Incidentally, it also means that you believe that anyone that does not share your Faith *deserves* to be *tortured for eternity*, but probably you will fail to see how this is outright evil
Well, yes and no. On the one side, we all deserve eternal separation from God, for we have all sinned. God grants us grace, purchased through the sacrifice of His Son, which spares those of us who choose to believe in that sacrifice that separate. Whether faith comes first followed by works, or if the works bring about faith, the key point is that faith is the necessary element by which we are saved. Those who place their faith in their works, rather than in sacrifice of Jesus are those to whom the gift of grace will not be extended.
But that's brain on religion for you: irony impaired among other things.
Oh, the irony wasn't lost on me. In fact my initial read on the quote probably aligned pretty well with your reading of it (of course I think you may have set me up for that;). I actually had to read it several times (taking into account who St. Augustine was and looking at some of his other quotes) before I came to (what I believe to be) a better understanding of his meaning.
Oh, and one question? In what way is atheism not a religion? You may not hold worship services, but beyond that, I see little evidence it is anything other than just another belief system. Others have tried to explain the difference to me, but none ever satisfactorily. Why are all other belief systems religious, but atheism is not? Just wondering.
The fact that there has been a big meeting and they decided once and for all which was the Real Word of God (TM) does not lend more credibility to Christianity
You're free not to believe it if you so choose. Why do you begrudge me and the millions of Christians who do choose to believe it the right to do so?
The scriptures are ambiguous (are you saved by works or by faith?)
There may appear to be ambiguities, though your example isn't really a good one -- faith comes first; works demonstrate the faith and if there is no works to demonstrate the faith, there never really was any faith... it was dead). A better one, which has resulted in heretical teaching arises from the apparent conflict between the loving nature of God and His just nature. Emphasis on the former lead to the Health and Wealth Theology which essentially says God is my sugar daddy who won't let me suffer. Emphasis on the latter in the early to mid-twentieth century lead to emphasis on God's punishment (Fire & Brimstone), which lead followers to fear God's wrath, rather than accept His love... they therefore followed out of fear, not love. The results of each need to be measured against the relevant metrics in the Bible; both come up short. There is a balance which is perfected in God in a way we cannot completely understand nor can we attain.
"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe."
Now who's selectively choosing quotes to confirm a belief system? Have you read any of his other quotes? Which of them have you rejected?
My reading on this: I have faith Jesus is my Savior; my reward is that I will one day see Him. I suspect your interpretation is somewhat more cynical. I wonder whose is closer to St. Augustine's original intent...
So, should I still stone my neighbors to death because they are having sex without being married? Should I suffer the witch at the local occult store to live or not? Tricky decisions indeed...
Jesus taught on this subject, and practiced it. Unrepentant sin should be removed from the Church so the work of the Church will not be hindered. If a member of the Church is engaged in sexual immorality, or is practicing witchcraft, and they are unwilling to repent when confronted, they are to be removed from the Church, but are also to be welcomed back if they do repent. If the society requires additional action taken against such people, there is the civil and criminal justice system. So, you seem to be confusing the civil / criminal justice system and the responsibility of the Church to police itself so it may effectively minister to the community.
That's not to say there haven't been instances where sin has been tolerated in the Church; it has. But that tolerance is contrary to the Biblical doctrine on proper Church governance.
What does it take to change your mind?
Interesting question, and I took a while to think about how to respond. So, I think I have to start at the beginning.
I consider as axiomatic two articles of faith:
1) There is an objective reality which exists independent of my ability to sense it; that is, it exists whether or not I can sense it.
2) My senses, either directly, or indirectly (through artificial means or through the observations of others) relay to me meaningful information about some portion of that objective reality.
