Again, go back and read it. He quite clearly states that the issue here is with the CEO and installer (wireman perhaps), not the programmers. And he has a good point. I work in a similar setup, and sometimes non technical people need easy access to what I do (the wireman needs a drawing modified, the documentation may be required to be modified when I am not in the office, etc). While any engineer could perform this task, he is correct in stating that if we need to pull an engineer to do these tasks, the solution is not sufficient. Just because everyone where you work is a programmer by proffession, does not imply every shop runs like that. And yes, we could hire someone to manage the whole thing, but the original question is what software can solve the problem without having either someone useful sitting being useless most of the time as an admin, or a solution that is not accessible to a non programmer.
I have a similar problem to OP. My intended solution was mercurial, but I have one huge issue with it - I am the "linux guy" at this company, and nobody else is interested in logging in to create repositories from the command line. I am not a full time admin here (we all share the load), but most of the linux admin falls to me, and i do not have time to create lots of repositories. Is there a package that will allow us to create repositories for new jobs from a browser? I am not interested in writing a custom tool for this - I simply don't have the time.
Except he is not wrong. The only digital content distributers we have in South Africa are iTunes and steam. I do not use iTunes myself, since I found apple to be excessively annoying and their selection to be insanely limited. Steam on the other hand has all but halted my desire to download games from torrents.
Much because I never promised to bring anything, and the debate you are having is not the same as the one I am. You completely ignore or misunderstand it. We could debate the answers, but which ones? Let me try for one last time, just for my own curiosity. Let's take for example your criteria for proof. No matter how reasonable you are, if we keep asking you "why, how and what" over and over again, you will eventually get to a point where you will say something along the lines of "the question is silly/meaningless." Or "That is self evident/obvious", or perhaps even an "I don't know, but if we don't assume that nothing works." The interesting thing here is people with different belief systems arive at different places here. Their criteria for proof is no more or less arbitrary than yours. The problem is, when you fail to grasp that and apply your arbitrary criteria (or indeed beleif system) to an arbitrary concept or statement from another, you find it unreasonable. For example, how do you know Christianity (or indeed any religion of your choice) does not work within it's own world view? In point of fact, they do work quite well. Sure there are areas of intersection and agreement with yours, but this only serves to muddy the waters further. Or take this argument. You seem to be under the impression that my goal here is to defend the faith. You respond accordingly, and complain when I don't, which I find more than a little surprising for one who claims to be reasonable.
I see you have conflated my points. Making paragraphs on a tablet is an effort... I was firstly responding to your "at least we can be sure of" statement - no, we can't. Secondly, these points have been considered and answered (this is well documented), but the trouble is, you do not consider the answers acceptable? That's fine, but your criteria of acceptability is hardly universal or less arbitrary than anyone else's. Even so, I have also watched some of these discussions, and find your statement about it boiling down to faith (in all cases) lacking. You aren't obliged to agree with me, but I think I have adequately described my point of view on the matter.
Well, no. What can we be certain of? How do we know what we call reason is a valid way of looking at the world and not some brain defect? On a fundamental level, is your reason really reasonable and if it weren't, could you know? Even if we allow your reason, but start with a completely different set of assumptions about the nature of reality, might we not reach different conclusions to you? And yes, I know most people who have your point of view think they take nothing for granted and question everything - making no assumptions, but I don't buy that. So, you require proof of the supernatural (no need to be specific here) in a certain format, to a certain standard. This comes from your reasoning of what constitutes proof. When you encounter someone who views the world differently and has a different idea of what proof is, you disagree thinking them irrational. No surprises here. Like it or not, this is not science, this is philosophy and here be dragons. From my point of view your point of view is indistinguishable from the others in this matter. To get back to the original point, Christianity has been examining a lot of the issues you have with it for a very long time, and they consider those issues by in large answered. Have a chat to someone qualified in theology (not a from a diploma mill, but a real university). You are not required to believe them, but you may find it informative.
