>It's documented as quite natural behaviour in many mammals, not just humans.
Bonobo monkeys do it with everyone in their tribe - it's a social convention, the way they express loyalty to one another. It's not a genuine sexual activity. The purpose of sex is procreation. Logic dictates that evolution wouldn't allow for it to be genetic, and if it were psychological, even though you could argue it's 'natural' by definition, it would still be a disorder.
>You would deny marriage to couples who can't procreate?
You misunderstood me. I was speaking about natural basis for marriage, not a prerequisite for it. Its primary purpose was the above mentioned. There is no such basis, since no such purpose can ever be achieved in a homosexual union. This is why it doesn't even resemble marriage.
>having kids in a stable union outside of marriage *doesn't* build society?
It does, but kids are generally better of in a family with both father and mother. Not divorced, not abandoned, not with a single parent. A union of man and a woman which is not legalized resembles marriage and is probably acceptable for the development of kids, unlike homosexual unions which doesn't and isn't.
>Marriage existed LONG before christianity, or even judaism.
Yes, it did. Well, depends on what you regard as Judaism.
>[Shroud of Turin] is certainly not proof that Jesus was in any way divine.
There are documentaries on youtube that explain why the shroud is inexplicable (ie miraculous). I reckon you have looked it up at least, so thank you for checking out my references.
>all how that people will check their brains at the door and latch onto the latest craze.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by this, but I'll give it a shot: A man testifies he was friends with Christ, and saw miracles He preformed, and then goes to preach it and dies a martyr death for it. Now imagine eleven of such people. And I'm not even talking now about all those who haven't saw Jesus in the flesh.
>In other words, a later observation affects whether the particle previously interfered with itself. (...) we do not require a "prime mover" or "creator".
No, it's not "later observation" - the cause of the manifestation of just one of the dual natures of the photons is the "observation" itself, and it doesn't succeed the effect as you'd like it to be (as I understand, observation is made in the slit). So the cause-effect order is undisturbed, thus your conclusion (the thing after the three dots) does not follow.
"most self-laudatory pieces of crap" Oh, wait, you said crap. That means I'm wrong.
"abdicating personal responsibility for coming up with ones own ethics, and any consequences thereof."
Homosexuality is objectively disordered, and marriage is a union with a distinct purpose of procreation, and it builds society. This is why it's - according to natural law - defined as union of the opposite sexes. If you'd like a homosexual union, you'd have to look outside the above mentioned institution of marriage.
I'll just skip to where you address my arguments, hope you don't mind.
1. The shroud of Turin is quite convincing when considered objectively. Also, the witnesses and quick rise of the new religion (which usually takes a lot to build). If you want to question the eyewitnesses, consider they died for the cause.
2. Excuse me, can you please elaborate what does the double slit experiment have to do with disproving causality? Please note that I am familiar with the experiment, so no need to explain what it does.
The uncaused cause needs to be... without a cause. There's a hint in what you say following in the second part of your "nr. 2". God is not subject to the physical laws (he is their creator). If we take that space-time is one, and created at the "time" of the big bang, we see that its cause cannot be bound by the laws it has created.
"Experiments show our current level of understanding is sufficient to dismiss any god as a cause or creator." I'm sorry, but now you're just making stuff up. Your previous arguments were weak, but now you begin to offer none for your claims.
I'm sure if you took a few minutes, you could further demonstrate your total ignorance about the person of Jesus, a gap you fill in with your own (mis)understanding, and (mis)interpretation.
1 Cor. 13 is one of the greatest prose works in history of humanity (no wonder since it's inspired by Holy Spirit), and to its greatness testify many non-Christians. Believe me, the saint didn't want to pat himself on the back (projection comes to mind, sry), but rather diminish the the great, even miraculous works in favor of "simple" Love which is the goal. I'm not familiar of the song "Lord, it's hard to be humble", but the title doesn't suggest (at least to me) "I am humble, I rock", but rather "I'm not, sorry, and give me strength". That being said, I was talking about what should be a real Christian motivation to do good, which you fail to address (if that was your intent).