From these initial articles of faith, there is a sound chain of logic, supporting my belief in objective moral standards, God as creator not only of the physical universe and laws of nature, but that objective moral standard as well, and the necessity of a Savior. The Bible is the only document which is consistent with that train of logic and I therefore believe it to be revealed Truth. There's obviously more to the argument than this. Still it raises the issue of how I should deal with apparent contradictions between what the Bible says and observations within the physical realm. What I have concluded is that there is no contradiction, only lack of understanding either of the meaning of the observations recorded (assuming they were reliably recorded) or a lack of understanding on the meaning of the applicable Biblical passages, or most often a mix of the two.
So, back to your question. I suppose what you're going to have to do to convince me that I'm wrong is to convince me that my initial articles of faith are fundamentally flawed. Without them, my entire belief system dissolves into nothingness.
Ultimately everyone can believe whatever they want about the meaning of these texts, religions continue to split, and your beliefs are no more accurate than those of any other religious person, regardless of religion, denomination or flavour.
I can see where you might think so, but it's not as simple as that. Core Christian belief is summarized in the Nicene Creed which is derived from the Biblical texts which were available at the time of its writing. It has stood the test of time as being consistent with the Bible and is therefore a reasonable statement defining essential and orthodox Christian belief. If somebody calls themselves a Christian, they by definition believe this creed; if they don't believe it in its entirety, they are by definition not a Christian.
What you're refering to deals with differences in the way the rest of the Bible is interpretted and has resulted in the creation of various Christian denomonations. Different denominations will interpret different Scriptures to mean different things in a manner that does not detract from the overall truth of the Bible... so when I talk about context, I mean that Scripture should be interpretted in a manner which is consistent; where there are apparent inconsistencies (e.g. election vs. free will) these are open issues which I expect won't be resolved until we have the opportunity to ask God what's what. These apparent contradictions do not, however detract from the underlying creed.
Where you see this as a problem, I see it as adding to the diversity of thought within the body of Christian belief, and provides Christians with the opportunity to expand their perspective. However, it's important that Scripture be interpreted consistently. There are sects and even entire denominations teaching heresies (e.g. "health and wealth theology" and "liberation theology") since what they teach is demonstrably inconsistent with what is recorded in the Bible; people believe them not because they are Scripturally sound, but because they feel they should be true. This doesn't mean they are not Christian; only that they believe things which contradict portions of the Bible not specifically related to core Christian belief. I'm not trying to minimize this. These heresies undermine the message of Christ, and are damaging the effectiveness of the Church to be about God's work and they need to be corrected if the Church is to remain viable in the U.S.
For a better view of orthodox Christian doctrine, consider reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. I've not really done it justice here.
That the Old Testament does not apply to modern Christian is YOUR interpretation and not the one of many modern Christian.
I didn't say the Old Testament no longer applied... what I said is that its primary value was to place in context the events and philosophy described in the New Testament.
ALL my Muslim friends are fantastic, nice and tolerant people, not unlike most Christian you may meet in, say, Italy. The problem, is that religion can be easily used for political agendas and there are crazy Muslims, not unlike the Christians you may meet in the US.
I won't dispute your experiences; you are after all closer to them than am I. I will say that if we don't influence political processes based on what we value, then what's the point in having the values in the first place? We can bicker over who's values are "better" but don't tell me you don't vote to support positions consistent with your values any more or less than I vote to support positions I value.
I'm not Jewish, and I expect if you were to ask representatives from different Jewish faith communities, you would get different answers. For me, if they were to be logically consistent in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, it seems they should still be practicing what is written in Leviticus. The only exception which could be argued though regards the sacrificial system. Under the Levitical Law, sacrifices were to be performed at the Tabernacle or, later, the Temple. Since the Temple's destruction in 70AD, there has been no place to actually perform the sacrifices, and those sacrifices were stopped around that time.
... how they pick & choose from their supposedly "holy book", ignore the stuff that's no longer considered acceptable and focus on the stuff that still is.