1 Peter 2:13 is quite clear and unambiguous. The "TRUE" or "right" way I would imagine would involve correctly interpreting the bible in it's original context and literary context. This would differ for other philosophical points of view, for example an atheist might embrace naturalism and consider this the true or right way. The fact is humans do have different starting points and will therefore land at different places. Typically we like to attack people of other views, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything. Which of these starting points is correct? I would state that anyone who states they are sure merely can not see outside their own worldview with any clarity.
Which is a fair point, if you were discussing things with Jews, and quite a few will go along with that. The issue is, with Christians, they do and will not view the new testament as such. And to be fair, there is a point there(the nt is a collection of witness accounts and letters from the early church fathers). My problem with what you're saying is you're trying to reduce it to an "either or" question, when it clearly is not. Whatever your view on the bible, it is a complex book with many authors, and to paint the entire book with the same brush seems a bit misguided to me. The mosaic texts and the wisdom of Solomon books are, for example very different, and that is only within the old testament. We can not treat them in the same manner as the Psalms. Should you actually study it in any rigorous manner, this becomes apparent very quickly. Much of Christianity and Judaism is well aware of this (they should be, they've been at it thousands of years), and would find your false dilemma quite tiresome, since they probably thought of it ages ago. Adding the culture changes your interpretation more. I posted elsewhere in this thread on the whole marrying of rapists thing, which taken out of context seems horrendous, but in context allows for a monetary penalty against the rapist even though the girl's father does not "give her to him"(or they could just stone him). That is just the smallest example of how merely textual context can drastically change things. The Jews were a pretty rough bunch, but they weren't particularly cruel by the standards of the day. In fact their morality system was fairly advanced. Sure there are contradictions and issues within the text, but a contradiction in Genesis is not sufficient for one to totally discard the entire collection, or even Genesis itself. Whether the bible is "sacred" or not, I have no comment on, save that a reduction to "either or" sounds more like a televangelist than anyone actually well versed in the subject.
No. Firstly, if they were Christian, the theology implies they go to heaven, sin or no sin. Secondly, the text implies that obedience to God trumps human authority, so the question is, did they "honour God" by their actions? if the second is true, there is no sin involved. The passage is not a determing factor in salvation.
If you accept that the bible is literal truth, and most Christians do or at least claim to[...]
This is where the argument starts to fall to pieces. For example the Catholic church officially rejects a completely literal interpretation of Genesis. They are by far the most common form of Christian.
[..]Commits wonton acts of violence and destruction for the smallest of perceived slights. Commits genocide, repeatedly, sometimes on a global scale. Sends bears to maul and kill children for calling a prophet an old bald man. Endorses the rape of women and the sexual slavery of children. Its all laid out in plain and simple terms throughout the text.
There are two very heretical concepts that are never-the-less logical that might shed some light here:
Firstly, the bible is a human document written by people not above painting themselves in a better light, and secondly (even if we ignore the first), attempting to apply our culture and morality to a (by their own admission) rebellious tribe of fairly primitive Jews is a fairly strange thing to do. The second is less heretical and is used by most apologists. If you do look into it, you might find that your "evil god" concept isn't quite supported by available evidence. It is not my job, however to be an apologist, so if you do or not, that is up to you. The first will get you shouted down for an evil godless heretic, but hey, what can you do?
To be honest with you, having made somewhat of a study of the bible within it's historical and cultural context, I don't get that sense from Paul, neither have I encountered Christians beyond the Catholics who make anywhere near the claim that the church is the only road to salvation. I am hardly an expert, but... In any case the question is completely off topic..:P
I suppose had I been through the same experiences as you I might have a similar view. I was encouraged to question everything - to look at the sources and form my own conclusions. This is quite a process, since the historical and cultural context is important, and may not be discarded. The Christians I have encountered, for the most part are the complete opposite of what you describe and consider that horror point of view an abomination and hypocritical in the extreme. It is fairly antithetical to Christian teaching even at a cursory glance. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only son to purge humanity from the earth?"
My two Zimbabwean cents on that is; to allow one's view of an entire religion/people group/continent (look up radi-aid for a humorous example, of how people view a continent) to be based on the actions of the vocal few is not beneficial. As for the Christian power structure, as far as I can tell from the source documents, Christianity was not intended to be in power. Perhaps that is where things went wrong.
