I far prefer the latter to the former but I don't see purity and unsullied goodness on either side of the political fence.
So a homophobic mysoginistic oppressive convert-to-our-religion-or-die regime is morally equivalent to "We hold these truths to be self-evident"? This isn't about preference, this is a very clear black-and-white issue. I know it's out of vogue to say that a government could be "wrong," but there it is. And I'm not saying that the US government is perfect, but it's the best of a bad lot. The Founding Fathers had a great grasp of human nature and the corruption brought upon by political power, hence the skillful monolith that is the US Constitution.
I just worry that yet more innocent people who would like peace and want to get on with their lives are going to die.
Sure, everyone would like to live in peace. Like the thousands of people in the WTC, perhaps? It's hard to live in peace when there are a bunch of wackos bent on destroying you. That's why we have wars. And then hope that the righeous prevail.
If your next door neighbor repeatedly threatens to kill you, going so far as to blow up your mailbox and dog house (with your dog inside), are you going to bake him some chocolate chip cookies? No! You're going to call the cops, or go buy a gun, or put up barbed wire.
Like it or not, we live in a world where everyone disagrees. There's no forseeable end to that, and as such, no end to wars.
One of the reasons why there are so few guns in England is because no one has them. If the police were armed then so would the criminals be.
I hate to break it to you, but a little thing like the law isn't going to stop someone intent on getting a gun. The criminals ARE armed, and anyone telling you differently is a politician trying to get reelected.
I recently returned from a trip to the UK (I was on a train from London to Coventry 11 Sept.). There was a story in one of the papers (I can't remember which) about a couple of police officers (!) who were carjacked by a bunch of armed thugs. The "solution" of completely outlawing firearms is an exercise in futility. See John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime for some excellent numerical analyses.
But even as a tourist, I did not feel any safer with the unblinking eyes pointed in our direction. They can keep their cameras, and I'll just hang onto that CCW permit.
Cheers,
Jim
Re:I'm in China, and I would like to say ...
on
Censorship In China
·
· Score: 1
Sure, capitalism has problems too, but the people can deal with that themselves once they can freely elect their leaders and determine their own nation's policies.
Capitalism has little to do with a nation's government. You can have a democracy, a republic, a parliament, a monarchy, even a dictatorship, and still have a capitalist economy.
Simply injecting capitalism into a society is futile unless there are fundamental government-level changes that occur at the same time. Take a look at the current state of Russia for a good example of that. Yeltsin (who did many things right, but just as many wrong) made some sweeping capitalist reforms, but was really pretty weak on producing a stable government. So what's the current state of things in Russia? From what I've read, corruption is rampant, all the wealth is in the hands of very few, and "might makes right" in governing (see Chechnya).
Yes, capitalism is probably the best economic system out there (despite the problems). But it's not a silver bullet. Unless it's combined with an equally good government, the sought-after reforms will be a long time coming. And something tells me free trade won't do anything to alleviate the problem of censorship in China!
By aborting them, you get rid of a lot of potential criminals.
Hmmm, sort of like the Final Solution of the Nazi regime.
Seriously, think really hard about what you're saying here. If we abort (kill) these children, they won't be able to commit violent crimes. So why stop there? Let's take this line of reasoning all the way to its end. Why not just kill anyone who has a propensity for violence, or anyone who is a potential criminal? Then go ahead and label it a retroactive abortion; the courts will call it a Constitutionally-protected right.
The problem of violence isn't going to be solved with more violence -- especially violence against the unborn.
The fact that they were cold-blooded mass murderers sort of trumps their "victim" status, I'm afraid. NOTHING excuses their crime.
There are way too many victims in American schools these days
I'm sorry, but I absolutely cannot abide this "we're all victims" pap. Add a victim menality to moral relativism, stir, bake in high school with 1500 students for 4 years and -- Presto! -- instant criminal.
And ya know what? Things haven't changed for millenia. Geeks vs. Jocks. Bloods vs. Crips. Greasers vs. Socs. Sharks vs. Jets. Allies vs. Axis. Protestant vs. Catholic. Jew vs. Samaritan. Human nature really has not changed, and likely will not. If you learn nothing else from history, learn that.
From what I've seen so far in these posts, I haven't noticed what I consider to be the Most Useful Link For Game Engines (tm). Try out the 3D Engines List. It's got information on 626 different engines (out of which 99 are commercial, and 264 are demo only). Granted, not all of these are game engines, but a lot of them are. Oh, and both Jet3D and Crystal Space are listed there. Naturally!:-)
There is a way to use GCC as a cross-compiler in Linux (i.e. use the compiler in Linux to produce Windows binaries). There's a link from the SDL page that describes Linux cross-compiling for Win32.
There are also cross-platform GUI environments like WxWindows, V, etc. See the MinGW FAQ for more information as well!
But you are, IMHO, skewing the argument. Your premise is that the Christian God exists and you have a true understanding of how that all works. Based on that, you follow Pascal's Wager. Based on that you believe God exists.
Here's the question: is God who He says He is? Does He exist? That, in a nutshell, is Pascal's wager. If God exists as revealed in the Bible, then it is the most reasonable thing in the world to follow Him, as to do otherwise results in the ultimate loss!
This is a circular argument, and therefore invalid.
But this is not (from what I can discern from the reading) the argument that Pascal was attempting to make with his wager. See this page for more in-depth exposition of Pascal's wager.
Here is the full text of Pascal's Pensees, if you're interested as well.