It's not a matter of picking and choosing; it's putting things into their proper context and perspective. That which God defined as sin is still sin; what has changed is the manner in which it is atoned for. Jesus says He is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets and He specifically says He's not abolishing the Law. He took upon Himself the punishment of the sins we have committed so the eternal separation from God we deserve will not come to pass for those who have trusted in Jesus as their Savior.
If there is stuff in the "holy book" that does not apply anymore - why has it not been removed?
Well, a couple of issues here. The most practical is who is to going to judge which of Gods Words are no longer applicable? Another issue is that orthodox Christianity has never proclaimed that any of the canonical Old Testament is in any way no longer applicable (though I suppose you could argue that the Apocrypha may be a non-canonical portion of the Old Testament which different groups of Christians view with different degrees of authority). Still, when Moses penned the Torah, he did it for the Israelites God led out of captivity in Egypt as a manual for how they were to live their lives in service to Him. The Old Testament is filled with references to the decedents of Jacob as God's chosen people... they were chosen to be a holy people through whom the Messiah would come to benefit not just Jews, but all people. From that perspective, there is every reason to keep that content in so we know the context into which Jesus came and how He fulfilled the Law.
... the bible has been reworked several times throughout history...
So, you have extensively studied this, or is this just what you've heard from your friends? If the former, perhaps you would be willing to cite some reputable sources.
I think you're overstating the problem somewhat. There is certainly a very visible group who are doing as you say, and they may even form a majority of contemporary Christians in the United States. This is covered in considerable detail in books like Bad Religion and Counterfeit Gods. But the fact that those who call themselves Christians are failing to live up to the message of Christ in no way diminishes that message. In fact it only confirms that we are unable to live up to the standards God has established and are in need of a Savior.
Furthermore, if you take a look at Christian communities in persecuted areas such as India, China and predominantly Muslim countries, I think you will see that ideal being worked out much more closely to that which Christ intended than in areas where persecution of Christian belief is rare.
Leviticus is the law God commended for the Jews, not for Christians; it may have defined what sin is, but the punishment system it established was abandoned through the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. The only temporal punishment proposed in the New Testament applies to members of the Church who are unrepentant in some sin in their lives. They are to be banned from future fellowship until they do repent. Not killed, not tortured, but treated in love and welcomed back when / if they repent.
Sorry, but I'm not kidding. When I read the Bible, I see things like the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus admonishes Christians to love their enemies. Christian orthodoxy requires adherents to spread the gospel, but to do so through teaching and preaching the Word in love, as the Apostle Paul did throughout the Book of Acts and more recently as Martin Luther King did during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. There have been times in history when this approach was not used, when violence and intimidation were instead used. Use of violence and other forms of coercion is not supported anywhere in the New Testament and historical uses of it have consistently demonstrated its failure to bring about any meaningful conversion.
God's commandments in the Old Testament for the descendents of Israel to enter and occupy the Promised Land were to the Jews, not to Christians, and are therefore not part of how a Christian should spread Christianity.
Just because your district didn't have access to, or permit students to use otherwise available resources, doesn't mean others districts didn't have such resources and and exploit their educational value as early as the mid to late 1970's. My HS had a DEC PDP-11/34 running RSTS/E prior to 1978. It was used for many things in addition to education, and I expect the town probably worked out a deal with DEC to get it at a reduced cost.
If he gets paid, he's paying taxes to support the military and presumably using modern banking services which support the financial industry. If he's really concerned about such things he should just stop working and get on the public dole so he can leach off the labors of others as he apparently has no ethical issues with that.
Personally, I think the poster should learn something about economics and history from non-revisionist sources before trashing the finance and defense.
The Qt SDK has an option to be used with LGPL v 2.1 which will allow developers to release proprietary executables without being required to release their source code. Source release is only required if the developers make changes to the Qt SDK itself, which usually shouldn't be an issue. There's also a commercial license available if even this is too onerous.
