That's not the way prophecy in the Hebrew or (early) Christian culture worked. Prophecy was a word from God meant to guide and comfort. It was (almost) never spoken to people in the future, but those in the present. It was supposed to guide or correct behavior a group of people.
Actually any intellectually honest religious person would see this as a great move. Translation efforts in English are constantly attempting to use the most accurate (oldest) version of the text available. In this case, having an older version available would only be good for Christianity.
On top of that, in a lot of cases (not all, there are still errors) as we find older copies of manuscripts, we find that very little if anything has changed. Most of the time when things do change, it is a change in vowel. With a old Hebrew document like these scrolls, that won't be much of an issue because vowels weren't even being added to the language in any significant way yet.
I had the same initial reaction, but after talking it over with some friends, Mr. Freeze doesn't seem so bad an idea. If he were given a less silly suit, and a massive redesign of his freeze gun, he might be a worthwhile villain to consider.
Look into the New Monastic movement. Other than making a legitimate attempt to live out the commands of Christ (love your neighbor, care for the poor and underprivileged), they also acknowledge (as many Christians do) that they are very (key word here) fallible creatures who are prone to failing (often).
As for the Old Testament laws, the general sentiment is that if a law lines up with a new Testament teaching, then it still applies. If it doesn't, then it can probably be disregarded (like food laws).
The one group that seems to be more highly associated with ID in my personal experience (for what it's worth) is Born Again Christians.
That's very interesting. I happen to be very highly associated with born again Christians (I go to a Baptist University, and my experience is very different. I find that many of my most peers are believers in evolution. That doesn't exclude intelligent design either. What it does exclude is a simple creationism (that the universe was created 6.5 thousand years ago).
While there are many Christians (particularly in the more conservative groups) that believe that evolution is sinful and evil, there are many more, even among the conservative that evolution (in some sense of the word, because just like intelligent design, it's laden with so many double meanings it's almost useless to talk about without a textbook worth of qualifications and clarifications) is a valid scientific theory.
It's the old "if God is all powerful, could he microwave a burrito so hot that he himself couldn't eat it?" question. The proposition itself is so absurd that there's no logical answer. You cannot state that god is all knowing, all powerful, and has a perfect plan for the universe... but if you ask real nice, he might change things around for you. There's absolutely no logic to such a belief system - and I'm talking internal logic - totally ignoring all the other discrepancies, assumptions, and all-round silliness within any given religion. So you're saying that the system of theism has to pass a logical fallacy in order to be logical? Doesn't that seem to be a mistake in type? You're trying to ask something of God which is not logically possible. God wouldn't (or couldn't) because it's not a logically possible event. If that throws out what you think omnipotence is, fine redefine it.
On the other hand, if you think that the theistic system(s) of dealing with the problem of prayer (which is exactly what you are coming against) is insufficient, I would like to point out that you are creating a straw man argument. You take the simplest version of the stance (which is inherently flawed in all sorts of way (that's me, a theist and theologian speaking)), and then dismiss all other forms of it because that one doesn't work for you. Look into some of the other systems and maybe you'll realize that it isn't quite to flawed as you think.
As an example of one of the many answers to that question, I will offer you what is called an arminian response (well, quite a nuanced and open arminian response, but arminian none the less). Prayer is useful for a number of reasons, one of (and the primary one) is to change the real state of the world. The thing that keeps that from happening are a number of things.
First, God may not desire you to have what you are asking (in the Bible, Paul prayed to be healed of a "thorn in his side" some sort of physical malady that had plagued him for years, and he wasn't. Straight up, God said no. Second, there are human factors. This can include everything from belief, to sin. Finally, there are other outside factors. This includes spiritual forces outside the control of humanity (and depending on how far you take it, God as well), and can interfere with the events in the world. Take a gander at the book of Daniel. Daniel prayed for something, and it didn't happen. 21 days later, an angel shows up and tells him that he was stopped by the "prince of Persia" assumedly a demon of some sort.
I'm not asking you to buy any of that (you obviously won't), but it is one of the many ways that theologians and other religious people deal with the problems surrounding prayer.