The United States of America may tout it's capitalist infranstructure as the Glorious Saviour of Mankind, but they are closer to communists and fascists than many of their citizens are willing to admint to themselves.
Yep. And we can thank the politically correct thought police of the political left, the moral relativists, and big-government politicians for that. WAVE is really no different from the U.S. Department of Indoctri^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HEducation. They're just indoctrinating in different directions, neither of which is a Good Idea (tm).
The fact that U.S. is not heeding this warning does not surprise me. After all, this is happening when the people in power in government are of the first generation to not be able to remember James McCarthy, and the Communist Inquisition, first hand.
Hmmm, I can't seem to recall a James McCarthy. I do remember a Joseph McCarthy who led a crusade against supposed communists, though. I suppose your history book must have been written by someone who went through the American public school system...;-)
If you assume the wager is about the mainstream Christian God (which I believe was the context Pascal was talking in), then there is a potentially huge cost to becoming a Christian.
That is indeed the context in which Pascal wrote the Pensees. What Pascal understood was that the ultimate reward of Christianity (eternal life, co-heirs with Christ) far outweighed any temporal (worldly) benefits or gains. In the framework of eternity, it's not even a comparison.
Pascal's wager is positied that there is no real cost to believing in God, and a potentially large reward in the AfterLife. I would argue that there is a real, known cost to a (true) belief in the Christian God, which is ofset against a possible though vague reward in an AfterLife for which there is no substantial evidence of either its existence or its nature
See above. I think Pascal's wager makes the assumption that the cost pales in comparison to the benefits. Yes, there is a cost. The benefit has been described in the Bible (which I accept as the very Word of God). Based on that description, I am convinced that my soul is worth a whole lot more than anything the world can give. So what's your wager? Is Christ the only way to God? Or is it all just a bunch of nonsense? Remember, it's your soul at stake...(
Of course,if you believe in some kind of God(god/goddess),then you are faced with a big question...What happens if life is discovered elsewhere in the universe? Are they part of God's Creation? Do they share in Love? Are they just as special to God as we are?
As far as I'm concerned, the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is not really a sticking point in Christian theology (yes, some theologians might disagree). In a Christian worldview, there can really be only three different states in which a created entity can reside...
Unfallen (e.g. Biblical angels and the like)
Fallen and redeemed (humanity in the Bible)
Fallen and unredeemed (e.g.Biblical devils/demons and the like)
So if/when we meet up with some extraterrestrial race, the question is going to be "which one of these are YOU?"
As an aside, C.S. Lewis touched on topics like these in his allegorical Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength). It's not hard sci-fi, but they're great stories! And if I remember correctly, he has an essay titled "Religion and Rocketry" (or something like that) in the book Of Other Worlds, edited by Walter Hooper.
You state that as humans, we couldn't produce anything less flawed than we are, but fail to provide any argument. You need more than just saying "It's common sense" to make this claim:)
Ack, you're right, I did that! Sorry!:-)
Here's my argument: human history is a tapestry of people mistreating one another for their own selfish gain. Self-elevation (e.g. pride) is at the root of this wrongdoing.
Now this means that humanity is, as a whole, imperfect. If something is imperfect, it is by necessity flawed. Q.E.D.:-)
I did state that it is possible to improve on aspects of our own nature (number crunching ability, etc.), but as a whole, I am unconvinced that we'll be able to create an improved human that will surpass us in every way.
Finally, wrt moral values, you argue that when taken out of the context of the absolute, they become baseless subjectivism. Well, which absolute?
Yep, that is indeed the question. Which absolute? Who's your God? Is your absolute "There is no absolute"? Welcome to self-contradictory cognitive dissonance. But if you're convinced that that is the truth (!), more power to you.
There are many claims out there to be the right absolute and true religion, and which one are you going to choose?
Which one has the most compelling evidence? Which one allows you to make sense of the rest of reality? Which one doesn't contradict itself? Which one is historically viable and has visible results?
For me, every one of these questions is answered by the person of Christ.
you quickly find that christianity and greek mythology arn't really so far from each other.
Ehhhh...I don't think so. Take a look at some basic theology texts about the nature of God, and then take a look at the Greek gods. They're not even close!
(I'd continue, but my keybord (see, missing the first letter of the lphbet!) is hlf-ded...perhps lter...)
(A reply that propagates all the way up the thread tree...yes, I will step upon a soap-box for a brief period, after which I will don my asbestos underwear...)
[From the first in the thread.]
If what the article talks about actually comes to pass, then we will be the creators of a new form of life. We would, of course, try to teach this life form all that we consider important, along with establishing rules such as Asimov suggested.
Of course. But if mankind is inherently flawed (sinful), then any rules and regulations that we would try to teach would be, by default, equally flawed. How can something imperfect produce something perfect? Logically, it can't happen. Sure, the rules/laws we produce might be pretty good, but they aren't going to be perfect. Then we wind up with Terminator. Caveat emptor.
However, it is possible, if not probable, that some of what we try to teach/dictate will be misinterpreted, misunderstood, or ignored by something that surpasses us in analytical skills. Perhaps in the end there will be much confusion and argument among the new life forms as to who/what created them, how they are supposed to behave, and overall, why they were created in the first place.
Sounds familiar to me. Humanity, anyone? Take a look at the various interpretations of God. Since most of them contradict one another in one way or another, they all can't be true. So most of them are misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and just plain ignorance of that which isn't "feel-good." Naturally, that would be passed down to any robotic beings that we might create!