Granted, but by the same token physics is physics. The big notion I've taken away from his description of space battles is that regardless of the technology, it's all about occupying a point in space at a point in time and that superior acceleration is key to doing so better than your opponent. While most of the weapons he discusses are very far advanced relative to what we can produce (though bomb pumbed X-ray lasers are straight out of SDI in the 1980's) he frames the discussion in terms of Newtonian and Relativistic physics (until he gets into FTL realms at least) which is, as I mentioned, a place to start.
The Keynesian system of economics fails to model reality well because it's seriously flawed.
Except that the US (probably no other country on earth, for that matter) has never followed the Keynesian approach, so there's insufficient data to determine its validity. Certainly one side of the model has been practiced (and shown not to work when applied in isolation) namely that during an economic downturn, a government should enter into a phase of deficit spending to help stabilize the economy. What is generally not done, but is a critically important aspect of the Keynesian approach, is that during times of economic prosperity, governments should be banking their surpluses so they will have the resources to moderate a downturn without being overly encumbered with debt.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of what you're saying, but Keynesian economic policy has rarely been practiced at a national level, so it's hard to say whether or not it's seriously flawed.
While the article is mainly about problems with economic models, the researcher initially noted this problem while modeling geophysical processes he was developing for oil exploration. Climate models have this same underlying problem, namely that there are a large number of tightly coupled variables that chaotically interact. They can only be calibrated with historical records. They then must be recalibrated when the predictions diverge from reality, which is exactly the same problem he observed in both the geophysical and economic modeling he investigated.
... no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence
If they deny the fall, then they also necessarily deny the existence of sin. Therefore, in their worldview, the death of Jesus on the cross accomplished nothing, meaning these scientists are not Evangelical Christians.
Slashdot Mirror
Incidentally, it also means that you believe that anyone that does not share your Faith *deserves* to be *tortured for eternity*, but probably you will fail to see how this is outright evil
Well, yes and no. On the one side, we all deserve eternal separation from God, for we have all sinned. God grants us grace, purchased through the sacrifice of His Son, which spares those of us who choose to believe in that sacrifice that separate. Whether faith comes first followed by works, or if the works bring about faith, the key point is that faith is the necessary element by which we are saved. Those who place their faith in their works, rather than in sacrifice of Jesus are those to whom the gift of grace will not be extended.
But that's brain on religion for you: irony impaired among other things.
Oh, the irony wasn't lost on me. In fact my initial read on the quote probably aligned pretty well with your reading of it (of course I think you may have set me up for that;). I actually had to read it several times (taking into account who St. Augustine was and looking at some of his other quotes) before I came to (what I believe to be) a better understanding of his meaning.
Oh, and one question? In what way is atheism not a religion? You may not hold worship services, but beyond that, I see little evidence it is anything other than just another belief system. Others have tried to explain the difference to me, but none ever satisfactorily. Why are all other belief systems religious, but atheism is not? Just wondering.
The fact that there has been a big meeting and they decided once and for all which was the Real Word of God (TM) does not lend more credibility to Christianity
You're free not to believe it if you so choose. Why do you begrudge me and the millions of Christians who do choose to believe it the right to do so?
The scriptures are ambiguous (are you saved by works or by faith?)
There may appear to be ambiguities, though your example isn't really a good one -- faith comes first; works demonstrate the faith and if there is no works to demonstrate the faith, there never really was any faith ... it was dead). A better one, which has resulted in heretical teaching arises from the apparent conflict between the loving nature of God and His just nature. Emphasis on the former lead to the Health and Wealth Theology which essentially says God is my sugar daddy who won't let me suffer. Emphasis on the latter in the early to mid-twentieth century lead to emphasis on God's punishment (Fire & Brimstone), which lead followers to fear God's wrath, rather than accept His love... they therefore followed out of fear, not love. The results of each need to be measured against the relevant metrics in the Bible; both come up short. There is a balance which is perfected in God in a way we cannot completely understand nor can we attain.
"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe."
Now who's selectively choosing quotes to confirm a belief system? Have you read any of his other quotes? Which of them have you rejected?
