Ah yes. And we should ask ourself why we so passively submit to their identification schemes. Why should I wear their logo. Should my identity be overlaid with theirs? Sounds to me like it runs counter to slashdotism.
Ah. But the system will just as readily sustain freedom of religious expression. If somebody doesn't like what I understand the Bible to teach, with freenet that's too bad. I can still present it and if someone wishes to weigh the matter for themselves, they can. For this reason I find Freenet to be a philosophically stimulating development. Akook may use data from Freenet to build a bomb or indulge in self-destructive sexual behaviors. But they may just as readily, even in a potentially controlled information setting, bypass such control and have free access to religious ideas. We may one day conclude that Freenet was one of the best friends of the constitution that ever came along. We do live in a post-copyright world, and I am glad about that. Some just haven't figured it out yet.
Sure. Non-theists can claim they have a basis for morality all day long. But haven't seen such a claim that can stand up and hold water.
An authentic Christian faith does, yes, admit man's fall, but it also describes the vivid reality of heaven's plan to repair him here and now. The potential to rise ever higher is always there. That is, in authentic Christian faith. Superstition resides more in the caricature of what the Bible teaches than in what the Bible teaches. You new "gods" are poor caricaturists. The Bible is open source. Anyone who wants to can go to them. If one wants to bring the dirty lense provided by the current age, be my guest. But if your mind is closed, don't expect much.
The old superstition is what many think Christianity is, as opposed to what it really is. The authentic faith of the Scriptures is ever new. The lie is the fallacy that there is some kind of virtue in calling one's self an atheist. A non-theist is by nature a philosophical materialist, and in a universe where there is no moral right and wrong, an "intellectually honest" atheist can have nothing going for him.
Stuck. When we subscribe to the anti-theistic philosophical core provided by evolution--which provides us with a necessarily amoral outlook--we are stuck without hope. In the tech breakthroughs we note the steady buzzing continual drone of supposed hope, while the outcome leads inevitably to dystopia--the only thing we can imagine in a godless world. Could it be that there are other solutions? Could it be that Genesis 11:5-6 is true? That a race morally warped from the fall, were it to be left unhelped, would only ultimately destroy itself? Could it be that at the end of the pitiful onward-gushing abyss of antitheism there is nothing but a dark wall at the end of a hallway of nothingness? There is another road, in which God intervenes, wraps up the sin problem once and for all, leaves us with our freedom of choice intact, and we all go on marching off to grow and learn more. Don't think that religion as commonly conceived necessarily means empty-minded harp-playing on clouds for eternity. A robot is not made in God's image, and it has no where to go. We are made in God's image, but born broken, which situation heaven intends not to leave us in. How fascinating it is to watch the light at the end of the antitheistic tunnel looking more and more like an onrushing locomotive. Whether we see the dark wall or the headlight of doom, either end is the wrong one. Hope is informed. Hope is sustained. Hope is apocalyptic. Hope is theistic. Dystopia is anthropocentric. What a choice.
Umm. The only problem is that "soul" has been misdefined--at least not biblically. defined. Biblically, the dust of the ground (physical component) + the breath of life (spiritual component) = "a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). Hence, a "soul" is not some kind of eternal immaterial essence, but a very concrete construct. People do not "have" souls, they "are" souls. When they die, the breath of life goes back to God who gave it and the dust/physical component goes back to the ground (Ecclesiastes 12:7). At this point there is no "soul," nor will be until a resurrection of the body occurs.
Of course, I am aware that this flies in the face of the established dogma of much of conventional Christendom. But you see, God open-sourced the Bible, i.e., He gave the "source code" to everyone so that we needn't rely upon the philosophically-based and biased dogma-applications imposed upon the Word of God by those substituing the commandments of God with the commandments of men. That kind of poor "theology" is like a bad-browser that can't display the source-code correctly.
The immortality assumptions of Greek philosophy that were melded into conventional Christianity around the fourth century A.D. contradict the explicit teaching of Scripture regarding the nature of man, who is truly only a being bearing conditional immortality. The highly speculative article that spawned this train of remarks deals only with physical transference. But science has no access point to the ruach, the breath of life that God uses to bring life into the carbon form and thus cause to become "a living soul."
Umm. The only problem is that "soul" has been misdefined--at least not biblically. defined. Biblically, the dust of the ground (physical component) + the breath of life (spiritual component) = "a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). Hence, a "soul" is not some kind of eternal immaterial essence, but a very concrete construct. People do not "have" souls, they "are" souls. When they die, the breath of life goes back to God who gave it and the dust/physical component goes back to the ground (Ecclesiastes 12:7). At this point there is no "soul," nor will be until a resurrection of the body occurs.
Of course, I am aware that this flies in the face of the established dogma of much of conventional Christendom. But you see, God open-sourced the Bible, i.e., He gave the "source code" to everyone so that we needn't rely upon the philosophically-based and biased dogma-applications imposed upon the Word of God by those substituing the commandments of God with the commandments of men. That kind of poor "theology" is like a bad-browser that can't display the source-code correctly.
The immortality assumptions of Greek philosophy that were melded into conventional Christianity around the fourth century A.D. contradict the explicit teaching of Scripture regarding the nature of man, who is truly only a being bearing conditional immortality. The highly speculative article that spawned this train of remarks deals only with physical transference. But science has no access point to the ruach, the breath of life that God uses to bring life into the carbon form and thus cause to become "a living soul."
