It is true that there are some children who remain in orphanages. That is sad. As a Christian, and someone who is anti-abortion, it breaks my heart that those children are unwanted. However, I take issue strongly with your assertions above.
My church, as an example, provides strong support for an orphanage in Albania. We also provide support for a local crisis pregnancy center, and help fund an abstinence only program in the local county school system.
You may believe that explicit sex education is what is needed, but I would differ with you there.
Abstinence is an option available to everyone, and it is the only way to avoid unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and the emotional consequenses of sexual activity. Contrary to popular belief, it is not life-threatening to not have sex! You may choose to have sex, but choosing not to is another viable choice.
If people are encouraged to look for depth and quality in relationships, and to seek people of character with whom to develop those relationships rather than merely hop in the sack, there will be fewer unwanted kids.
As far as campaigning is concerned, most of the anti-abortion folks that I know are more interested in how they spend their personal dollars to help others rather than looking for the government to help those in need.
I have several friends who are infertile. Some of them are on waiting lists for a child, and it may take years before they are able to adopt. This process is very bureaucratic, costly, and time consuming. It's not all that easy to adopt these kids.
Perhaps something should be done to make it easier to find homes for those kids. What do you think?
Regards, Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please email me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
Thanks, I didn't see the original comment, but I laughed out loud when I saw the response. Sadly, my guess is that too few will enjoy the irony in your posting.
Waitaminnit! I thought that information wanted to be free *and* disseminated.
I thought that having someone filter information from me was to my detriment - after all, how do I know whether that person's bias is in conflict with my philosophy?
Isn't there some disconnect between being rabidly anti-filering on the one hand, and ticked because someone didn't filter a spoiler from you? Some people need to get a life!
But I think that it's important to note that Donald Knuth, like many other brilliant men, is a Christian. Thus, it's unlikely that he would presume himself to be God.
Youdon't have the right to tell me how to behave. Iffyou created me, from your own resources - from nothing - you would have that right.
I'll also take issue with your assertion that my posting contains an a priori assumption that God is perfect. I think you're reading something into what I wrote, merely because we're friends and you know where I stand.
God has the right to define parameters for his creatures solely as a result of the fact that He created us, regardless of whether His behavior is consistent with what He tells us to do.
My point is that we should be thankful that the God who created the universe is not only consistent with the rules that He lays out, but also that He is full of compassion and love for His creatures.
WRT the 'casual reading' of the Hebrew scriptures, much is lost when reading anything from antiquity without context. Irony, sarcasm, sociopolitical references, even caustic epithets can be totally missed. Use at least the same standard of care when reading the OT as you should with any work.
If God was evil and capricious:
1. We would have no basis on which to stand when accusing Him, and
2.We would all have been utterly destroyed many many years ago.
I for one am glad that He is righteous, as well as tender and forgiving for those who recognize their imperfection and ask for His mercy.
Very clever. I give you high marks for style, too.
Your tests require applying the context of your humanity to something superhuman. Once you move from something material to something 'supermaterial' (or perhaps non-material would be more accurate) the physical laws on which you base your tests are no longer applicable. And you know that.
There *are* valid tests within the human context that provide credibility to the claims of Christ. There are no such claims or evidence to back the tooth fairy.
So what you're really saying is that there is no evidence that would be sufficient. Which brings you to the table with a bias that at least equals religious intensity.
Do you admit that you are not open minded to the possibility that God exists?
Morality is imposed by a higher authority. Since there is no higher authority than God, He is not subject to any morality other than His own.
With all due respect, you are skirting the issue that *you* raised. You lifted up the 'reason' issue as a standard for whether a particular position has merit - as if reason was (is) the ultimate standard.
My point is that the human experience is far broader than mere reason. It is unreasonable to try to boil the human experience down to logic and facts alone.
The link to quantification is that in order to use reason, one *must* quantify each of the items to be evaluated. How can you use logic two compare things that cannot be quantified?
My rationale for believing that Jesus is Lord of the universe is based on the evidence that he has provided.
My rationale for rejecting kool-aid as a mechanism to deliver me to aliens is that a) I've seen no evidence that there are aliens, and b)I'm not aware of kool-aid's use as a transport, just as a thirst-quencher.