My reading on this: I have faith Jesus is my Savior; my reward is that I will one day see Him. I suspect your interpretation is somewhat more cynical. I wonder whose is closer to St. Augustine's original intent...
Which is why ever since christians don't have to worry about sin anymore... oh wait... not quite...
The Apostle Paul has perhaps the best response to this.
So, should I still stone my neighbors to death because they are having sex without being married? Should I suffer the witch at the local occult store to live or not? Tricky decisions indeed...
Jesus taught on this subject, and practiced it. Unrepentant sin should be removed from the Church so the work of the Church will not be hindered. If a member of the Church is engaged in sexual immorality, or is practicing witchcraft, and they are unwilling to repent when confronted, they are to be removed from the Church, but are also to be welcomed back if they do repent. If the society requires additional action taken against such people, there is the civil and criminal justice system. So, you seem to be confusing the civil / criminal justice system and the responsibility of the Church to police itself so it may effectively minister to the community.
That's not to say there haven't been instances where sin has been tolerated in the Church; it has. But that tolerance is contrary to the Biblical doctrine on proper Church governance.
What does it take to change your mind?
Interesting question, and I took a while to think about how to respond. So, I think I have to start at the beginning.
I consider as axiomatic two articles of faith:
1) There is an objective reality which exists independent of my ability to sense it; that is, it exists whether or not I can sense it.
2) My senses, either directly, or indirectly (through artificial means or through the observations of others) relay to me meaningful information about some portion of that objective reality.
From these initial articles of faith, there is a sound chain of logic, supporting my belief in objective moral standards, God as creator not only of the physical universe and laws of nature, but that objective moral standard as well, and the necessity of a Savior. The Bible is the only document which is consistent with that train of logic and I therefore believe it to be revealed Truth. There's obviously more to the argument than this. Still it raises the issue of how I should deal with apparent contradictions between what the Bible says and observations within the physical realm. What I have concluded is that there is no contradiction, only lack of understanding either of the meaning of the observations recorded (assuming they were reliably recorded) or a lack of understanding on the meaning of the applicable Biblical passages, or most often a mix of the two.
So, back to your question. I suppose what you're going to have to do to convince me that I'm wrong is to convince me that my initial articles of faith are fundamentally flawed. Without them, my entire belief system dissolves into nothingness.
Ultimately everyone can believe whatever they want about the meaning of these texts, religions continue to split, and your beliefs are no more accurate than those of any other religious person, regardless of religion, denomination or flavour.
I can see where you might think so, but it's not as simple as that. Core Christian belief is summarized in the Nicene Creed which is derived from the Biblical texts which were available at the time of its writing. It has stood the test of time as being consistent with the Bible and is therefore a reasonable statement defining essential and orthodox Christian belief. If somebody calls themselves a Christian, they by definition believe this creed; if they don't believe it in its entirety, they are by definition not a Christian.
What you're refering to deals with differences in the way the rest of the Bible is interpretted and has resulted in the creation of various Christian denomonations. Different denominations will interpret different Scriptures to mean different things in a manner that does not detract from the overall truth of the Bible ... so when I talk about context, I mean that Scripture should be interpretted in a manner which is consistent; where there are apparent inconsistencies (e.g. election vs. free will) these are open issues which I expect won't be resolved until we have the opportunity to ask God what's what. These apparent contradictions do not, however detract from the underlying creed.
Where you see this as a problem, I see it as adding to the diversity of thought within the body of Christian belief, and provides Christians with the opportunity to expand their perspective. However, it's important that Scripture be interpreted consistently. There are sects and even entire denominations teaching heresies (e.g. "health and wealth theology" and "liberation theology") since what they teach is demonstrably inconsistent with what is recorded in the Bible; people believe them not because they are Scripturally sound, but because they feel they should be true. This doesn't mean they are not Christian; only that they believe things which contradict portions of the Bible not specifically related to core Christian belief. I'm not trying to minimize this. These heresies undermine the message of Christ, and are damaging the effectiveness of the Church to be about God's work and they need to be corrected if the Church is to remain viable in the U.S.
