historical narrative of what happened (hint-- slaves are a historical fact) is not the same as saying "this is a good thing".
stoning people to death for not observing the sabbath
The Old Testament commanded that this particular people, who chose to follow the Lord, be held strictly accountable for breaking the law they were given. The punishments in Leviticus have little bearing on a modern Christian, or New Testament morality-- we arent OT Israel, and the Mosaic law has been fulfilled.
A careful reading shows that the bible is just full of stuff that most moral people now find wrong.
A careful reading shows that a good many things are called wrong that most people wouldnt have a problem with; for example, sexually desiring someone (not even acting on that) is called sinful, as much as adultery. And if you think that the message is "live a good life, be a good person", you certainly haven't done a good reading at all (what on earth do you make of the gospels, or Revelation, I wonder)?
Most Christians decide right and wrong the same way atheists do
Thats the convenient sort of statement that, having no sources, is rather hard to prove or disprove; I wont speak for "most Christians", but thats certainly not how I "decide right and wrong". I think one's decisions have rather little to do with the reality of it, actually.
It was only later that various saints and popes came along and decided it was bad.
Not only is that wrong, but its several thousand years wrong. Leviticus and Deuteronomy both explicitly condemn homosexuality.
Incidentally, I wonder that wild speculation and opinion (nowhere in the NT is anything even remotely suggestive about Jesus written) is given a "+4 informative".
Theres a difference between homophobia (fearing and/or persecuting homosexuals), and simply thinking that homosexual activity is wrong. Christians regard adultery and premarital sex wrong as well; doesnt mean they think that anyone is condemned just because of their homosexuality, as opposed to the hundreds of other sins a person can commit.
I may not be a hebrew scholar, but I do have easy access to the hebrew, and that word to'ebah (H8441, "morally abominable") is not used in ANY of the verses you mentioned, except for the 2 regarding homosexuality. As a quick run down:
Regarding haircuts (19:27)- the word is 'lo' (H3808), meaning "you shall not"
regarding fruit from a tree (19:23)- the word is 'lo' (H3808), again "you shall not"
regarding sex during a woman's period (18:19)- the word is 'lo' (H3808), "you shall not"
In other words, the word used for homosexual relationships is a completely different word than the one used in any of the passages you mentioned. I would be interested to know where you got your facts.
Regarding the laws that we no longer follow, yes, it does make a good deal of sense. As I pointed out, most of those things are "you shall not"s, ie, the only moral weight of them is what God has applied through the law. When it is called "morally abominable", and that is listed as the REASON not to do it ("...FOR it is an abomination unto the Lord..."), that would indicate that it is not a part of the law that no longer applies, but as something that you dont do BECAUSE it is an abomination-- much like we continue to consider adultury and premarital sex sinful.
The Mosaic Law had a specific purpose, and that purpose was fulfilled, and so no longer applies in the same way. There is, and always has been, a completely seperate moral code that continues to apply--dont steal, dont murder, dont lie, dont sleep with anyone who is not your spouse, and so on, which I am not sure if you would consider part of the Mosaic Law, but are nevertheless still in effect today.
Its actually rather astonishing that you would make such a bold, and completely incorrect, claim-- anyone who wishes to check for themselves can download esword and the hebrew package and check for themselves; or simply check the wording in any OT translation-- if the word "abomination" is used in several places, theres a 95% chance it came from the same hebrew word (thats one of the things they try to maintain in translating).
A good many people seem to beg the question in this regard-- Christians say yes, while others look at us, see that we think homosexuality is wrong, and claim that because that CANT be right, we must be wrong and therefore the Bible must be wrong. If thats not begging the question (as well as circular reasoning, and several other fallacies), I dont know what is.
I am unaware of any evangelical christians who think that christians arent prone to sin. There is a strong motivation not to sin, but you're painting a picture where christians are supposed to be without sin, and what hypocrites they are for failing in that regard. Its kind of like someone who has a problem with gambling moving his residence out of Vegas-- you can claim that he hasnt really changed anything, and that his problem remains, but I would remark that it was probably an exceptionally wise decision given his known tendencies.
However, you are quite correct, secluding oneself from the world isnt really being faithful to what the bible calls for, either.