*Proof for God: Cosmological argument is convincing (see perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument - haven't read this article, but from what I saw, it explains it). *Proof of Christ Jesus' sonship: The only Man in history resurrected. *The rest just follows given the teachings of that same Christ.
I'm not burdening you with necessity of being a holy Christian. Neither is God. But that is a rational choice. Ignorance is not bliss. The "tree of knowledge" is not the name of it. It's the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". It's metaphorical, and a symbol of choice. The act of eating of it is symbol of disobedience (tasting of evil?), followed by a natural punishment (sin separates you from God). Christians should not be stupid, in fact, greatest thinkers were Christian.
Even Lady Gaga is now more popular than Jesus (except this Christmas time perhaps). But in the long run, there isn't a more influential philosopher, or a greater inspiration for art, than Christ.
Notice he said "Catholicism" and "Protestantism" and not "Catholics", and "Protestants" - even though, I admit I would complain in the latter case as well because I wanted to bring up doctrine each of the groups subscribe to. The truth of statements I have presented about *Catholicism* is verifiable in the official doctrine of the Church, and about *Protestantism* by research about the doctrines of the majority of them (since they differ in teaching, as pointed out by others). To expound now on what I previously said in the light of what you added: The guilt we feel when we sin should (primarily?) be the product of our love for God whose will we disregard when we sin. Its source is also conscience which I believe is more refined in Christ seekers (I'm not talking about nominally Christians as a whole) than the moral and ethics of the world. Again, not punishment, but love & conscience. Any difference between behavior expected of subscribers to Catholic teachings, and that observed in nominally Catholics, it can be a product of what is called "bad spirituality" - another one of Satans traps (ie he convinces you you cannot be forgiven, even though it's not true).
Let me see if you will understand the following comparison: "Oil and water", or "darkness and light", or "Christ and Belial". What I'm saying is that a dirty soul cannot stand in presence of the Triple Holy. It's not just made up relative rules, it's the nature of things. I've been told you'd suffer even more in Heaven in front of God if in mortal sin, seeing Him, then in Hell, separated. And it is a sacrifice if God lets you off by giving you another chance, washing your filth with His blood, ready to forgive you and give you a new life and a Holy Spirit to guide you in your path to sainthood. Again, noone is pushing you, you still have free will, you're free to reject the gratis sacrifice. But don't blame God for it then!
P.S. If you knew Corinthians chapter 13, you wouldn't say Christians are thought to do good deeds just to avoid "punishment".
Orthodox still.. let's say 'more directly' trace their roots from Apostles, as do Catholics. Anglicans have, as I understand, nullified their priesthood after their separation (not sure if it's heresy or the mere fact of schism). Orthodox priesthood is, in contrast, acknowledged by the Catholic Church, and also then their sacraments are valid. Also, Anglicans are one, and protestants another thing. They call themselves protestant, but even then, they are only one of many denominations. And a majority of them does not share their views, and have no pastors "ordained" by priests in their roots.
Still more catchy phrases that are not true. Protestants, as I have pointed out earlier, do not believe in "work", but faith alone. In their view, work only confirms faith (from which it comes). While we (Catholics) see work and faith as cooperating (see James again). As for the second line from the T-shirt, I don't believe God "punishes" people on earth - that's what final judgment is for. He does however "school" you, but all experiences are for your own interest, and if you won't cooperate, you have free will - up until death, when God will acknowledge you set your mind to - well Hell (ie. refusal of God). God paid a price of sin in His only begotten Son, and if we trust onto Him, and confess our sins, we can be forgiven. Penance is voluntary on Earth, mandatory "only" if not done on Earth in Purgatory (see Corinthians) - prior to Heaven (for which one must be perfect). Again, Protestants see it differently:-P P.S. About CHRISTians: There is a big difference between those who view Christ(grk. Messiah) as only a servant (ONLY a Chosen One and ONLY a Man), and those who also know He is also a Son of God in true sense (as mentioned in John 1). Since Mormons and LDS' deny the latter(so they don't believe in Trinity as we defined it), they are not considered Christians by either Catholic nor Protestant standards .