For a better view of orthodox Christian doctrine, consider reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. I've not really done it justice here.
That the Old Testament does not apply to modern Christian is YOUR interpretation and not the one of many modern Christian.
I didn't say the Old Testament no longer applied... what I said is that its primary value was to place in context the events and philosophy described in the New Testament.
ALL my Muslim friends are fantastic, nice and tolerant people, not unlike most Christian you may meet in, say, Italy. The problem, is that religion can be easily used for political agendas and there are crazy Muslims, not unlike the Christians you may meet in the US.
I won't dispute your experiences; you are after all closer to them than am I. I will say that if we don't influence political processes based on what we value, then what's the point in having the values in the first place? We can bicker over who's values are "better" but don't tell me you don't vote to support positions consistent with your values any more or less than I vote to support positions I value.
I'm not Jewish, and I expect if you were to ask representatives from different Jewish faith communities, you would get different answers. For me, if they were to be logically consistent in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, it seems they should still be practicing what is written in Leviticus. The only exception which could be argued though regards the sacrificial system. Under the Levitical Law, sacrifices were to be performed at the Tabernacle or, later, the Temple. Since the Temple's destruction in 70AD, there has been no place to actually perform the sacrifices, and those sacrifices were stopped around that time.
... how they pick & choose from their supposedly "holy book", ignore the stuff that's no longer considered acceptable and focus on the stuff that still is.
It's not a matter of picking and choosing; it's putting things into their proper context and perspective. That which God defined as sin is still sin; what has changed is the manner in which it is atoned for. Jesus says He is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets and He specifically says He's not abolishing the Law. He took upon Himself the punishment of the sins we have committed so the eternal separation from God we deserve will not come to pass for those who have trusted in Jesus as their Savior.
If there is stuff in the "holy book" that does not apply anymore - why has it not been removed?
Well, a couple of issues here. The most practical is who is to going to judge which of Gods Words are no longer applicable? Another issue is that orthodox Christianity has never proclaimed that any of the canonical Old Testament is in any way no longer applicable (though I suppose you could argue that the Apocrypha may be a non-canonical portion of the Old Testament which different groups of Christians view with different degrees of authority). Still, when Moses penned the Torah, he did it for the Israelites God led out of captivity in Egypt as a manual for how they were to live their lives in service to Him. The Old Testament is filled with references to the decedents of Jacob as God's chosen people... they were chosen to be a holy people through whom the Messiah would come to benefit not just Jews, but all people. From that perspective, there is every reason to keep that content in so we know the context into which Jesus came and how He fulfilled the Law.
... the bible has been reworked several times throughout history ...
So, you have extensively studied this, or is this just what you've heard from your friends? If the former, perhaps you would be willing to cite some reputable sources.
This perspective is thoroughly rebutted in The Case for Christ and The Reason for God.
I think you're overstating the problem somewhat. There is certainly a very visible group who are doing as you say, and they may even form a majority of contemporary Christians in the United States. This is covered in considerable detail in books like Bad Religion and Counterfeit Gods. But the fact that those who call themselves Christians are failing to live up to the message of Christ in no way diminishes that message. In fact it only confirms that we are unable to live up to the standards God has established and are in need of a Savior.
Furthermore, if you take a look at Christian communities in persecuted areas such as India, China and predominantly Muslim countries, I think you will see that ideal being worked out much more closely to that which Christ intended than in areas where persecution of Christian belief is rare.
Leviticus is the law God commended for the Jews, not for Christians; it may have defined what sin is, but the punishment system it established was abandoned through the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. The only temporal punishment proposed in the New Testament applies to members of the Church who are unrepentant in some sin in their lives. They are to be banned from future fellowship until they do repent. Not killed, not tortured, but treated in love and welcomed back when / if they repent.