A big part of the protestant reformation was precisely that the reformers did not think that a church had absolute authority about ANYTHING (sola scriptura), including how you should live your life. Protestant churches (ideally) DONT run around telling you how to live your life; they direct you to the Bible, and tell you to get your instruction there (not that there arent churches who dont do this, but it goes against a lot of what the reformation was about).
Am I understanding your drift right-- you think it is Google's responsibility to shoulder the burden of searching for pirated music, for free?? While we're at it, why shouldnt local police departments everywhere just ask Google to host a few virtual servers for them, free of charge? I mean, Google is against crime, right?
Ah yes, thats why the citizenry actually have powers that can bypass the electoral college entirely (ie, national convention to propose amendments to, or replacements for, the constitution). This is why we hear of things like "proposition x" (aka referendums), which bypass the electorate, using instead direct vote. This is why we make such a darned big deal about the popular vote during presidental elections (remember the hanging chad crap?).
Yes, the Electoral college is there to bring control to the educated elite, thats exactly it. You conveniently forget that the electors themselves are directlyelected, as are congressmen, and that electors who go against the popular vote can in many states be punished.
Theres a difference between setting a policy, enforcing it through technical means, and dealing with the human side of the issue. Setting a policy with no means of enforcement and then trying to punish an entire department when it does not comply seems like an HR disaster, to me. Isnt there generally some requirement for showing at least a token attempt at enforcing a policy before taking punitive measures?
AFAIK it is legal for a company to do that. The reason they dont, is because its a free market, and if the company pisses off its employees, it will eventually fail.
Thats like decrying as a flaw of democracy, that a presidential candidate can advocate the dismantling of the local government. Except it ignores that the system will prevent such a person from ever winning the presidency.
Its not your concern. Giving more capabilities to the IT department is generally a good thing, and if you find the environment to be opressive, you leave. If enough people find it to be oppressive and leave, the company fails, or changes.
The market has certain failures and flaws, but one of its strengths is that that which works, survives, and as an employee you (collective) are integral to the survival of that company.
I mean has it occurred to you that, if a company can make x% more profits by doing this, and there are less privileged people here willing to put up with the atrocity of not being able to do personal copying in order to make the salary you make, then perhaps you arent as entitled to your job as you think you are? That, just perhaps, its a business, and its purpose is to find a balance between keeping its employees happy, and turning a profit?
Wait, so using up radiation that is otherwise going to be COMPLETELY WASTED is opposing "modern civilization as we know it"? Wow, hyperbole much? Whats the worst that happens, theres more electricity on the market, the electric company finds some way to bill those people at a lower rate (perhaps an "induction property rent"), and everyone profits?
Whats wrong with these articles? They both cites sources, and even the points that people have been nitpicking in this thread (edge of space, blood boiling) are all cited (one from space.com, the other from the project lead). Theres not even any advertising that i could see, nor was it a multi-page disaster.
Tell me, what was the problem here? Not bloggy enough for you? Too many facts, or sources? Not enough slashvertising?
Or do you just have some unrelated axe to grind? I mean damn, we actually get a real article, and a couple of people start complaining, and then wonder why garbage appears on slashdot so often. Well, heres the reason.
I thought the a big part of the foundation of the united states (making the rather large assumption that above posters are US based) was that it was a democracy, of sorts, and that it was NOT just for the educated elite to control?
But by all means, lets start preventing the unwashed sheeple from voting. What was that old saying, those who do not learn from the past....?
This is slashdot, dude. Any time a new technology comes out that allows "the man" to block something, everyone dons a tinfoil hat and speculates on how US gov't will team up with China, South Korea, and zombie Hitler to suppress our freedoms.
Thats because Windows is retarded, and despite the ancient advice to "NEVER SHARE YOUR PASSWORD", you, the administrator, cannot easily access the user's settings without either A) resetting their password (and causing them to worry to no end), or B) asking for their password. Want to fix those font settings in firefox? Whoops! Thats per-user, not per-machine; youll need to log in as them if you want to fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
stoning people to death for not observing the sabbath
The Old Testament commanded that this particular people, who chose to follow the Lord, be held strictly accountable for breaking the law they were given. The punishments in Leviticus have little bearing on a modern Christian, or New Testament morality-- we arent OT Israel, and the Mosaic law has been fulfilled.
A careful reading shows that the bible is just full of stuff that most moral people now find wrong.