Perhaps, but the art of textual criticism (theology aside) is to try and get as close as possible to the original authors. Paul is a step between the authors and the eye witnesses (unless you allow Damascus), yes, but he certainly did interact with the eye witnesses, thus his testimony(right or wrong) is useful. The difference here is the Essene Gospels likely do not date back much more than 1920(unless you can prove otherwise?) and therefore are not close to the original source. If they were a new religion, then perhaps I could give credit to your point, but they're impersonating a long dead character.
Thats fine, though I think you miss my point here. A large proportion (majority I would say) of Christians do not reflect your version of their God, or believe he is as you say. A vocal minority perhaps fit that picture. Has it never occurred to you to ask why? To trace back the history or reasoning behind this discrepancy? If not then I might state that your criticism carries little weight since you are criticising, not what is(i.e. the current state of Christianity, or perhaps another religion), but what you say is, from your personal interpretation of the source text. Why should anyone who does not already agree with you listen to you, then? This is what I genuinely fail to understand about people who express views along the lines of your post. They're quite happy to criticise this "evil god" whom for a variety of well documented reasons and rationalizations nobody(or at least very few theologins) actually believes in. I can't make sense of the attitude, nor see the point in it.
No, I think I understood it quite well. The Essene Gospel of Peace? Really? Quite a dubious manuscript with a dubious history... Show me some textual criticism and history before I agree that this is a generally accepted Christian document. Can't show any history beyond Edmund? Ah, well pity... I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but really?
In any case, the point I was making was not about what should be, but what is. We must take Christians and Christianity as they come, not as we would like them to be.
This is what I never understand about most people critical of Christianity. The common complaint is that Christians pick and choose the rules they abide by. Nobody ever seems willing to look at the historical or contextual reasons for these choices, instead portraying them as arbitrary. Like it or hate it, Christianity is not that arbitrary, and since most of the source documents are open (here I include historical figures such as Augustine, etc) it is fairly easy to trace where these tenets(brain fart on my part..) come from. However, since you clearly are not part of the religion, and not interested in the general sort of way that one might study all religions, I suppose, why should you care?
It comes back to the point quite a few posts up. Islam is not the "biggest threat". Neither is religion per se. People abusing power are the problem here, and sadly this appears to cut across all religious and political barriers.
It's not really as in the bible, that is the fundamentally wrong part about what constitutes moral in a religion.
It's the moral tenents of the actual religion which in general are held in esteem.
It's not really about interpretation, Christians do not follow most of the Bible, which is VERY, VERY fortunate. I'd hate to see raped women being forced to marry their rapists for instance.
Actually, it is about interpretation. Where do you think those "moral tenants" come from? Let me use your example (though this is now off topic). Don't forget Deuteronomy 22:25. I.e. Stone the rapist. Or the way out (Exodus 22:16–17). Does that change the picture? When you start interpretting the bible within it's own context, and within the context of the culture in which it was written, you begin to get a better picture of what is going on. In this case a cultural mechanism to protect the victim and her children materially. Thus, it is all about interpretation. The context of Deutoronomy is not identical to the context of the new testament which is not identical to the context of today. This is precisely why Christianity is fragmented, however, something like 1 Peter 2:13-17 is quite concise and clear and requires extreme mental gymnastics to dodge.
1 Peter 2:13: "Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority" It is in the book and quite clear. Most sects I have encountered seem to at least pay lip service to this.
Christianity teaches that one should respect and obey authority as long as it does not conflict with the commonly agreed upon tenents of the bible.* This is not generally a bad thing. Mostly it involves being peaceful, paying your taxes, not speeding, etc. Pauline Christianity places a large emphasis on obedience to the law. Some Christians miss this, but this is not surprising. In any random group you pick, you will get people who don't pay attention to what they believe and twist it to their own purposes.