All of which naturally led me to wonder about *us*, of course. Got me to thinking that maybe there IS a god, but s/he (it) is not greater than us, but is in fact a lesser creature that lost control of what was created.
If that's the case, it sure isn't much of a god. Have you ever seen a dog write a symphony? Or even a chimpanzee? Humanity is a work of art, a symphony of chemical reactions and electrical impulses working in concert with a mind created in the image of God to produce... us. Can that have been made by something lesser than ourselves, or even by chance? I reject that notion as nonsense!
No, if we were created (and I believe we were), we were created by a perfect God, a personal God, a God who wants what's best for us (even when we think we know better). A God who gave His creation the possibility of rejecting Him, yet still provided a way to recover fellowship. A God who interacted with the world throughout history, and left a written record of His activities.
And now for something completely different...
[From the next in the thread]
I said *moral* values, not *religious* values. There's a BIG difference, everyone!
Yes, there is. Religious vales have an objective basis on some absolute. Moral values, when in their proper place as a subclass of religious values, are also based on that absolute. When taken out of that context, however, they are baseless, and mere subjective relativism.
I think Bill Joy's commentary can be summed up succinctly as the following: who's your God? Who gets your devotion and worship? Technology and science? Humanity? Government? Feelings and emotions? Money? While his argument is good, he provides no moral basis for it. In any event, enjoy! Put those brains to work!:-)
Evidently in 2 Kings they describe an urn in Solomon's temple or something as being one cubit across and three around. That would make the ratio between the two 3.
I saw something similar to this in the book The Joy of Pi, and there was a footnote about some other research on the topic. There's an interesting paper online called On The Rabbinical Exegesis of an Enhanced Biblical Value of Pi. Here's the abstract:
"We present here a biblical exegesis of the value of pi, pi(Hebrew) = 3.1415094..., from the well known verse 1 Kings 7:23. This verse is then compared to 2 Chronicles 4:2; the comparison provides independent supporting evidence for the exegesis."
They come up with an actual value of pi in the Bible as approximately 3.1415094... (which is about 0.003% deviation from pi)!
Here's hoping that this doesn't catch on in Mississippi, Alabama, and other fundamentalist-dominated states. It's dangerous and undemocratic.
How is it undemocratic? By that logic, are the radical feminists undemocratic because they clamor for abortion-on-demand? The teachers' unions that strike for more pay and less work? It's dangerous to have people who share the same ideas to band together and work to get those ideas accomplished? How do you think America was formed? A group of people with common ideas got together and made those ideas a reality. Republic (n) from the Latin res publica, a thing of the people.
Apparently it's more democratic to disallow the so-called "fundamentalists" their voice than it is to allow them to attempt to change things. Remind me once again what the First Amendment says about freedom of speech...
Hal Varian, an economist at UC-Berkeley, suggested a simple way around the problem: Repeal state sales taxes, and increase state income taxes to make up for the lost revenue.
That's a little too socialistic for my tastes. Here's an even better idea: Repeal the income taxes (federal and state), and replace everything with a sales tax.
This would, of course, involve repealing the 16th amendment (otherwise, the government could slap us silly with federal sales taxes AND income taxes).
The big problem I see with income taxes is that the burden is on those who produce, not on those who consume. In other words, those who produce the most (or have high paying jobs, or are shrewd investors) currently shoulder most of the tax burden. The net effect of a transition to the sales tax would probably be the same in terms of generated revenue, given that those who make more often spend more. But it might also have a postitive effect on the "buy-now-pay-later" mentality of the credit card age, in which people max out several credit cards and end up paying 18% interest until they die (or declare bankruptcy).
If an income tax exempts savings and charitable donations, then it has almost the same economic effect as a sales tax -- any income that you didn't save (or give away) was, by definition, spent on something.
This is a very good argument for sales taxes. I believe sales taxes would encourage people to save more, invest more, and give more to charity. Why? It'll shift the focus from material acquisitions (i.e. what I want) to more realistic views (i.e. what I need). And I don't know about you, but my money gets taxed regardless of whether it goes into savings or checking. Thank goodness for the 401(k) and charitable contributions!
In addition to the MinGW (Minimalist GNU Windows) package, which is basically gcc/egcs for Win9x/NT with a Windows runtime environment (libs, etc.), there are several IDEs and the ilk that are cross-platform. The one that springs immediately to mind is VIDE, which compiles and runs under Linux and Windows. There is also a brief HOWTO for building the MinGW cross-development tools. You can build it in a terminal and test it in WINE if that's your fancy, or dual-boot to Windows to test it out. The great thing about this method is that it's free (speech and beer).
I know, you told me several posts ago to keep my faith from permeating your life...but I want to make one quick response (don't read it if you're too ticked at me!)
Of course, I'm one who's perfectly happy with my own beliefs and if there are any problems between Jesus and I, he can tell me in person. Kind of a crude reasoning, I know...but I figure he loves me enough that he'd take a little time out of his busy schedule to do it himself so it could be done right. And I'd assume it'd be more of a message than just "RTFM!!!"
That's fine that you're happy with your beliefs. But are you sure you want to wait until you see Him in person? By then, it'll be too late. God reveals Himself to us through His creation and through his Word (both the Bible and Jesus, who is often called the Word of God), and He often speaks to us through his people. [Jesus said,] "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." Rev. 3:20 NIV.
so my question is...if you believe so strongly in the bible and think its teachings apply to today, then why do you have a computer to post on slashdot when the teachings of the bible indicate you should have used that money for the poor?