A careful reading shows that a good many things are called wrong that most people wouldnt have a problem with; for example, sexually desiring someone (not even acting on that) is called sinful, as much as adultery. And if you think that the message is "live a good life, be a good person", you certainly haven't done a good reading at all (what on earth do you make of the gospels, or Revelation, I wonder)?
Most Christians decide right and wrong the same way atheists do
Thats the convenient sort of statement that, having no sources, is rather hard to prove or disprove; I wont speak for "most Christians", but thats certainly not how I "decide right and wrong". I think one's decisions have rather little to do with the reality of it, actually.
Except his statement is factually wrong, read my comment above. He completely fabricated about 80% of his post.
It was only later that various saints and popes came along and decided it was bad.
Not only is that wrong, but its several thousand years wrong. Leviticus and Deuteronomy both explicitly condemn homosexuality.
Incidentally, I wonder that wild speculation and opinion (nowhere in the NT is anything even remotely suggestive about Jesus written) is given a "+4 informative".
Theres a difference between homophobia (fearing and/or persecuting homosexuals), and simply thinking that homosexual activity is wrong. Christians regard adultery and premarital sex wrong as well; doesnt mean they think that anyone is condemned just because of their homosexuality, as opposed to the hundreds of other sins a person can commit.
I may not be a hebrew scholar, but I do have easy access to the hebrew, and that word to'ebah (H8441, "morally abominable") is not used in ANY of the verses you mentioned, except for the 2 regarding homosexuality. As a quick run down:
Regarding haircuts (19:27)- the word is 'lo' (H3808), meaning "you shall not"
regarding fruit from a tree (19:23)- the word is 'lo' (H3808), again "you shall not"
regarding sex during a woman's period (18:19)- the word is 'lo' (H3808), "you shall not"
In other words, the word used for homosexual relationships is a completely different word than the one used in any of the passages you mentioned. I would be interested to know where you got your facts.
Regarding the laws that we no longer follow, yes, it does make a good deal of sense. As I pointed out, most of those things are "you shall not"s, ie, the only moral weight of them is what God has applied through the law. When it is called "morally abominable", and that is listed as the REASON not to do it ("...FOR it is an abomination unto the Lord..."), that would indicate that it is not a part of the law that no longer applies, but as something that you dont do BECAUSE it is an abomination-- much like we continue to consider adultury and premarital sex sinful.
The Mosaic Law had a specific purpose, and that purpose was fulfilled, and so no longer applies in the same way. There is, and always has been, a completely seperate moral code that continues to apply--dont steal, dont murder, dont lie, dont sleep with anyone who is not your spouse, and so on, which I am not sure if you would consider part of the Mosaic Law, but are nevertheless still in effect today.
Its actually rather astonishing that you would make such a bold, and completely incorrect, claim-- anyone who wishes to check for themselves can download esword and the hebrew package and check for themselves; or simply check the wording in any OT translation-- if the word "abomination" is used in several places, theres a 95% chance it came from the same hebrew word (thats one of the things they try to maintain in translating).
A good many people seem to beg the question in this regard-- Christians say yes, while others look at us, see that we think homosexuality is wrong, and claim that because that CANT be right, we must be wrong and therefore the Bible must be wrong. If thats not begging the question (as well as circular reasoning, and several other fallacies), I dont know what is.
I may not agree entirely with this post, but I am curious to know why it was modded troll-- what precisely was inflammatory about it?
I am unaware of any evangelical christians who think that christians arent prone to sin. There is a strong motivation not to sin, but you're painting a picture where christians are supposed to be without sin, and what hypocrites they are for failing in that regard. Its kind of like someone who has a problem with gambling moving his residence out of Vegas-- you can claim that he hasnt really changed anything, and that his problem remains, but I would remark that it was probably an exceptionally wise decision given his known tendencies.
However, you are quite correct, secluding oneself from the world isnt really being faithful to what the bible calls for, either.
A big part of the protestant reformation was precisely that the reformers did not think that a church had absolute authority about ANYTHING (sola scriptura), including how you should live your life. Protestant churches (ideally) DONT run around telling you how to live your life; they direct you to the Bible, and tell you to get your instruction there (not that there arent churches who dont do this, but it goes against a lot of what the reformation was about).
Well, actually, Im pretty sure that no, they DONT get things for free. Pretty sure they pay for office supplies like everyone else.
Smells like feigned suprise, or perhaps they were hoping for some way to force google to give them free access.