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes. And we should ask ourself why we so passively submit to their identification schemes. Why should I wear their logo. Should my identity be overlaid with theirs? Sounds to me like it runs counter to slashdotism.
Ah. But the system will just as readily sustain freedom of religious expression. If somebody doesn't like what I understand the Bible to teach, with freenet that's too bad. I can still present it and if someone wishes to weigh the matter for themselves, they can. For this reason I find Freenet to be a philosophically stimulating development. Akook may use data from Freenet to build a bomb or indulge in self-destructive sexual behaviors. But they may just as readily, even in a potentially controlled information setting, bypass such control and have free access to religious ideas. We may one day conclude that Freenet was one of the best friends of the constitution that ever came along. We do live in a post-copyright world, and I am glad about that. Some just haven't figured it out yet.
Sure. Non-theists can claim they have a basis for morality all day long. But haven't seen such a claim that can stand up and hold water.
An authentic Christian faith does, yes, admit man's fall, but it also describes the vivid reality of heaven's plan to repair him here and now. The potential to rise ever higher is always there. That is, in authentic Christian faith. Superstition resides more in the caricature of what the Bible teaches than in what the Bible teaches. You new "gods" are poor caricaturists. The Bible is open source. Anyone who wants to can go to them. If one wants to bring the dirty lense provided by the current age, be my guest. But if your mind is closed, don't expect much.
The old superstition is what many think Christianity is, as opposed to what it really is. The authentic faith of the Scriptures is ever new. The lie is the fallacy that there is some kind of virtue in calling one's self an atheist. A non-theist is by nature a philosophical materialist, and in a universe where there is no moral right and wrong, an "intellectually honest" atheist can have nothing going for him.
Stuck. When we subscribe to the anti-theistic philosophical core provided by evolution--which provides us with a necessarily amoral outlook--we are stuck without hope. In the tech breakthroughs we note the steady buzzing continual drone of supposed hope, while the outcome leads inevitably to dystopia--the only thing we can imagine in a godless world. Could it be that there are other solutions? Could it be that Genesis 11:5-6 is true? That a race morally warped from the fall, were it to be left unhelped, would only ultimately destroy itself? Could it be that at the end of the pitiful onward-gushing abyss of antitheism there is nothing but a dark wall at the end of a hallway of nothingness? There is another road, in which God intervenes, wraps up the sin problem once and for all, leaves us with our freedom of choice intact, and we all go on marching off to grow and learn more. Don't think that religion as commonly conceived necessarily means empty-minded harp-playing on clouds for eternity. A robot is not made in God's image, and it has no where to go. We are made in God's image, but born broken, which situation heaven intends not to leave us in. How fascinating it is to watch the light at the end of the antitheistic tunnel looking more and more like an onrushing locomotive. Whether we see the dark wall or the headlight of doom, either end is the wrong one. Hope is informed. Hope is sustained. Hope is apocalyptic. Hope is theistic. Dystopia is anthropocentric. What a choice.
Umm. The only problem is that "soul" has been misdefined--at least not biblically. defined. Biblically, the dust of the ground (physical component) + the breath of life (spiritual component) = "a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). Hence, a "soul" is not some kind of eternal immaterial essence, but a very concrete construct. People do not "have" souls, they "are" souls. When they die, the breath of life goes back to God who gave it and the dust/physical component goes back to the ground (Ecclesiastes 12:7). At this point there is no "soul," nor will be until a resurrection of the body occurs.
Of course, I am aware that this flies in the face of the established dogma of much of conventional Christendom. But you see, God open-sourced the Bible, i.e., He gave the "source code" to everyone so that we needn't rely upon the philosophically-based and biased dogma-applications imposed upon the Word of God by those substituing the commandments of God with the commandments of men. That kind of poor "theology" is like a bad-browser that can't display the source-code correctly.
The immortality assumptions of Greek philosophy that were melded into conventional Christianity around the fourth century A.D. contradict the explicit teaching of Scripture regarding the nature of man, who is truly only a being bearing conditional immortality. The highly speculative article that spawned this train of remarks deals only with physical transference. But science has no access point to the ruach, the breath of life that God uses to bring life into the carbon form and thus cause to become "a living soul."
theologian_on/.Umm. The only problem is that "soul" has been misdefined--at least not biblically. defined. Biblically, the dust of the ground (physical component) + the breath of life (spiritual component) = "a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). Hence, a "soul" is not some kind of eternal immaterial essence, but a very concrete construct. People do not "have" souls, they "are" souls. When they die, the breath of life goes back to God who gave it and the dust/physical component goes back to the ground (Ecclesiastes 12:7). At this point there is no "soul," nor will be until a resurrection of the body occurs.
Of course, I am aware that this flies in the face of the established dogma of much of conventional Christendom. But you see, God open-sourced the Bible, i.e., He gave the "source code" to everyone so that we needn't rely upon the philosophically-based and biased dogma-applications imposed upon the Word of God by those substituing the commandments of God with the commandments of men. That kind of poor "theology" is like a bad-browser that can't display the source-code correctly.
The immortality assumptions of Greek philosophy that were melded into conventional Christianity around the fourth century A.D. contradict the explicit teaching of Scripture regarding the nature of man, who is truly only a being bearing conditional immortality. The highly speculative article that spawned this train of remarks deals only with physical transference. But science has no access point to the ruach, the breath of life that God uses to bring life into the carbon form and thus cause to become "a living soul."
theologian_/.