The simple answer is because my job provides me with a computer.:-)
Here are the sources of the actual quote you mentioned (courtesy of the Bible Gateway):
Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on." Mark 12:41-44 NIV
As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on." Luke 21:1-4 NIV
Notice that in this Jesus is talking about giving offerings to the temple (church). The rich were very showy about their offerings, since they wanted the recognition of others. They were trusting in their wealth. But the poor woman gave not for recognition, but because it was the right thing to do. She was putting her trust in God to provide her needs.
Now, why haven't I sold everything I have to give to the poor? Good question. I think a better question is, does God really call everyone to give everything to the poor? The really wealthy guy in Luke 18:18-27 is so enamored of his wealth that he thinks he's lived a perfect life. His money is his god. Like everything else we have, money is provided for us by God (part of "our daily bread"). How we steward our time, talents, and treasures (money) is the real issue at hand. Suffice it to say, I give to charities, I support my church, and I give support to missionaries. I think giving everything at this point away would make me personally less effective for the kingdom of God (when I decide to hang up engineering and become a full-time missionary, that'll change). But I do give, and do my best to be a good steward of what I have!
Besides that, I find the computer to be an effective way of sharing the Gospel of Christ with all nations!:-)
You talk about Judaism where believers would gather as a community. Note that they ALL believe in Judaism and if they all want to get together and enjoy their community then all the power to them.
But does it support my point that religion is more than just a personal thing, and was meant to be more than just a personal thing? And it's not limited to Judaism and Christianity. Mosques, Buddhist monestaries, etc. are all community gathering places. Religion and faith, however, are a little bit different. Sharing one's faith in a forum is very different from conducting a worship service in that same forum!
I have yet to see the topic come up until someone throws it in. Meaning, theres a topic on slashdot about whatever, and someone says their religion says its wrong or whatnot....this is not "the topic came up" but more "i made the topic come up". There is a difference.
As I said in another post somewhere, my faith permeates my entire life. Everything. When anything comes up remotely resembling ethics, morality, culture, or the like, it's a perfect opportunity to share my faith. It's really not that different from taking advantage of personal (live) conversations. If the topic comes up, I share what I strongly believe, with every fiber of my being, to be the absolute truth.
Also, when you say Christ instructed his followers to preach the Gospel to all nations, i don't see anything wrong with this as long as the preaching is given to someone who wants to know.
He didn't say, "Tell it to everyone who wants to hear about me." The message is for all people. I know that not everyone is going to accept it as truth ("For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Cor. 1:18 NIV), but everyone needs to hear it.
there was a reason that jefferson and others strongly believed in the separation of church and state. after all, state religion is the original reason the puritans moved to america in the first place.
The separation of church and state that is so often brought up should be viewed in light of the first amendment's "no establishment of religion" clause. Now, does this mean that civil servants (Senators, Representatives, etc.) can't be religious? Absolutely not! The establishment clause is in place to keep government out of religion, NOT the other way around!
in conclusion, can we keep religion the way it was meant to be--personal.
I disagree with the assumption that religion was "meant to be" a purely personal thing. For example, Judaism was and still is a community religion. Take a look at Jewish history -- they'd gather together to hear the readings of the Law and Prophets, and present their sacrifices at the temple. Christianity kept the community roots of Judaism; believers gathered (and still gather) together to hear the Word, sing praises, speak together, encourage one another, and enjoy their community.
It is a great disservice to levy a blanket condemnation on all "organized religion," however. Since organized religions are comprised of people (who ostensibly share the same faith), there are bound to be foibles and mishaps. It's human nature. In the realm of Christendom, the modern church seems to be doing better at applying Augustine's view on Christian doctrine: In necessariis unitas, In dubiis libertas, In omnibus autem caritas. (In essentials unity, In doubtful things liberty, But in all things love.) But remember, putting faith in religion is futile; our faith is only as good as the object of our faith!
a) preach their religion on a forum that is not specifically designed for their religious beliefs
If the topic comes up, why not? Christ instructed his followers to preach the Gospel to all nations. I fully believe that it is a matter of the utmost importance, and should be heard by all. If I have the opportunity to do so here, I must take it. There's nothing that forces anyone to read it or take it to heart! But, like Paul wrote to the believers at Corinth, "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!"
Breaking from that, I'd like to comment on Mr. Katz' answer to the last question.
I believe religion has no place in politics, education or technology.
This makes the assumption that the religious or spiritual part of a person's life is (or can be) compartmentalized. If so, it would be a hollow and useless spirituality! My walk with Christ permeates my entire life, from the way I read the newspapers (yes, I handle dead trees) to the way I design software, from the time I awake to the time I go to sleep. A person's faith influences their fundamental view on reality. It's impossible for me to take my faith out of any involvement I have in politics, education, and technology!
Well, yes, that's true, but it's also horribly simplistic.
So the fact that it's simple makes it less valid? Simplifying things is an aid to understanding them; complexity too often leads to confusion.
If I want to look at hustler or smoke a joint, why should the government forbid me too?
That all depends on whose morality the government is trying to legislate. Face it, it's a moral choice whether to read Hustler or smoke pot. Morality states whether something is right or wrong. Legality states whether you'll be prosecuted.
How do these things effect you?
The quick answer is, they probably won't. But when the mentality is "if I want to do this, everybody should be able to", then it does affect me. Because just as people don't want morality forced upon them, I don't want immorality forced upon me.
While I can understand the motivation of preventing children from accessing [...], the government has no business in preventing ME from doing so.