Am I understanding your drift right-- you think it is Google's responsibility to shoulder the burden of searching for pirated music, for free?? While we're at it, why shouldnt local police departments everywhere just ask Google to host a few virtual servers for them, free of charge? I mean, Google is against crime, right?
Ah yes, thats why the citizenry actually have powers that can bypass the electoral college entirely (ie, national convention to propose amendments to, or replacements for, the constitution). This is why we hear of things like "proposition x" (aka referendums), which bypass the electorate, using instead direct vote. This is why we make such a darned big deal about the popular vote during presidental elections (remember the hanging chad crap?).
Yes, the Electoral college is there to bring control to the educated elite, thats exactly it. You conveniently forget that the electors themselves are directly elected, as are congressmen, and that electors who go against the popular vote can in many states be punished.
Theres a difference between setting a policy, enforcing it through technical means, and dealing with the human side of the issue. Setting a policy with no means of enforcement and then trying to punish an entire department when it does not comply seems like an HR disaster, to me. Isnt there generally some requirement for showing at least a token attempt at enforcing a policy before taking punitive measures?
If youre super paranoid, you dont HAVE to tell your copier DNS or gateway addresses. I mean why the hell does it need internet access?
AFAIK it is legal for a company to do that. The reason they dont, is because its a free market, and if the company pisses off its employees, it will eventually fail.
Thats like decrying as a flaw of democracy, that a presidential candidate can advocate the dismantling of the local government. Except it ignores that the system will prevent such a person from ever winning the presidency.
Its not your concern. Giving more capabilities to the IT department is generally a good thing, and if you find the environment to be opressive, you leave. If enough people find it to be oppressive and leave, the company fails, or changes.
The market has certain failures and flaws, but one of its strengths is that that which works, survives, and as an employee you (collective) are integral to the survival of that company.
I mean has it occurred to you that, if a company can make x% more profits by doing this, and there are less privileged people here willing to put up with the atrocity of not being able to do personal copying in order to make the salary you make, then perhaps you arent as entitled to your job as you think you are? That, just perhaps, its a business, and its purpose is to find a balance between keeping its employees happy, and turning a profit?
Then find another damn job.
The sense of entitlement here never ceases to amaze me.
Wait, so using up radiation that is otherwise going to be COMPLETELY WASTED is opposing "modern civilization as we know it"? Wow, hyperbole much? Whats the worst that happens, theres more electricity on the market, the electric company finds some way to bill those people at a lower rate (perhaps an "induction property rent"), and everyone profits?
Whats wrong with these articles? They both cites sources, and even the points that people have been nitpicking in this thread (edge of space, blood boiling) are all cited (one from space.com, the other from the project lead). Theres not even any advertising that i could see, nor was it a multi-page disaster.
Tell me, what was the problem here? Not bloggy enough for you? Too many facts, or sources? Not enough slashvertising?
Or do you just have some unrelated axe to grind? I mean damn, we actually get a real article, and a couple of people start complaining, and then wonder why garbage appears on slashdot so often. Well, heres the reason.
I thought the a big part of the foundation of the united states (making the rather large assumption that above posters are US based) was that it was a democracy, of sorts, and that it was NOT just for the educated elite to control?
But by all means, lets start preventing the unwashed sheeple from voting. What was that old saying, those who do not learn from the past....?
s/South/North/
This is slashdot, dude. Any time a new technology comes out that allows "the man" to block something, everyone dons a tinfoil hat and speculates on how US gov't will team up with China, South Korea, and zombie Hitler to suppress our freedoms.
Then copy your own damn papers, its not like copiers are futuristic alien technology that only high end corporations have access to.
I mean damn, I know slashdot is paranoid, but this is ridiculous; this is for corporate enforcement, nothing more.
Almost half of all users never use special characters (e.g. ! ? & #) in their passwords
Perhaps because a good many websites (including some bank-- even national ones!) dont allow special passwords, or even passwords over 10 characters?
Thats because Windows is retarded, and despite the ancient advice to "NEVER SHARE YOUR PASSWORD", you, the administrator, cannot easily access the user's settings without either A) resetting their password (and causing them to worry to no end), or B) asking for their password. Want to fix those font settings in firefox? Whoops! Thats per-user, not per-machine; youll need to log in as them if you want to fix it.