Catholics (if true), are by definition Christians. Main fractions of Christianity is: Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants(basically, all other). The first two having apostolic and historic roots (ie go all the way back to apostles and first Christians) separated in 1054. What protestant claim is due to their "sola fide"(eng. faith alone) doctrine, which is an innovation introduced at the time of the conception of Protestantism (16th ct.). Since they claim it's in the Bible (while we, Catholics, claim the exact opposite is), they regard all who do not adhere to this belief are heretics, and that is probably why some fundamentalists deem us not Christians, since we believe in salvation through grace, with man's works cooperating with his faith (and not just faith alone - as st. James in his epistle also says(in 2:24): "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" - of course, they 'interpret' it differently). Statues mentioned below, as well as images (which, of course, we do not worship nor do I think Protestants think that) are not relevant for the above view, although it is also a matter of dispute. In short: Catholics are as Christian as it gets. And then there's other Christians:-)
Had you thrown in few links into the story, and had we had a page where these comments became articles, this would've been a classic in my book. Thx for the info
The code mentioned on the linked page: for(ss = s->ss; ss; ss = ss->ss) I'm sorry, but that's obviously moving through a linked list untill the end (NULL == false) pointer.
And the rich get richer, and slave-driving gets different names - currently: outsourcing. You are solely responsible if you are one. Something stinks in the state of World.
First John Paul II is omitted, then Obama included, and now you want Torvalds? A peace prize for global collaboration on a kernel? While impressive, the fact that Torvalds managed to harness the power of the free software community is far from deserving a peace prize. Not to mention it's not *he* who authored "Free software, free society". GPL and software freedom is means to improving "his kernel" for Torvalds, not necessarily a goal itself. That's what I gathered on the interwebs anyway. In any case: be serious.
Well, there's three (reasonable) things you can do:
1. Have a license with no copyleft [to each his own, and this not to me]
2. Have a license with copyleft incompatible with future GPL licenses, and in case your project gets attention like GPL2-only Linux did, make it impossible to upgrade to a superior license.
3. Trust FSF, and have a normal, copyleft GPL "or later" license with no above problems.
It's your choice, but again, I'd choose (and do) nr. 3.
The key word here is: decentralization. Get a fresh webapp from a website (say, an instant messenger), and then connect user-to-user, and avoid the middle man. Faster, more secure, more private. I understand this seems an over-feature for web browsers at this point. But unless there is an objective reason why this should be deprecated, the fact that we're used to browsers the way they are now, doesn't mean that is better for software.
Granted, for most things long polling is sufficient, but for decentralization, a web server is a must. Rationalize to see if fear of the unknown is useful in this case. Try weighing 'security' and privacy, and established standards against the opportunities.
Why is this any different from the classic thing? All it does is enables the "server" to send data even if the "client" doesn't request them each time (doesn't refresh). Instead of trusting AJAX code gotten from the server and "refreshing" parts of pages in set intervals, why not just trust the socket which will provide the info necessary for the "refresh"? I don't see any new problem introduced here. Please explain if you do.
I'd like to thank you for your efforts on behalf of free software lovers who are grateful. It's modified GPL (v2 only), but GPL non the less and a case pro-free software. Rooting for you, be sure to win:-)
Slashdot Mirror
>It's documented as quite natural behaviour in many mammals, not just humans.
Bonobo monkeys do it with everyone in their tribe - it's a social convention, the way they express loyalty to one another. It's not a genuine sexual activity. The purpose of sex is procreation. Logic dictates that evolution wouldn't allow for it to be genetic, and if it were psychological, even though you could argue it's 'natural' by definition, it would still be a disorder.