So where is the line? There isn't anything preventing you from accessing those sites...as long as you're doing it at home. But if you're using a government computer, then you play by the government rules, no matter who you are. And if a person can't afford a computer, they should be thankful that they have access at all!
To me, it's really not that different from a generic corporation's Internet usage policy. A corporation will have certain sites that are not acceptable (mine actually blocks streaming media and greeting cards, among others), and it's something you just deal with when working there. Of course, I'm surprised Slashdot isn't among the "non-productive" sites.:-) But is my access to streaming media or greeting card sites then limited? No, 'cause I can go home and log in on my own PC and access them as much (or as little) as I want.
in the end, it will be much cheaper to just mind your own business...
I'm sure this will seem out of place on this particular forum, but it does grieve me to see people making what I consider self-destructive choices. I can't judge them (it's not my place), or make their choices for them, either. So it may be cheaper in the monetary sense, but much more costly in a different sense.
Consider that there are 2 types of law in this country.
1) Moral law - Law that people feel is right in thier [sic] bones. This may not affect the running of a government or society.
2) Society Law - Law that people need in order to live in a society.
These 2 laws are NOT THE SAME.
Maybe. Maybe not. What rule is being used to determine that "moral law" and "society law" are not the same? Introducing a dichotomy will only confuse the issue. ALL laws legislate morality. The real issue is whose morality they're legislating. The "moral compass" is all fine and dandy, but unless it has a "moral magnetic north" everyone's going to get lost.
That said, the current batch of blocking/filtering software isn't perfect. But until there's something better, I'll be content with that as an adjunct to parental supervision.
Slashdot Mirror
I far prefer the latter to the former but I don't see purity and unsullied goodness on either side of the political fence.
So a homophobic mysoginistic oppressive convert-to-our-religion-or-die regime is morally equivalent to "We hold these truths to be self-evident"? This isn't about preference, this is a very clear black-and-white issue. I know it's out of vogue to say that a government could be "wrong," but there it is. And I'm not saying that the US government is perfect, but it's the best of a bad lot. The Founding Fathers had a great grasp of human nature and the corruption brought upon by political power, hence the skillful monolith that is the US Constitution.
I just worry that yet more innocent people who would like peace and want to get on with their lives are going to die.
Sure, everyone would like to live in peace. Like the thousands of people in the WTC, perhaps? It's hard to live in peace when there are a bunch of wackos bent on destroying you. That's why we have wars. And then hope that the righeous prevail.
If your next door neighbor repeatedly threatens to kill you, going so far as to blow up your mailbox and dog house (with your dog inside), are you going to bake him some chocolate chip cookies? No! You're going to call the cops, or go buy a gun, or put up barbed wire.
Like it or not, we live in a world where everyone disagrees. There's no forseeable end to that, and as such, no end to wars.
One of the reasons why there are so few guns in England is because no one has them. If the police were armed then so would the criminals be.
I hate to break it to you, but a little thing like the law isn't going to stop someone intent on getting a gun. The criminals ARE armed, and anyone telling you differently is a politician trying to get reelected.
I recently returned from a trip to the UK (I was on a train from London to Coventry 11 Sept.). There was a story in one of the papers (I can't remember which) about a couple of police officers (!) who were carjacked by a bunch of armed thugs. The "solution" of completely outlawing firearms is an exercise in futility. See John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime for some excellent numerical analyses.
But even as a tourist, I did not feel any safer with the unblinking eyes pointed in our direction. They can keep their cameras, and I'll just hang onto that CCW permit.
Cheers,
Jim
Capitalism has little to do with a nation's government. You can have a democracy, a republic, a parliament, a monarchy, even a dictatorship, and still have a capitalist economy.
Simply injecting capitalism into a society is futile unless there are fundamental government-level changes that occur at the same time. Take a look at the current state of Russia for a good example of that. Yeltsin (who did many things right, but just as many wrong) made some sweeping capitalist reforms, but was really pretty weak on producing a stable government. So what's the current state of things in Russia? From what I've read, corruption is rampant, all the wealth is in the hands of very few, and "might makes right" in governing (see Chechnya).
Yes, capitalism is probably the best economic system out there (despite the problems). But it's not a silver bullet. Unless it's combined with an equally good government, the sought-after reforms will be a long time coming. And something tells me free trade won't do anything to alleviate the problem of censorship in China!
JimD
Hmmm, sort of like the Final Solution of the Nazi regime.
Seriously, think really hard about what you're saying here. If we abort (kill) these children, they won't be able to commit violent crimes. So why stop there? Let's take this line of reasoning all the way to its end. Why not just kill anyone who has a propensity for violence, or anyone who is a potential criminal? Then go ahead and label it a retroactive abortion; the courts will call it a Constitutionally-protected right.
The problem of violence isn't going to be solved with more violence -- especially violence against the unborn.
JimD
The fact that they were cold-blooded mass murderers sort of trumps their "victim" status, I'm afraid. NOTHING excuses their crime.
There are way too many victims in American schools these days
I'm sorry, but I absolutely cannot abide this "we're all victims" pap. Add a victim menality to moral relativism, stir, bake in high school with 1500 students for 4 years and -- Presto! -- instant criminal.
And ya know what? Things haven't changed for millenia. Geeks vs. Jocks. Bloods vs. Crips. Greasers vs. Socs. Sharks vs. Jets. Allies vs. Axis. Protestant vs. Catholic. Jew vs. Samaritan. Human nature really has not changed, and likely will not. If you learn nothing else from history, learn that.
JimD
Cheers!