For you to compare the two that way sounds clever, but it's intellectually dishonest, don't you think?
Can you measure loyalty, love, honor, committment, trust, hope, emotions?
Do you doubt that they exist? Would you discard them as concepts merely because they cannot be quantified?
Here is where we enter into what is perhaps irreconcilable disgreement - To attempt to describe the totality of the human experience in terms that can be rationally expressed is itself irrational - mere folly.
By virture of the fact that He created the universe, He gets to set the rules for his creatures. It's immoral for me to commit adultery because God says it is, and for no other reason.
If God had been created by a greater being, then He could be held to a standard other than his own. Since He has no creator, there is no one for him to be accountable to.
We can be thankful that a perfect and holy God, (who would be defiled by anything less than perfection) has made a way for us - who are clearly imperfect - to still have relationship with him.
I'm grateful that God sent Jesus to die for my sins - and that He gave me the opportunity to have relationship with Him. It's through Christ's perfect life, and His choice to die - taking my punishment, that I can have relationship with a perfect God. (But you knew that already, didn't you?)
With all due respect, I invested a good bit of time in the process of commenting thoughtfully on the problem that MS is currently facing - a topic that directly reated to the issue at hand.
At the end of my posting, I attached one line inviting people to find out more about my faith. The S/N ratio of my posting was very high.
As far as making sure that everyone could find it is concerned, The Bible calls for me to live out my faith. To make it an integral part of my life - to have it affect everything that I do. I'm called to tell others about what God has done for me, and to be prepared to discuss with them the reason for the hope that I have. I strongly believe that inviting people to contact me to learn more about Christianity is a part of my responsibility to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I tell people about Jesus Christ in every part of my life. Since Slashdot posting is a part of my life, I invite people there to contact me to find out more.
WRT being seen by men - I never asserted that I am holy or righteous. In fact, my heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9) just like every one else's. My only hope of being found acceptable by a perfect and Holy God is based on my faith in Jesus' perfect life and sacrifice.
I hope that you find the peace that you are seeking.
I'm sorry that you had an experience related to Christianity that causes you to consider yourself a recovering Christian. Much of what calls itself Christian today bears little resemblance to the movement that overturned the Roman world with no weapons, and shaped the course of history even to this day.
What evidence? Fair question.
How about this: 1. The Bible is more well documented than any other work of antiquity. I'll have to look it up to be sure, but it has at least one, possibly two orders of magnitude more copies than ANY other work. This documents that the consistency of the contents has been maintained over time. We have a VERY high degree of certainty that what we have today is EXTREMELY close to what the original writings contained. This puts to rest many of the theories which claim that the miraculous stories were made up generations after Christ's death.
2. Archaeological evidence is consistently in concert with the writings in the old and new testaments. Again, lending credibility to the overall story told by the biblical writers.
3. Christ's resurrection is so well documented that it can be considered a documented fact - a better documented 'fact' than the lives of any other figure from ancient history.
"Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the greatest authority on legal evidences in the 19th century, came to this very conclusion after a thorough examination of the historical record. The essence of his verdict, as the famous Royall professor of law at Harvard, was that any unbiased jury openly examining the evidence would inevitably come to the conclusion that Christ had risen from the dead. Greenleaf suggested that any cross-examination of the eyewitness testimonies recorded in Scripture would result in an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth." (quote from article at www.equip.org)
The Bible is a unique book - unlike any other - which contains the story of a God who loved mankind enough to become a person, live among us, and be wrongfully put to death. This God conquered death, and through that act, opened the door for restored relationship between a Holy God and unholy mankind.
There is *so* much more that can be said, and I'd be happy to offer more evidence and information if you are interested. We could talk about manuscript evidence, eyewitness evidence, internal and external consistency tests for reliability, prophetic evidence, statistical probability as it relates to the accumulated evidence, and much more.
In fact, I bet we agree on many more things than we disagree on. For example, I think that blind acceptance is foolish, too.
I would like to ask you a question, though: Have you ever really examined the evidence behind Christianity? If not, how can you say that it's blind belief? If so, what did you study?
The God that I serve and worship requires that I use my heart, soul, MIND, and strength in my service to him.