Sorry, but I'm not kidding. When I read the Bible, I see things like the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus admonishes Christians to love their enemies. Christian orthodoxy requires adherents to spread the gospel, but to do so through teaching and preaching the Word in love, as the Apostle Paul did throughout the Book of Acts and more recently as Martin Luther King did during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. There have been times in history when this approach was not used, when violence and intimidation were instead used. Use of violence and other forms of coercion is not supported anywhere in the New Testament and historical uses of it have consistently demonstrated its failure to bring about any meaningful conversion.
God's commandments in the Old Testament for the descendents of Israel to enter and occupy the Promised Land were to the Jews, not to Christians, and are therefore not part of how a Christian should spread Christianity.
And where in Orthodox Christian doctrine or Scriptures does it require its adherents to perform stonings, suicide bombings or killing infidels?
Just because your district didn't have access to, or permit students to use otherwise available resources, doesn't mean others districts didn't have such resources and and exploit their educational value as early as the mid to late 1970's. My HS had a DEC PDP-11/34 running RSTS/E prior to 1978. It was used for many things in addition to education, and I expect the town probably worked out a deal with DEC to get it at a reduced cost.
The whole article is a misprint.
Dad: Max, why does the word "wing" appear twice in this sentence?
Max (6yrs old): Because the B-52 has two wings.
If he gets paid, he's paying taxes to support the military and presumably using modern banking services which support the financial industry. If he's really concerned about such things he should just stop working and get on the public dole so he can leach off the labors of others as he apparently has no ethical issues with that.
Personally, I think the poster should learn something about economics and history from non-revisionist sources before trashing the finance and defense.
The Qt SDK has an option to be used with LGPL v 2.1 which will allow developers to release proprietary executables without being required to release their source code. Source release is only required if the developers make changes to the Qt SDK itself, which usually shouldn't be an issue. There's also a commercial license available if even this is too onerous.
I initially dropped the 'er' in 'bomber' and immediately had visions of Slim Pickins.
Sound's like you're trying to turn the Oscars into the Grammys.
Granted, but by the same token physics is physics. The big notion I've taken away from his description of space battles is that regardless of the technology, it's all about occupying a point in space at a point in time and that superior acceleration is key to doing so better than your opponent. While most of the weapons he discusses are very far advanced relative to what we can produce (though bomb pumbed X-ray lasers are straight out of SDI in the 1980's) he frames the discussion in terms of Newtonian and Relativistic physics (until he gets into FTL realms at least) which is, as I mentioned, a place to start.
David Weber does a fair job at incorporating physics into his space battles... it's a place to start perhaps.
Too bad he won't be around to see North Korea's planned economic strength and prosperity in 2012.
The Keynesian system of economics fails to model reality well because it's seriously flawed.
Except that the US (probably no other country on earth, for that matter) has never followed the Keynesian approach, so there's insufficient data to determine its validity. Certainly one side of the model has been practiced (and shown not to work when applied in isolation) namely that during an economic downturn, a government should enter into a phase of deficit spending to help stabilize the economy. What is generally not done, but is a critically important aspect of the Keynesian approach, is that during times of economic prosperity, governments should be banking their surpluses so they will have the resources to moderate a downturn without being overly encumbered with debt.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of what you're saying, but Keynesian economic policy has rarely been practiced at a national level, so it's hard to say whether or not it's seriously flawed.
While the article is mainly about problems with economic models, the researcher initially noted this problem while modeling geophysical processes he was developing for oil exploration. Climate models have this same underlying problem, namely that there are a large number of tightly coupled variables that chaotically interact. They can only be calibrated with historical records. They then must be recalibrated when the predictions diverge from reality, which is exactly the same problem he observed in both the geophysical and economic modeling he investigated.
If they deny the fall, then they also necessarily deny the existence of sin. Therefore, in their worldview, the death of Jesus on the cross accomplished nothing, meaning these scientists are not Evangelical Christians.