>You would deny marriage to couples who can't procreate?
You misunderstood me. I was speaking about natural basis for marriage, not a prerequisite for it. Its primary purpose was the above mentioned. There is no such basis, since no such purpose can ever be achieved in a homosexual union. This is why it doesn't even resemble marriage.
>having kids in a stable union outside of marriage *doesn't* build society?
It does, but kids are generally better of in a family with both father and mother. Not divorced, not abandoned, not with a single parent. A union of man and a woman which is not legalized resembles marriage and is probably acceptable for the development of kids, unlike homosexual unions which doesn't and isn't.
>Marriage existed LONG before christianity, or even judaism.
Yes, it did. Well, depends on what you regard as Judaism.
>[Shroud of Turin] is certainly not proof that Jesus was in any way divine.
There are documentaries on youtube that explain why the shroud is inexplicable (ie miraculous). I reckon you have looked it up at least, so thank you for checking out my references.
>all how that people will check their brains at the door and latch onto the latest craze.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by this, but I'll give it a shot: A man testifies he was friends with Christ, and saw miracles He preformed, and then goes to preach it and dies a martyr death for it. Now imagine eleven of such people. And I'm not even talking now about all those who haven't saw Jesus in the flesh.
>In other words, a later observation affects whether the particle previously interfered with itself. (...) we do not require a "prime mover" or "creator".
No, it's not "later observation" - the cause of the manifestation of just one of the dual natures of the photons is the "observation" itself, and it doesn't succeed the effect as you'd like it to be (as I understand, observation is made in the slit). So the cause-effect order is undisturbed, thus your conclusion (the thing after the three dots) does not follow.
"most self-laudatory pieces of crap"
Oh, wait, you said crap. That means I'm wrong.
"abdicating personal responsibility for coming up with ones own ethics, and any consequences thereof."
Homosexuality is objectively disordered, and marriage is a union with a distinct purpose of procreation, and it builds society. This is why it's - according to natural law - defined as union of the opposite sexes. If you'd like a homosexual union, you'd have to look outside the above mentioned institution of marriage.
I'll just skip to where you address my arguments, hope you don't mind.
1. The shroud of Turin is quite convincing when considered objectively. Also, the witnesses and quick rise of the new religion (which usually takes a lot to build). If you want to question the eyewitnesses, consider they died for the cause.
2. Excuse me, can you please elaborate what does the double slit experiment have to do with disproving causality? Please note that I am familiar with the experiment, so no need to explain what it does.
The uncaused cause needs to be... without a cause. There's a hint in what you say following in the second part of your "nr. 2". God is not subject to the physical laws (he is their creator). If we take that space-time is one, and created at the "time" of the big bang, we see that its cause cannot be bound by the laws it has created.
"Experiments show our current level of understanding is sufficient to dismiss any god as a cause or creator."
I'm sorry, but now you're just making stuff up. Your previous arguments were weak, but now you begin to offer none for your claims.
I'm sure if you took a few minutes, you could further demonstrate your total ignorance about the person of Jesus, a gap you fill in with your own (mis)understanding, and (mis)interpretation.
1 Cor. 13 is one of the greatest prose works in history of humanity (no wonder since it's inspired by Holy Spirit), and to its greatness testify many non-Christians. Believe me, the saint didn't want to pat himself on the back (projection comes to mind, sry), but rather diminish the the great, even miraculous works in favor of "simple" Love which is the goal.
I'm not familiar of the song "Lord, it's hard to be humble", but the title doesn't suggest (at least to me) "I am humble, I rock", but rather "I'm not, sorry, and give me strength".
That being said, I was talking about what should be a real Christian motivation to do good, which you fail to address (if that was your intent).
*Proof for God: Cosmological argument is convincing (see perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument - haven't read this article, but from what I saw, it explains it).
*Proof of Christ Jesus' sonship: The only Man in history resurrected.
*The rest just follows given the teachings of that same Christ.