I cannot disconnect my intellect and still be true to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I do live in the real world. In many ways it would be easier for me if there were no God. After all, if there's no right or wrong, then I could merely do as I please with no fear of retribution from anyone other than other people. That would open many doors for me. Since there is an absolute right and wrong, I live within the constraints. That *is* the real world.
I'm not angry with you at all. Defensive? No, just asking why you're so upset.
Engage my brain? Give me something to think about instead of merely lobbing character critisms my way.
You don't even know me - so you really can't say that I'm a jerk, can you? If all Christians are by definition jerks, then which of us is intolerant and bigoted?
Besides, I'm not so keen on religion as I am on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
My relationship with God *is* relevent because it's a part of my world view to go into all the world making disciples of Jesus Christ.
If you had the cure for cancer, would you tell anyone, or fear that they might be offended or consider it off topic? What I have been given is far greater than the cure for cancer, and I can offer that for no charge to others. So I do.
I'm no great student of his, but if I'm not mistaken, Neitzche's point was that our philosphical approach had rendered a transcendent God irrelevant. With all due respect, I beg to differ with him.
Taking score right this minute - Nietzche is dead, God is alive.
And does existentialism make your life more enriched? Is it a world view that works? Are you satisfied with it? Does it fit with the evidence that surrounds you of intelligent design?
Finally, why does my philosophical outlook with respect to God's relevence invalidate my logic?
Surely it may color your opinion of my perspective and my writings, but does it make my logic flawed?
I can remember a time when all of our applications and data were locked into proprietary hardware and software solutions. (Wang word processors, among others.) The next step was to break our dependence on one vendor to supply the limited set of choices.
Today our data can be stored on many different manufacturers' hardware, but we are largely locked in to one vendor's OS because of proprietary file formats. (And the same architecture, to boot.)
Long term I hope that our data is freed from that prison. We continually re-engineer systems to perform the same functions on different platforms because of the mindset imposed by the prison. However, we are a little closer today. Things like SQL allow us to migrate data reliably from one database to another. I can foresee a time when application vendors allow reliable interoperability, but it will be a while.
It also occurs to me that MS is in a bit of a pickle. There was a time when new applications provided greater functionality, and people migrated to them because they were superior, or at least people perceived that the new features were useful enough to justify the change.
Eventually the functionality of the applications on the market increased to the point where they were functionally very similar, and most consumers didn't need much more in the way of application functions.
Outside of a major paradigm shift, I don't think that many people competing with MS need to do much besides catch up. They are getting closer each year. You can't continually embrace and extend because at a certain point, it's just too much trouble. As an example, my MS desktop here at the house has 93 different typefaces. I use about 10. If you gave me 500, I would still use about 10. I just looked at my Linux system, and it has 2200 typefaces installed! I still use about 10.
Even if MS makes their OS and apps do 5000 new and snazzy things, most people simply won't use them. Look at the Outlook-based emails that are sent in Arial or Tahoma, and the documents that are printed in Times New Roman. People stick with the deafult because it's too much to think about to do otherwise. My hope is that we break free from the prison imposed by proprietary interfaces and formats.
Regards, Anomaly
Ps - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
Of course it's my job to filter what goes into my head. I'm not compelled to watch "the man show" or Howard Stern, and I don't.
I'd like to be able to implement a filter that blocks smutty pop-ups, spam, and html that co-opts my browser such that I need to reboot my Windows box to get control back.
I want it to be easy to set up filtering that stops my browser from getting re-directed to porn sites. I want software to stop my browser from going to porn sites when I click on an innocuous link. (And yes, there are innocuous-looking links that point to porn sites.)
If course I have the responsibility to choose what not to observe. I just want tools that make that easier. I don't care if there are sites that espouse hate for men of european descent, or hate of Christians, or hate for men who love their wives or even for that matter zillions of websites portraying sexual acts between consenting adults.
In the US, it's your right to produce whatever content you want to produce (that complies with US law, which is a pretty broad area.) I support your right to produce materials that go against what I believe.
Just don't complain when I ask you not to foist your content upon me. Please understand that there are people who are not interested in your content, and don't try to trick us into visiting your site.
That's my point.
I get frustrated when the 'anti-censorship' crowd thinks that all information is to be shared with all people, and any attempts to slow that down are 'the man' trying to oppress someone.