*As interpreted by Christianity, not buy you. Your(and other's) interpretation may differ.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, go back and read it. He quite clearly states that the issue here is with the CEO and installer (wireman perhaps), not the programmers. And he has a good point. I work in a similar setup, and sometimes non technical people need easy access to what I do (the wireman needs a drawing modified, the documentation may be required to be modified when I am not in the office, etc). While any engineer could perform this task, he is correct in stating that if we need to pull an engineer to do these tasks, the solution is not sufficient. Just because everyone where you work is a programmer by proffession, does not imply every shop runs like that. And yes, we could hire someone to manage the whole thing, but the original question is what software can solve the problem without having either someone useful sitting being useless most of the time as an admin, or a solution that is not accessible to a non programmer.
I have a similar problem to OP. My intended solution was mercurial, but I have one huge issue with it - I am the "linux guy" at this company, and nobody else is interested in logging in to create repositories from the command line. I am not a full time admin here (we all share the load), but most of the linux admin falls to me, and i do not have time to create lots of repositories. Is there a package that will allow us to create repositories for new jobs from a browser? I am not interested in writing a custom tool for this - I simply don't have the time.
May I suggest you consider re-reading GGP's post. Your reading comprehension of it is broken,
Except he is not wrong. The only digital content distributers we have in South Africa are iTunes and steam. I do not use iTunes myself, since I found apple to be excessively annoying and their selection to be insanely limited. Steam on the other hand has all but halted my desire to download games from torrents.
Much because I never promised to bring anything, and the debate you are having is not the same as the one I am. You completely ignore or misunderstand it. We could debate the answers, but which ones? Let me try for one last time, just for my own curiosity. Let's take for example your criteria for proof. No matter how reasonable you are, if we keep asking you "why, how and what" over and over again, you will eventually get to a point where you will say something along the lines of "the question is silly/meaningless." Or "That is self evident/obvious", or perhaps even an "I don't know, but if we don't assume that nothing works." The interesting thing here is people with different belief systems arive at different places here. Their criteria for proof is no more or less arbitrary than yours. The problem is, when you fail to grasp that and apply your arbitrary criteria (or indeed beleif system) to an arbitrary concept or statement from another, you find it unreasonable. For example, how do you know Christianity (or indeed any religion of your choice) does not work within it's own world view? In point of fact, they do work quite well. Sure there are areas of intersection and agreement with yours, but this only serves to muddy the waters further. Or take this argument. You seem to be under the impression that my goal here is to defend the faith. You respond accordingly, and complain when I don't, which I find more than a little surprising for one who claims to be reasonable.
I see you have conflated my points. Making paragraphs on a tablet is an effort... I was firstly responding to your "at least we can be sure of" statement - no, we can't. Secondly, these points have been considered and answered (this is well documented), but the trouble is, you do not consider the answers acceptable? That's fine, but your criteria of acceptability is hardly universal or less arbitrary than anyone else's. Even so, I have also watched some of these discussions, and find your statement about it boiling down to faith (in all cases) lacking. You aren't obliged to agree with me, but I think I have adequately described my point of view on the matter.
Well, no. What can we be certain of? How do we know what we call reason is a valid way of looking at the world and not some brain defect? On a fundamental level, is your reason really reasonable and if it weren't, could you know? Even if we allow your reason, but start with a completely different set of assumptions about the nature of reality, might we not reach different conclusions to you? And yes, I know most people who have your point of view think they take nothing for granted and question everything - making no assumptions, but I don't buy that. So, you require proof of the supernatural (no need to be specific here) in a certain format, to a certain standard. This comes from your reasoning of what constitutes proof. When you encounter someone who views the world differently and has a different idea of what proof is, you disagree thinking them irrational. No surprises here. Like it or not, this is not science, this is philosophy and here be dragons. From my point of view your point of view is indistinguishable from the others in this matter. To get back to the original point, Christianity has been examining a lot of the issues you have with it for a very long time, and they consider those issues by in large answered. Have a chat to someone qualified in theology (not a from a diploma mill, but a real university). You are not required to believe them, but you may find it informative.
1 Peter 2:13 is quite clear and unambiguous. The "TRUE" or "right" way I would imagine would involve correctly interpreting the bible in it's original context and literary context. This would differ for other philosophical points of view, for example an atheist might embrace naturalism and consider this the true or right way. The fact is humans do have different starting points and will therefore land at different places. Typically we like to attack people of other views, but that doesn't necessarily prove anything. Which of these starting points is correct? I would state that anyone who states they are sure merely can not see outside their own worldview with any clarity.