Unfortunately, those religious zealots are also the ones that squawk the loudest. I attend a medium sized Christian University (just under 4,000 undergraduate students), and most of the professors, especially (yes, especially) the Bible and Theology professors, have no issues with Evolution and Creation. Believing that God created humanity does not automatically mean that we believe evolution is not an instrument, or is happening.
Sadly, the voices of religious people (reaching out into many faiths, beyond even Christianity) that agree with the scientific community that evolution happens, and has become an established theory, are lost in the din of assenters, including atheists, agnostics, etc. Then when the only people of religious persuasion that are heard are those who dissent, the rest of us get lumped in with them because we share a single common denominator. It's just as bad as calling Germans Nazis, Muslims terrorists, Americans fat, and the French sissy.
I'm not particularly inclined to go into the specifics about literary framework, and all that sort of thing (the gist is that the Genesis creation account is not necessarily a statement of the nature of creation, but rather a statement of the power of the God of Judaism over and against other powers that be (Leviathan, Baal, to name a few)). But the worth that you so calmly assert to mean 'day' in Hebrew, is far from certain to mean 'day.' There are a number of other places where that same word is used to describe an age, and great lengths of time.
If I'm not entirely mistaken, don't we use day language to refer to the changing of various ages. The 'dawn' of the nuclear age, as an example.
Sadly, what a lot of people (both Christians and non) miss when reading the Bible, is that they aren't reading a document conceived out of their culture. Rather, it was written, collected, and edited in a time far removed from our own. The way they speak about things is different.
In a thousand years, are archaeologists going to understand some of our figures of speech? I doubt it. Not without some context clues. Why would something like the Bible be any different?
That's basically what physics has come to. It used to be that our ability to observe reality exceeded our ability to describe in in quantifiable terms (mathematics, and theory). However, the last one hundred years or so (shortly after relativity) our ability to describe (mathematics in particular, especially with string theory) surpassed our ability to observe and test things. That's why there is so much waiting on stuff like reactors and other things to get finished. They're supposed to make what we think exists visible to us in some way.
So what you're telling us, is that when I buy an album, my money doesn't go to anyone who had anything to do with the artistic process?
Honestly, the truth is worse for the RIAA than the lie they're trying to progogate. If I believe some of my money is actually going to an artist, I may have some incentive to purchase an album, and support whatever band I happen to enjoy at the time. Instead, I'm going to take my $15 that would have gone to a recordning company, and buy a t-shirt. This way, not only do I stop being naked, but the artist(s) get some money.
The reality of "antisemitism" (consider the fact that the word even EXISTS... is there a similar word for hating other ethnic or social groups?! Yeah. It's called anti[insert ethnic/religious/racial group here]. Antisemitism doesn't actually refer to hating Jews. What it refers to is hating semitic peoples, of which ethnic Jews are the most obvious, since they have(had) a large presence in Europe and America. There are a number of other semitic groups out there, many originated out of the area surrounding ancient Egypt and the Near East.
After having used a lot of trackpads from a number of different manufacturers, I definitely like the single button version of the trackpad best. I never feel like I'm touching something that isn't supposed to be part of the computer (like I do with most other manufacturers), and the double touch to right click feels better than any button could for me, short of an actual mouse.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the way prophecy in the Hebrew or (early) Christian culture worked. Prophecy was a word from God meant to guide and comfort. It was (almost) never spoken to people in the future, but those in the present. It was supposed to guide or correct behavior a group of people.
Actually any intellectually honest religious person would see this as a great move. Translation efforts in English are constantly attempting to use the most accurate (oldest) version of the text available. In this case, having an older version available would only be good for Christianity.
On top of that, in a lot of cases (not all, there are still errors) as we find older copies of manuscripts, we find that very little if anything has changed. Most of the time when things do change, it is a change in vowel. With a old Hebrew document like these scrolls, that won't be much of an issue because vowels weren't even being added to the language in any significant way yet.
I had the same initial reaction, but after talking it over with some friends, Mr. Freeze doesn't seem so bad an idea. If he were given a less silly suit, and a massive redesign of his freeze gun, he might be a worthwhile villain to consider.