I find it interesting that you assert many things about me without benefit of direct knowledge of who I am and what I really believe.
What does that say about "close minded" to you?
I know quite well about pornography. I know that there is none in my home, either.
Like most American men, I have seen a great deal of it. Over the years, I intentionally viewed it, and at the time found it enjoyable. Like the cocaine addict, while enjoying it, I was apathetic about the harm it was doing to my perception of sexuality and healthy relationships.
Sex is not bad. Sex is VERY good! Much the same way that food is very good, but if I abuse my body by overeating or undereating it can be harmful. (Another difference is that no one ever died from lack of sex.)
I enjoy sex with my wife very much. I teach my kids that sex in the context of marriage can be a wonderful thing. When you are emotionally connected and committed to your lover, sex is exponentially better than mere orgasm. Studies have shown that the most sexually satisfied women are married Christian women. This is because they are enjoying the benefits of what sex was intended to be - in a committed marriage relationship!
Pornography and masturbation are all about "what's in it for me." Ultimately going after and getting what you want to fulfill your every desire is an empty pursuit. Do you think that Hugh Hefner is fulfilled? Really? Even though I'm sure that he's had sex with more women than I care to imagine, and physiologically orgasm is quite pleasurable - is that all there is? Even with a constant stream of young beautiful women - is that all there is? Just sex? What an empty life!
I've heard John D. Rockefeller quoted in response to the question "How much is enough?"
- "just a little bit more"
Pornography lies to you. It paints a picture in your mind of veloptuous women whose every desire in life is to satisfy your sexual desires without making any inevstment in their wants/needs/desires. This is totally in contradiction to the real world.
Go ahead. Assert that I have no idea what life is about and that I'm unthinking and a lout, to boot. Why not? You're the one missing out on REALLY great sex, and the benefits of genuine relationships as well.
It's all to easy to see this issue as "the man" keeping down free speech, but what if I desire to limit what I see? In the book of Job in the Bible, Job says "I have made a covenant with my eyes not to look at a young woman" (presumably in a lustful way.) Like Job, I have no desire to see anyone naked besides myself, my wife and my kids (when bathing them.)
I am coming at this issue from a Christian perspective, but devout Muslims feel strongly about this, too.
Yet, it is extremely difficult for me NOT to see lewd and crude images displayed on my PC.
Some will say - "just don't go to those sites" but the fact is that I receive dozens of SPAM messages with pornographic images each week. These are unsolicited, and unwelcome. They appear in all of the mailboxes that I have, whether or not I use those addresses to post to usenet groups or websites.
Finally, I have tried implementing controls within my browser to respect the self-imposed ratings on web sites and have found that to be relatively worthless because most sites do not participate.
I was SHOCKED to find on my work PC running Linux with xscreensaver that one of the screensavers (it's configured for random mode) contains a photo collage in which one photo depicts a woman penetrating herself with a vibrator! Regardless of my personal convictions on this issue, I could be fired for having that on my PC!
For my house, I'd like to limit the information that is delivered to my home. I don't watch "R" rated movies anymore, (unless the content is so compelling that it calls for me to watch - something that has occurred only once or twice) so why should I allow R and NC17 materials to enter my home through other means?
I want to have good tools for limiting access to that kind of material. Isn't that permissible, or does your picture of "free speech" include jamming whatever content you feel like generating down my throat?
Regards, Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more, please email me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.
Phil Greenspun's version of the litigation story
on
ArsDigita Shut Down
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The story is no longer on the web, nor is it in google's cache but it is available from the wayback machine
Slashdot Mirror
It is true that there are some children who remain in orphanages. That is sad. As a Christian, and someone who is anti-abortion, it breaks my heart that those children are unwanted. However, I take issue strongly with your assertions above.
My church, as an example, provides strong support for an orphanage in Albania. We also provide support for a local crisis pregnancy center, and help fund an abstinence only program in the local county school system.
You may believe that explicit sex education is what is needed, but I would differ with you there.
Abstinence is an option available to everyone, and it is the only way to avoid unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and the emotional consequenses of sexual activity. Contrary to popular belief, it is not life-threatening to not have sex! You may choose to have sex, but choosing not to is another viable choice.