Which is a fair point, if you were discussing things with Jews, and quite a few will go along with that. The issue is, with Christians, they do and will not view the new testament as such. And to be fair, there is a point there(the nt is a collection of witness accounts and letters from the early church fathers). My problem with what you're saying is you're trying to reduce it to an "either or" question, when it clearly is not. Whatever your view on the bible, it is a complex book with many authors, and to paint the entire book with the same brush seems a bit misguided to me. The mosaic texts and the wisdom of Solomon books are, for example very different, and that is only within the old testament. We can not treat them in the same manner as the Psalms. Should you actually study it in any rigorous manner, this becomes apparent very quickly. Much of Christianity and Judaism is well aware of this (they should be, they've been at it thousands of years), and would find your false dilemma quite tiresome, since they probably thought of it ages ago. Adding the culture changes your interpretation more. I posted elsewhere in this thread on the whole marrying of rapists thing, which taken out of context seems horrendous, but in context allows for a monetary penalty against the rapist even though the girl's father does not "give her to him"(or they could just stone him). That is just the smallest example of how merely textual context can drastically change things. The Jews were a pretty rough bunch, but they weren't particularly cruel by the standards of the day. In fact their morality system was fairly advanced. Sure there are contradictions and issues within the text, but a contradiction in Genesis is not sufficient for one to totally discard the entire collection, or even Genesis itself. Whether the bible is "sacred" or not, I have no comment on, save that a reduction to "either or" sounds more like a televangelist than anyone actually well versed in the subject.
No. Firstly, if they were Christian, the theology implies they go to heaven, sin or no sin. Secondly, the text implies that obedience to God trumps human authority, so the question is, did they "honour God" by their actions? if the second is true, there is no sin involved. The passage is not a determing factor in salvation.
If you accept that the bible is literal truth, and most Christians do or at least claim to[...]
This is where the argument starts to fall to pieces. For example the Catholic church officially rejects a completely literal interpretation of Genesis. They are by far the most common form of Christian.
[..]Commits wonton acts of violence and destruction for the smallest of perceived slights. Commits genocide, repeatedly, sometimes on a global scale. Sends bears to maul and kill children for calling a prophet an old bald man. Endorses the rape of women and the sexual slavery of children. Its all laid out in plain and simple terms throughout the text.
There are two very heretical concepts that are never-the-less logical that might shed some light here:
Firstly, the bible is a human document written by people not above painting themselves in a better light, and secondly (even if we ignore the first), attempting to apply our culture and morality to a (by their own admission) rebellious tribe of fairly primitive Jews is a fairly strange thing to do. The second is less heretical and is used by most apologists. If you do look into it, you might find that your "evil god" concept isn't quite supported by available evidence. It is not my job, however to be an apologist, so if you do or not, that is up to you. The first will get you shouted down for an evil godless heretic, but hey, what can you do?
To be honest with you, having made somewhat of a study of the bible within it's historical and cultural context, I don't get that sense from Paul, neither have I encountered Christians beyond the Catholics who make anywhere near the claim that the church is the only road to salvation. I am hardly an expert, but... In any case the question is completely off topic.. :P
I suppose had I been through the same experiences as you I might have a similar view. I was encouraged to question everything - to look at the sources and form my own conclusions. This is quite a process, since the historical and cultural context is important, and may not be discarded. The Christians I have encountered, for the most part are the complete opposite of what you describe and consider that horror point of view an abomination and hypocritical in the extreme. It is fairly antithetical to Christian teaching even at a cursory glance. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only son to purge humanity from the earth?"
My two Zimbabwean cents on that is; to allow one's view of an entire religion/people group/continent (look up radi-aid for a humorous example, of how people view a continent) to be based on the actions of the vocal few is not beneficial. As for the Christian power structure, as far as I can tell from the source documents, Christianity was not intended to be in power. Perhaps that is where things went wrong.