JimD
There are also cross-platform GUI environments like WxWindows, V, etc. See the MinGW FAQ for more information as well!
JimD
Here's the question: is God who He says He is? Does He exist? That, in a nutshell, is Pascal's wager. If God exists as revealed in the Bible, then it is the most reasonable thing in the world to follow Him, as to do otherwise results in the ultimate loss!
This is a circular argument, and therefore invalid.
But this is not (from what I can discern from the reading) the argument that Pascal was attempting to make with his wager. See this page for more in-depth exposition of Pascal's wager.
Here is the full text of Pascal's Pensees , if you're interested as well.
Enjoy!
JimD
Yep. And we can thank the politically correct thought police of the political left, the moral relativists, and big-government politicians for that. WAVE is really no different from the U.S. Department of Indoctri^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HEducation. They're just indoctrinating in different directions, neither of which is a Good Idea (tm).
The fact that U.S. is not heeding this warning does not surprise me. After all, this is happening when the people in power in government are of the first generation to not be able to remember James McCarthy, and the Communist Inquisition, first hand.
Hmmm, I can't seem to recall a James McCarthy. I do remember a Joseph McCarthy who led a crusade against supposed communists, though. I suppose your history book must have been written by someone who went through the American public school system... ;-)
JimD
That is indeed the context in which Pascal wrote the Pensees. What Pascal understood was that the ultimate reward of Christianity (eternal life, co-heirs with Christ) far outweighed any temporal (worldly) benefits or gains. In the framework of eternity, it's not even a comparison.
Pascal's wager is positied that there is no real cost to believing in God, and a potentially large reward in the AfterLife. I would argue that there is a real, known cost to a (true) belief in the Christian God, which is ofset against a possible though vague reward in an AfterLife for which there is no substantial evidence of either its existence or its nature
See above. I think Pascal's wager makes the assumption that the cost pales in comparison to the benefits. Yes, there is a cost. The benefit has been described in the Bible (which I accept as the very Word of God). Based on that description, I am convinced that my soul is worth a whole lot more than anything the world can give. So what's your wager? Is Christ the only way to God? Or is it all just a bunch of nonsense? Remember, it's your soul at stake...(
JimD
As far as I'm concerned, the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is not really a sticking point in Christian theology (yes, some theologians might disagree). In a Christian worldview, there can really be only three different states in which a created entity can reside...
- Unfallen (e.g. Biblical angels and the like)
- Fallen and redeemed (humanity in the Bible)
- Fallen and unredeemed (e.g.Biblical devils/demons and the like)
So if/when we meet up with some extraterrestrial race, the question is going to be "which one of these are YOU?"As an aside, C.S. Lewis touched on topics like these in his allegorical Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength). It's not hard sci-fi, but they're great stories! And if I remember correctly, he has an essay titled "Religion and Rocketry" (or something like that) in the book Of Other Worlds, edited by Walter Hooper.
Enjoy!
JimD
Ack, you're right, I did that! Sorry! :-)
Here's my argument: human history is a tapestry of people mistreating one another for their own selfish gain. Self-elevation (e.g. pride) is at the root of this wrongdoing.
Now this means that humanity is, as a whole, imperfect. If something is imperfect, it is by necessity flawed. Q.E.D. :-)
I did state that it is possible to improve on aspects of our own nature (number crunching ability, etc.), but as a whole, I am unconvinced that we'll be able to create an improved human that will surpass us in every way.
Finally, wrt moral values, you argue that when taken out of the context of the absolute, they become baseless subjectivism. Well, which absolute?
Yep, that is indeed the question. Which absolute? Who's your God? Is your absolute "There is no absolute"? Welcome to self-contradictory cognitive dissonance. But if you're convinced that that is the truth (!), more power to you.
There are many claims out there to be the right absolute and true religion, and which one are you going to choose?
Which one has the most compelling evidence? Which one allows you to make sense of the rest of reality? Which one doesn't contradict itself? Which one is historically viable and has visible results?
For me, every one of these questions is answered by the person of Christ.
you quickly find that christianity and greek mythology arn't really so far from each other.
Ehhhh...I don't think so. Take a look at some basic theology texts about the nature of God, and then take a look at the Greek gods. They're not even close!
(I'd continue, but my keybord (see, missing the first letter of the lphbet!) is hlf-ded...perhps lter...)
JimD
[From the first in the thread.]
If what the article talks about actually comes to pass, then we will be the creators of a new form of life. We would, of course, try to teach this life form all that we consider important, along with establishing rules such as Asimov suggested.
Of course. But if mankind is inherently flawed (sinful), then any rules and regulations that we would try to teach would be, by default, equally flawed. How can something imperfect produce something perfect? Logically, it can't happen. Sure, the rules/laws we produce might be pretty good, but they aren't going to be perfect. Then we wind up with Terminator. Caveat emptor.
However, it is possible, if not probable, that some of what we try to teach/dictate will be misinterpreted, misunderstood, or ignored by something that surpasses us in analytical skills. Perhaps in the end there will be much confusion and argument among the new life forms as to who/what created them, how they are supposed to behave, and overall, why they were created in the first place.
Sounds familiar to me. Humanity, anyone? Take a look at the various interpretations of God. Since most of them contradict one another in one way or another, they all can't be true. So most of them are misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and just plain ignorance of that which isn't "feel-good." Naturally, that would be passed down to any robotic beings that we might create!
All of which naturally led me to wonder about *us*, of course. Got me to thinking that maybe there IS a god, but s/he (it) is not greater than us, but is in fact a lesser creature that lost control of what was created.