I'm not burdening you with necessity of being a holy Christian. Neither is God. But that is a rational choice.
Ignorance is not bliss. The "tree of knowledge" is not the name of it. It's the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". It's metaphorical, and a symbol of choice. The act of eating of it is symbol of disobedience (tasting of evil?), followed by a natural punishment (sin separates you from God). Christians should not be stupid, in fact, greatest thinkers were Christian.
Even Lady Gaga is now more popular than Jesus (except this Christmas time perhaps). But in the long run, there isn't a more influential philosopher, or a greater inspiration for art, than Christ.
Notice he said "Catholicism" and "Protestantism" and not "Catholics", and "Protestants" - even though, I admit I would complain in the latter case as well because I wanted to bring up doctrine each of the groups subscribe to.
The truth of statements I have presented about *Catholicism* is verifiable in the official doctrine of the Church, and about *Protestantism* by research about the doctrines of the majority of them (since they differ in teaching, as pointed out by others).
To expound now on what I previously said in the light of what you added: The guilt we feel when we sin should (primarily?) be the product of our love for God whose will we disregard when we sin. Its source is also conscience which I believe is more refined in Christ seekers (I'm not talking about nominally Christians as a whole) than the moral and ethics of the world. Again, not punishment, but love & conscience.
Any difference between behavior expected of subscribers to Catholic teachings, and that observed in nominally Catholics, it can be a product of what is called "bad spirituality" - another one of Satans traps (ie he convinces you you cannot be forgiven, even though it's not true).
Let me see if you will understand the following comparison: "Oil and water", or "darkness and light", or "Christ and Belial".
What I'm saying is that a dirty soul cannot stand in presence of the Triple Holy. It's not just made up relative rules, it's the nature of things. I've been told you'd suffer even more in Heaven in front of God if in mortal sin, seeing Him, then in Hell, separated.
And it is a sacrifice if God lets you off by giving you another chance, washing your filth with His blood, ready to forgive you and give you a new life and a Holy Spirit to guide you in your path to sainthood.
Again, noone is pushing you, you still have free will, you're free to reject the gratis sacrifice. But don't blame God for it then!
P.S. If you knew Corinthians chapter 13, you wouldn't say Christians are thought to do good deeds just to avoid "punishment".
Orthodox still.. let's say 'more directly' trace their roots from Apostles, as do Catholics. Anglicans have, as I understand, nullified their priesthood after their separation (not sure if it's heresy or the mere fact of schism). Orthodox priesthood is, in contrast, acknowledged by the Catholic Church, and also then their sacraments are valid.
Also, Anglicans are one, and protestants another thing. They call themselves protestant, but even then, they are only one of many denominations. And a majority of them does not share their views, and have no pastors "ordained" by priests in their roots.
"One is that faith alone is necessary, one is that faith alone is sufficient".
Can you clarify the difference?
Update: The icon has loaded.
That'd take billions of years.
Still more catchy phrases that are not true. :-P
Protestants, as I have pointed out earlier, do not believe in "work", but faith alone. In their view, work only confirms faith (from which it comes). While we (Catholics) see work and faith as cooperating (see James again).
As for the second line from the T-shirt, I don't believe God "punishes" people on earth - that's what final judgment is for. He does however "school" you, but all experiences are for your own interest, and if you won't cooperate, you have free will - up until death, when God will acknowledge you set your mind to - well Hell (ie. refusal of God). God paid a price of sin in His only begotten Son, and if we trust onto Him, and confess our sins, we can be forgiven. Penance is voluntary on Earth, mandatory "only" if not done on Earth in Purgatory (see Corinthians) - prior to Heaven (for which one must be perfect).
Again, Protestants see it differently
P.S. About CHRISTians: There is a big difference between those who view Christ(grk. Messiah) as only a servant (ONLY a Chosen One and ONLY a Man), and those who also know He is also a Son of God in true sense (as mentioned in John 1).