If people are encouraged to look for depth and quality in relationships, and to seek people of character with whom to develop those relationships rather than merely hop in the sack, there will be fewer unwanted kids.
As far as campaigning is concerned, most of the anti-abortion folks that I know are more interested in how they spend their personal dollars to help others rather than looking for the government to help those in need.
I have several friends who are infertile. Some of them are on waiting lists for a child, and it may take years before they are able to adopt. This process is very bureaucratic, costly, and time consuming. It's not all that easy to adopt these kids.
Perhaps something should be done to make it easier to find homes for those kids. What do you think?
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please email me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
Thanks, I didn't see the original comment, but I laughed out loud when I saw the response. Sadly, my guess is that too few will enjoy the irony in your posting.
Kudos.
Regards,
Anomaly
Waitaminnit! I thought that information wanted to be free *and* disseminated.
I thought that having someone filter information from me was to my detriment - after all, how do I know whether that person's bias is in conflict with my philosophy?
Isn't there some disconnect between being rabidly anti-filering on the one hand, and ticked because someone didn't filter a spoiler from you? Some people need to get a life!
Zoikes!
Anomaly
But I think that it's important to note that Donald Knuth, like many other brilliant men, is a Christian. Thus, it's unlikely that he would presume himself to be God.
:-)
It *is* funny, though.
Regards,
Anomaly
How do you handle the issues raised by your employees who are displeased that Johnnie makes more money than they do?
(Whether that's because Johnnie is that much more productive or because he had a larger starting salary, or just plain 'income inequity')
Don't some of your staff complain about such things?
I'd give you a +1 funny!
Cheers,
Anomaly
OK SirRobin....I'll bite :-)
You don't have the right to tell me how to behave. Iff you created me, from your own resources - from nothing - you would have that right.
I'll also take issue with your assertion that my posting contains an a priori assumption that God is perfect. I think you're reading something into what I wrote, merely because we're friends and you know where I stand.
God has the right to define parameters for his creatures solely as a result of the fact that He created us, regardless of whether His behavior is consistent with what He tells us to do.
My point is that we should be thankful that the God who created the universe is not only consistent with the rules that He lays out, but also that He is full of compassion and love for His creatures.
WRT the 'casual reading' of the Hebrew scriptures, much is lost when reading anything from antiquity without context. Irony, sarcasm, sociopolitical references, even caustic epithets can be totally missed. Use at least the same standard of care when reading the OT as you should with any work.
If God was evil and capricious:
1. We would have no basis on which to stand when accusing Him, and
2.We would all have been utterly destroyed many many years ago.
I for one am glad that He is righteous, as well as tender and forgiving for those who recognize their imperfection and ask for His mercy.
Very clever. I give you high marks for style, too.
Your tests require applying the context of your humanity to something superhuman. Once you move from something material to something 'supermaterial' (or perhaps non-material would be more accurate) the physical laws on which you base your tests are no longer applicable. And you know that.
There *are* valid tests within the human context that provide credibility to the claims of Christ. There are no such claims or evidence to back the tooth fairy.
So what you're really saying is that there is no evidence that would be sufficient. Which brings you to the table with a bias that at least equals religious intensity.
Do you admit that you are not open minded to the possibility that God exists?
What evidence would be sufficient for you to believe that Jesus is Lord of the universe?
Morality is imposed by a higher authority. Since there is no higher authority than God, He is not subject to any morality other than His own.
With all due respect, you are skirting the issue that *you* raised. You lifted up the 'reason' issue as a standard for whether a particular position has merit - as if reason was (is) the ultimate standard.
My point is that the human experience is far broader than mere reason. It is unreasonable to try to boil the human experience down to logic and facts alone.
The link to quantification is that in order to use reason, one *must* quantify each of the items to be evaluated. How can you use logic two compare things that cannot be quantified?
My rationale for believing that Jesus is Lord of the universe is based on the evidence that he has provided.
My rationale for rejecting kool-aid as a mechanism to deliver me to aliens is that
a) I've seen no evidence that there are aliens, and
b)I'm not aware of kool-aid's use as a transport, just as a thirst-quencher.
For you to compare the two that way sounds clever, but it's intellectually dishonest, don't you think?
Much of the human experience is irrational.
Can you measure loyalty, love, honor, committment, trust, hope, emotions?