If that's the case, it sure isn't much of a god. Have you ever seen a dog write a symphony? Or even a chimpanzee? Humanity is a work of art, a symphony of chemical reactions and electrical impulses working in concert with a mind created in the image of God to produce ... us. Can that have been made by something lesser than ourselves, or even by chance? I reject that notion as nonsense!
No, if we were created (and I believe we were), we were created by a perfect God, a personal God, a God who wants what's best for us (even when we think we know better). A God who gave His creation the possibility of rejecting Him, yet still provided a way to recover fellowship. A God who interacted with the world throughout history, and left a written record of His activities.
And now for something completely different...
[From the next in the thread]
I said *moral* values, not *religious* values. There's a BIG difference, everyone!
Yes, there is. Religious vales have an objective basis on some absolute. Moral values, when in their proper place as a subclass of religious values, are also based on that absolute. When taken out of that context, however, they are baseless, and mere subjective relativism.
I think Bill Joy's commentary can be summed up succinctly as the following: who's your God? Who gets your devotion and worship? Technology and science? Humanity? Government? Feelings and emotions? Money? While his argument is good, he provides no moral basis for it. In any event, enjoy! Put those brains to work! :-)
JimD
I saw something similar to this in the book The Joy of Pi, and there was a footnote about some other research on the topic. There's an interesting paper online called On The Rabbinical Exegesis of an Enhanced Biblical Value of Pi . Here's the abstract:
"We present here a biblical exegesis of the value of pi, pi(Hebrew) = 3.1415094..., from the well known verse 1 Kings 7:23. This verse is then compared to 2 Chronicles 4:2; the comparison provides independent supporting evidence for the exegesis."
They come up with an actual value of pi in the Bible as approximately 3.1415094... (which is about 0.003% deviation from pi)!
JimD
How is it undemocratic? By that logic, are the radical feminists undemocratic because they clamor for abortion-on-demand? The teachers' unions that strike for more pay and less work? It's dangerous to have people who share the same ideas to band together and work to get those ideas accomplished? How do you think America was formed? A group of people with common ideas got together and made those ideas a reality. Republic (n) from the Latin res publica, a thing of the people.
Apparently it's more democratic to disallow the so-called "fundamentalists" their voice than it is to allow them to attempt to change things. Remind me once again what the First Amendment says about freedom of speech...
JimD
That's a little too socialistic for my tastes. Here's an even better idea: Repeal the income taxes (federal and state), and replace everything with a sales tax.
This would, of course, involve repealing the 16th amendment (otherwise, the government could slap us silly with federal sales taxes AND income taxes).
The big problem I see with income taxes is that the burden is on those who produce, not on those who consume. In other words, those who produce the most (or have high paying jobs, or are shrewd investors) currently shoulder most of the tax burden. The net effect of a transition to the sales tax would probably be the same in terms of generated revenue, given that those who make more often spend more. But it might also have a postitive effect on the "buy-now-pay-later" mentality of the credit card age, in which people max out several credit cards and end up paying 18% interest until they die (or declare bankruptcy).
If an income tax exempts savings and charitable donations, then it has almost the same economic effect as a sales tax -- any income that you didn't save (or give away) was, by definition, spent on something.
This is a very good argument for sales taxes. I believe sales taxes would encourage people to save more, invest more, and give more to charity. Why? It'll shift the focus from material acquisitions (i.e. what I want) to more realistic views (i.e. what I need). And I don't know about you, but my money gets taxed regardless of whether it goes into savings or checking. Thank goodness for the 401(k) and charitable contributions!
JimD
Cheers!
JimD
Of course, I'm one who's perfectly happy with my own beliefs and if there are any problems between Jesus and I, he can tell me in person. Kind of a crude reasoning, I know...but I figure he loves me enough that he'd take a little time out of his busy schedule to do it himself so it could be done right. And I'd assume it'd be more of a message than just "RTFM!!!"
That's fine that you're happy with your beliefs. But are you sure you want to wait until you see Him in person? By then, it'll be too late. God reveals Himself to us through His creation and through his Word (both the Bible and Jesus, who is often called the Word of God), and He often speaks to us through his people. [Jesus said,] "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." Rev. 3:20 NIV.
JimD
The simple answer is because my job provides me with a computer. :-)
Here are the sources of the actual quote you mentioned (courtesy of the Bible Gateway):
Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on." Mark 12:41-44 NIV
As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on." Luke 21:1-4 NIV
Notice that in this Jesus is talking about giving offerings to the temple (church). The rich were very showy about their offerings, since they wanted the recognition of others. They were trusting in their wealth. But the poor woman gave not for recognition, but because it was the right thing to do. She was putting her trust in God to provide her needs.
Now, why haven't I sold everything I have to give to the poor? Good question. I think a better question is, does God really call everyone to give everything to the poor? The really wealthy guy in Luke 18:18-27 is so enamored of his wealth that he thinks he's lived a perfect life. His money is his god. Like everything else we have, money is provided for us by God (part of "our daily bread"). How we steward our time, talents, and treasures (money) is the real issue at hand. Suffice it to say, I give to charities, I support my church, and I give support to missionaries. I think giving everything at this point away would make me personally less effective for the kingdom of God (when I decide to hang up engineering and become a full-time missionary, that'll change). But I do give, and do my best to be a good steward of what I have!