Since Mormons and LDS' deny the latter(so they don't believe in Trinity as we defined it), they are not considered Christians by either Catholic nor Protestant standards .
Catholics (if true), are by definition Christians. Main fractions of Christianity is: Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants(basically, all other). The first two having apostolic and historic roots (ie go all the way back to apostles and first Christians) separated in 1054. :-)
What protestant claim is due to their "sola fide"(eng. faith alone) doctrine, which is an innovation introduced at the time of the conception of Protestantism (16th ct.). Since they claim it's in the Bible (while we, Catholics, claim the exact opposite is), they regard all who do not adhere to this belief are heretics, and that is probably why some fundamentalists deem us not Christians, since we believe in salvation through grace, with man's works cooperating with his faith (and not just faith alone - as st. James in his epistle also says(in 2:24): "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" - of course, they 'interpret' it differently).
Statues mentioned below, as well as images (which, of course, we do not worship nor do I think Protestants think that) are not relevant for the above view, although it is also a matter of dispute.
In short: Catholics are as Christian as it gets. And then there's other Christians
Is IE still distributed with the OS or not?
I'm simply outraged, I don't know what to write. Dr., it's not your place to play with minds of children. Do your job well and fair, or quit it.
Had you thrown in few links into the story, and had we had a page where these comments became articles, this would've been a classic in my book.
Thx for the info
The code mentioned on the linked page:
for(ss = s->ss; ss; ss = ss->ss)
I'm sorry, but that's obviously moving through a linked list untill the end (NULL == false) pointer.
We never had a battle of user-side scripting languages. I think one is in order, don't you think?
And the rich get richer, and slave-driving gets different names - currently: outsourcing.
You are solely responsible if you are one.
Something stinks in the state of World.
First John Paul II is omitted, then Obama included, and now you want Torvalds?
A peace prize for global collaboration on a kernel? While impressive, the fact that Torvalds managed to harness the power of the free software community is far from deserving a peace prize. Not to mention it's not *he* who authored "Free software, free society". GPL and software freedom is means to improving "his kernel" for Torvalds, not necessarily a goal itself. That's what I gathered on the interwebs anyway.
In any case: be serious.
Reading first few lines of the blog, perhaps a "FOSS ageism" subject is in order?
Well, there's three (reasonable) things you can do:
1. Have a license with no copyleft [to each his own, and this not to me]
2. Have a license with copyleft incompatible with future GPL licenses, and in case your project gets attention like GPL2-only Linux did, make it impossible to upgrade to a superior license.
3. Trust FSF, and have a normal, copyleft GPL "or later" license with no above problems.
It's your choice, but again, I'd choose (and do) nr. 3.
if GPL then GPL v3 *and higher* (don't forget).
But basically, what you said sums it all up, no need for the questionable article above.
Thanks for the links. If you want, check out my reply there.
The key word here is: decentralization. Get a fresh webapp from a website (say, an instant messenger), and then connect user-to-user, and avoid the middle man. Faster, more secure, more private.
I understand this seems an over-feature for web browsers at this point. But unless there is an objective reason why this should be deprecated, the fact that we're used to browsers the way they are now, doesn't mean that is better for software.
Granted, for most things long polling is sufficient, but for decentralization, a web server is a must. Rationalize to see if fear of the unknown is useful in this case. Try weighing 'security' and privacy, and established standards against the opportunities.
--paxcoder
Why is this any different from the classic thing?
All it does is enables the "server" to send data even if the "client" doesn't request them each time (doesn't refresh). Instead of trusting AJAX code gotten from the server and "refreshing" parts of pages in set intervals, why not just trust the socket which will provide the info necessary for the "refresh"? I don't see any new problem introduced here.
Please explain if you do.
I'd like to thank you for your efforts on behalf of free software lovers who are grateful. :-)
It's modified GPL (v2 only), but GPL non the less and a case pro-free software.
Rooting for you, be sure to win