Do you doubt that they exist? Would you discard them as concepts merely because they cannot be quantified?
Here is where we enter into what is perhaps irreconcilable disgreement - To attempt to describe the totality of the human experience in terms that can be rationally expressed is itself irrational - mere folly.
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
I doubt you will like my answer.
By virture of the fact that He created the universe, He gets to set the rules for his creatures. It's immoral for me to commit adultery because God says it is, and for no other reason.
If God had been created by a greater being, then He could be held to a standard other than his own. Since He has no creator, there is no one for him to be accountable to.
We can be thankful that a perfect and holy God, (who would be defiled by anything less than perfection) has made a way for us - who are clearly imperfect - to still have relationship with him.
I'm grateful that God sent Jesus to die for my sins - and that He gave me the opportunity to have relationship with Him. It's through Christ's perfect life, and His choice to die - taking my punishment, that I can have relationship with a perfect God. (But you knew that already, didn't you?)
Ok. If there's a god, how can it be that god would not be moral? What is your definition of god?
What is your standard for determining morality?
With all due respect, I invested a good bit of time in the process of commenting thoughtfully on the problem that MS is currently facing - a topic that directly reated to the issue at hand.
At the end of my posting, I attached one line inviting people to find out more about my faith. The S/N ratio of my posting was very high.
As far as making sure that everyone could find it is concerned, The Bible calls for me to live out my faith. To make it an integral part of my life - to have it affect everything that I do. I'm called to tell others about what God has done for me, and to be prepared to discuss with them the reason for the hope that I have. I strongly believe that inviting people to contact me to learn more about Christianity is a part of my responsibility to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I tell people about Jesus Christ in every part of my life. Since Slashdot posting is a part of my life, I invite people there to contact me to find out more.
WRT being seen by men - I never asserted that I am holy or righteous. In fact, my heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9) just like every one else's. My only hope of being found acceptable by a perfect and Holy God is based on my faith in Jesus' perfect life and sacrifice.
I hope that you find the peace that you are seeking.
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
I'm sorry that you had an experience related to Christianity that causes you to consider yourself a recovering Christian. Much of what calls itself Christian today bears little resemblance to the movement that overturned the Roman world with no weapons, and shaped the course of history even to this day.
What evidence? Fair question.
How about this:
1. The Bible is more well documented than any other work of antiquity. I'll have to look it up to be sure, but it has at least one, possibly two orders of magnitude more copies than ANY other work. This documents that the consistency of the contents has been maintained over time. We have a VERY high degree of certainty that what we have today is EXTREMELY close to what the original writings contained. This puts to rest many of the theories which claim that the miraculous stories were made up generations after Christ's death.
2. Archaeological evidence is consistently in concert with the writings in the old and new testaments. Again, lending credibility to the overall story told by the biblical writers.
3. Christ's resurrection is so well documented that it can be considered a documented fact - a better documented 'fact' than the lives of any other figure from ancient history.
"Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the greatest authority on legal evidences in the 19th century, came to this very conclusion after a thorough examination of the historical record. The essence of his verdict, as the famous Royall professor of law at Harvard, was that any unbiased jury openly examining the evidence would inevitably come to the conclusion that Christ had risen from the dead. Greenleaf suggested that any cross-examination of the eyewitness testimonies recorded in Scripture would result in an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth." (quote from article at www.equip.org)
The Bible is a unique book - unlike any other - which contains the story of a God who loved mankind enough to become a person, live among us, and be wrongfully put to death. This God conquered death, and through that act, opened the door for restored relationship between a Holy God and unholy mankind.
There is *so* much more that can be said, and I'd be happy to offer more evidence and information if you are interested. We could talk about manuscript evidence, eyewitness evidence, internal and external consistency tests for reliability, prophetic evidence, statistical probability as it relates to the accumulated evidence, and much more.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I'm not looking to get into a flame war, either.
In fact, I bet we agree on many more things than we disagree on. For example, I think that blind acceptance is foolish, too.
I would like to ask you a question, though: Have you ever really examined the evidence behind Christianity? If not, how can you say that it's blind belief? If so, what did you study?
The God that I serve and worship requires that I use my heart, soul, MIND, and strength in my service to him.