Besides that, I find the computer to be an effective way of sharing the Gospel of Christ with all nations! :-)
JimD
But does it support my point that religion is more than just a personal thing, and was meant to be more than just a personal thing? And it's not limited to Judaism and Christianity. Mosques, Buddhist monestaries, etc. are all community gathering places. Religion and faith, however, are a little bit different. Sharing one's faith in a forum is very different from conducting a worship service in that same forum!
I have yet to see the topic come up until someone throws it in. Meaning, theres a topic on slashdot about whatever, and someone says their religion says its wrong or whatnot....this is not "the topic came up" but more "i made the topic come up". There is a difference.
As I said in another post somewhere, my faith permeates my entire life. Everything. When anything comes up remotely resembling ethics, morality, culture, or the like, it's a perfect opportunity to share my faith. It's really not that different from taking advantage of personal (live) conversations. If the topic comes up, I share what I strongly believe, with every fiber of my being, to be the absolute truth.
Also, when you say Christ instructed his followers to preach the Gospel to all nations, i don't see anything wrong with this as long as the preaching is given to someone who wants to know.
He didn't say, "Tell it to everyone who wants to hear about me." The message is for all people. I know that not everyone is going to accept it as truth ("For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Cor. 1:18 NIV), but everyone needs to hear it.
JimD
If I had any moderator points left, I'd bump you up myself!
JimD
The separation of church and state that is so often brought up should be viewed in light of the first amendment's "no establishment of religion" clause. Now, does this mean that civil servants (Senators, Representatives, etc.) can't be religious? Absolutely not! The establishment clause is in place to keep government out of religion, NOT the other way around!
JimD
I disagree with the assumption that religion was "meant to be" a purely personal thing. For example, Judaism was and still is a community religion. Take a look at Jewish history -- they'd gather together to hear the readings of the Law and Prophets, and present their sacrifices at the temple. Christianity kept the community roots of Judaism; believers gathered (and still gather) together to hear the Word, sing praises, speak together, encourage one another, and enjoy their community.
It is a great disservice to levy a blanket condemnation on all "organized religion," however. Since organized religions are comprised of people (who ostensibly share the same faith), there are bound to be foibles and mishaps. It's human nature. In the realm of Christendom, the modern church seems to be doing better at applying Augustine's view on Christian doctrine: In necessariis unitas, In dubiis libertas, In omnibus autem caritas. (In essentials unity, In doubtful things liberty, But in all things love.) But remember, putting faith in religion is futile; our faith is only as good as the object of our faith!
a) preach their religion on a forum that is not specifically designed for their religious beliefs
If the topic comes up, why not? Christ instructed his followers to preach the Gospel to all nations. I fully believe that it is a matter of the utmost importance, and should be heard by all. If I have the opportunity to do so here, I must take it. There's nothing that forces anyone to read it or take it to heart! But, like Paul wrote to the believers at Corinth, "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!"
Breaking from that, I'd like to comment on Mr. Katz' answer to the last question.
I believe religion has no place in politics, education or technology.
This makes the assumption that the religious or spiritual part of a person's life is (or can be) compartmentalized. If so, it would be a hollow and useless spirituality! My walk with Christ permeates my entire life, from the way I read the newspapers (yes, I handle dead trees) to the way I design software, from the time I awake to the time I go to sleep. A person's faith influences their fundamental view on reality. It's impossible for me to take my faith out of any involvement I have in politics, education, and technology!
JimD
So the fact that it's simple makes it less valid? Simplifying things is an aid to understanding them; complexity too often leads to confusion.
If I want to look at hustler or smoke a joint, why should the government forbid me too?
That all depends on whose morality the government is trying to legislate. Face it, it's a moral choice whether to read Hustler or smoke pot. Morality states whether something is right or wrong. Legality states whether you'll be prosecuted.
How do these things effect you?
The quick answer is, they probably won't. But when the mentality is "if I want to do this, everybody should be able to", then it does affect me. Because just as people don't want morality forced upon them, I don't want immorality forced upon me.
While I can understand the motivation of preventing children from accessing [...], the government has no business in preventing ME from doing so.
So where is the line? There isn't anything preventing you from accessing those sites...as long as you're doing it at home. But if you're using a government computer, then you play by the government rules, no matter who you are. And if a person can't afford a computer, they should be thankful that they have access at all!
To me, it's really not that different from a generic corporation's Internet usage policy. A corporation will have certain sites that are not acceptable (mine actually blocks streaming media and greeting cards, among others), and it's something you just deal with when working there. Of course, I'm surprised Slashdot isn't among the "non-productive" sites. :-) But is my access to streaming media or greeting card sites then limited? No, 'cause I can go home and log in on my own PC and access them as much (or as little) as I want.
in the end, it will be much cheaper to just mind your own business...
I'm sure this will seem out of place on this particular forum, but it does grieve me to see people making what I consider self-destructive choices. I can't judge them (it's not my place), or make their choices for them, either. So it may be cheaper in the monetary sense, but much more costly in a different sense.
JimD
1) Moral law - Law that people feel is right in thier [sic] bones. This may not affect the running of a government or society.
2) Society Law - Law that people need in order to live in a society.
These 2 laws are NOT THE SAME.
Maybe. Maybe not. What rule is being used to determine that "moral law" and "society law" are not the same? Introducing a dichotomy will only confuse the issue. ALL laws legislate morality. The real issue is whose morality they're legislating. The "moral compass" is all fine and dandy, but unless it has a "moral magnetic north" everyone's going to get lost.
That said, the current batch of blocking/filtering software isn't perfect. But until there's something better, I'll be content with that as an adjunct to parental supervision.
JimD