Perhaps, but the art of textual criticism (theology aside) is to try and get as close as possible to the original authors. Paul is a step between the authors and the eye witnesses (unless you allow Damascus), yes, but he certainly did interact with the eye witnesses, thus his testimony(right or wrong) is useful. The difference here is the Essene Gospels likely do not date back much more than 1920(unless you can prove otherwise?) and therefore are not close to the original source. If they were a new religion, then perhaps I could give credit to your point, but they're impersonating a long dead character.
Thats fine, though I think you miss my point here. A large proportion (majority I would say) of Christians do not reflect your version of their God, or believe he is as you say. A vocal minority perhaps fit that picture. Has it never occurred to you to ask why? To trace back the history or reasoning behind this discrepancy? If not then I might state that your criticism carries little weight since you are criticising, not what is(i.e. the current state of Christianity, or perhaps another religion), but what you say is, from your personal interpretation of the source text. Why should anyone who does not already agree with you listen to you, then? This is what I genuinely fail to understand about people who express views along the lines of your post. They're quite happy to criticise this "evil god" whom for a variety of well documented reasons and rationalizations nobody(or at least very few theologins) actually believes in. I can't make sense of the attitude, nor see the point in it.
There are passages for that sort of thing, but I have not seen this one used for this purpose - it talks specifically about obeying secular authority.
No, I think I understood it quite well. The Essene Gospel of Peace? Really? Quite a dubious manuscript with a dubious history... Show me some textual criticism and history before I agree that this is a generally accepted Christian document. Can't show any history beyond Edmund? Ah, well pity... I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but really?
In any case, the point I was making was not about what should be, but what is. We must take Christians and Christianity as they come, not as we would like them to be.
This is what I never understand about most people critical of Christianity. The common complaint is that Christians pick and choose the rules they abide by. Nobody ever seems willing to look at the historical or contextual reasons for these choices, instead portraying them as arbitrary. Like it or hate it, Christianity is not that arbitrary, and since most of the source documents are open (here I include historical figures such as Augustine, etc) it is fairly easy to trace where these tenets(brain fart on my part..) come from. However, since you clearly are not part of the religion, and not interested in the general sort of way that one might study all religions, I suppose, why should you care?
It comes back to the point quite a few posts up. Islam is not the "biggest threat". Neither is religion per se. People abusing power are the problem here, and sadly this appears to cut across all religious and political barriers.
You are correct sir.. Been a long day - that's my excuse.
It's not really as in the bible, that is the fundamentally wrong part about what constitutes moral in a religion.
It's the moral tenents of the actual religion which in general are held in esteem.
It's not really about interpretation, Christians do not follow most of the Bible, which is VERY, VERY fortunate.
I'd hate to see raped women being forced to marry their rapists for instance.
Actually, it is about interpretation. Where do you think those "moral tenants" come from? Let me use your example (though this is now off topic). Don't forget Deuteronomy 22:25. I.e. Stone the rapist. Or the way out (Exodus 22:16–17). Does that change the picture? When you start interpretting the bible within it's own context, and within the context of the culture in which it was written, you begin to get a better picture of what is going on. In this case a cultural mechanism to protect the victim and her children materially. Thus, it is all about interpretation. The context of Deutoronomy is not identical to the context of the new testament which is not identical to the context of today. This is precisely why Christianity is fragmented, however, something like 1 Peter 2:13-17 is quite concise and clear and requires extreme mental gymnastics to dodge.
1 Peter 2:13: "Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority" It is in the book and quite clear. Most sects I have encountered seem to at least pay lip service to this.
*by... Typo...
Christianity teaches that one should respect and obey authority as long as it does not conflict with the commonly agreed upon tenents of the bible.* This is not generally a bad thing. Mostly it involves being peaceful, paying your taxes, not speeding, etc. Pauline Christianity places a large emphasis on obedience to the law. Some Christians miss this, but this is not surprising. In any random group you pick, you will get people who don't pay attention to what they believe and twist it to their own purposes.
*As interpreted by Christianity, not buy you. Your(and other's) interpretation may differ.
No, ME was basically windows 98 done wrong, and a complete dead end. You're thinking of a NT based OS.
Problem is, if they sue or not, the people lose...