Look into the New Monastic movement. Other than making a legitimate attempt to live out the commands of Christ (love your neighbor, care for the poor and underprivileged), they also acknowledge (as many Christians do) that they are very (key word here) fallible creatures who are prone to failing (often). As for the Old Testament laws, the general sentiment is that if a law lines up with a new Testament teaching, then it still applies. If it doesn't, then it can probably be disregarded (like food laws).
The one group that seems to be more highly associated with ID in my personal experience (for what it's worth) is Born Again Christians.
That's very interesting. I happen to be very highly associated with born again Christians (I go to a Baptist University, and my experience is very different. I find that many of my most peers are believers in evolution. That doesn't exclude intelligent design either. What it does exclude is a simple creationism (that the universe was created 6.5 thousand years ago). While there are many Christians (particularly in the more conservative groups) that believe that evolution is sinful and evil, there are many more, even among the conservative that evolution (in some sense of the word, because just like intelligent design, it's laden with so many double meanings it's almost useless to talk about without a textbook worth of qualifications and clarifications) is a valid scientific theory.
Yeah, Stan Lee has a cameo. Not letting any plot go, Tony Stark mistakes him for Hugh Hefner.
Unfortunately, those religious zealots are also the ones that squawk the loudest. I attend a medium sized Christian University (just under 4,000 undergraduate students), and most of the professors, especially (yes, especially) the Bible and Theology professors, have no issues with Evolution and Creation. Believing that God created humanity does not automatically mean that we believe evolution is not an instrument, or is happening.
Sadly, the voices of religious people (reaching out into many faiths, beyond even Christianity) that agree with the scientific community that evolution happens, and has become an established theory, are lost in the din of assenters, including atheists, agnostics, etc. Then when the only people of religious persuasion that are heard are those who dissent, the rest of us get lumped in with them because we share a single common denominator. It's just as bad as calling Germans Nazis, Muslims terrorists, Americans fat, and the French sissy.
I'm not particularly inclined to go into the specifics about literary framework, and all that sort of thing (the gist is that the Genesis creation account is not necessarily a statement of the nature of creation, but rather a statement of the power of the God of Judaism over and against other powers that be (Leviathan, Baal, to name a few)). But the worth that you so calmly assert to mean 'day' in Hebrew, is far from certain to mean 'day.' There are a number of other places where that same word is used to describe an age, and great lengths of time.
If I'm not entirely mistaken, don't we use day language to refer to the changing of various ages. The 'dawn' of the nuclear age, as an example.
Sadly, what a lot of people (both Christians and non) miss when reading the Bible, is that they aren't reading a document conceived out of their culture. Rather, it was written, collected, and edited in a time far removed from our own. The way they speak about things is different.
In a thousand years, are archaeologists going to understand some of our figures of speech? I doubt it. Not without some context clues. Why would something like the Bible be any different?
That's basically what physics has come to. It used to be that our ability to observe reality exceeded our ability to describe in in quantifiable terms (mathematics, and theory). However, the last one hundred years or so (shortly after relativity) our ability to describe (mathematics in particular, especially with string theory) surpassed our ability to observe and test things. That's why there is so much waiting on stuff like reactors and other things to get finished. They're supposed to make what we think exists visible to us in some way.
So what you're telling us, is that when I buy an album, my money doesn't go to anyone who had anything to do with the artistic process? Honestly, the truth is worse for the RIAA than the lie they're trying to progogate. If I believe some of my money is actually going to an artist, I may have some incentive to purchase an album, and support whatever band I happen to enjoy at the time. Instead, I'm going to take my $15 that would have gone to a recordning company, and buy a t-shirt. This way, not only do I stop being naked, but the artist(s) get some money.
After having used a lot of trackpads from a number of different manufacturers, I definitely like the single button version of the trackpad best. I never feel like I'm touching something that isn't supposed to be part of the computer (like I do with most other manufacturers), and the double touch to right click feels better than any button could for me, short of an actual mouse.
I certainly wouldn't mind my Half-Life a little brandied up.