I cannot disconnect my intellect and still be true to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I do live in the real world. In many ways it would be easier for me if there were no God. After all, if there's no right or wrong, then I could merely do as I please with no fear of retribution from anyone other than other people. That would open many doors for me. Since there is an absolute right and wrong, I live within the constraints. That *is* the real world.
I'm not angry with you at all.
Defensive? No, just asking why you're so upset.
Engage my brain? Give me something to think about instead of merely lobbing character critisms my way.
You don't even know me - so you really can't say that I'm a jerk, can you? If all Christians are by definition jerks, then which of us is intolerant and bigoted?
Besides, I'm not so keen on religion as I am on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
My relationship with God *is* relevent because it's a part of my world view to go into all the world making disciples of Jesus Christ.
If you had the cure for cancer, would you tell anyone, or fear that they might be offended or consider it off topic? What I have been given is far greater than the cure for cancer, and I can offer that for no charge to others. So I do.
There's no need to resort to profanity.
I'm no great student of his, but if I'm not mistaken, Neitzche's point was that our philosphical approach had rendered a transcendent God irrelevant. With all due respect, I beg to differ with him.
Taking score right this minute - Nietzche is dead, God is alive.
And does existentialism make your life more enriched? Is it a world view that works? Are you satisfied with it? Does it fit with the evidence that surrounds you of intelligent design?
Finally, why does my philosophical outlook with respect to God's relevence invalidate my logic?
Surely it may color your opinion of my perspective and my writings, but does it make my logic flawed?
Why are you so afraid of Christianity?
Why are you so angry about it?
Why aren't you man enough to sign your name?
I find that much of what is posted on slashdot is religious in nature. Apparently the most popular religion represented on this forum is naturalism.
I merely represent the "loyal opposition" of being a technologist who has a different philosophical perspective than the majority.
Don't like my posts? Don't read them.
I can remember a time when all of our applications and data were locked into proprietary hardware and software solutions. (Wang word processors, among others.) The next step was to break our dependence on one vendor to supply the limited set of choices.
Today our data can be stored on many different manufacturers' hardware, but we are largely locked in to one vendor's OS because of proprietary file formats. (And the same architecture, to boot.)
Long term I hope that our data is freed from that prison. We continually re-engineer systems to perform the same functions on different platforms because of the mindset imposed by the prison. However, we are a little closer today. Things like SQL allow us to migrate data reliably from one database to another. I can foresee a time when application vendors allow reliable interoperability, but it will be a while.
It also occurs to me that MS is in a bit of a pickle. There was a time when new applications provided greater functionality, and people migrated to them because they were superior, or at least people perceived that the new features were useful enough to justify the change.
Eventually the functionality of the applications on the market increased to the point where they were functionally very similar, and most consumers didn't need much more in the way of application functions.
Outside of a major paradigm shift, I don't think that many people competing with MS need to do much besides catch up. They are getting closer each year. You can't continually embrace and extend because at a certain point, it's just too much trouble. As an example, my MS desktop here at the house has 93 different typefaces. I use about 10. If you gave me 500, I would still use about 10. I just looked at my Linux system, and it has 2200 typefaces installed! I still use about 10.
Even if MS makes their OS and apps do 5000 new and snazzy things, most people simply won't use them. Look at the Outlook-based emails that are sent in Arial or Tahoma, and the documents that are printed in Times New Roman. People stick with the deafult because it's too much to think about to do otherwise. My hope is that we break free from the prison imposed by proprietary interfaces and formats.
Regards,
Anomaly
Ps - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
Of course it's my job to filter what goes into my head. I'm not compelled to watch "the man show" or Howard Stern, and I don't.
I'd like to be able to implement a filter that blocks smutty pop-ups, spam, and html that co-opts my browser such that I need to reboot my Windows box to get control back.
I want it to be easy to set up filtering that stops my browser from getting re-directed to porn sites. I want software to stop my browser from going to porn sites when I click on an innocuous link. (And yes, there are innocuous-looking links that point to porn sites.)
If course I have the responsibility to choose what not to observe. I just want tools that make that easier. I don't care if there are sites that espouse hate for men of european descent, or hate of Christians, or hate for men who love their wives or even for that matter zillions of websites portraying sexual acts between consenting adults.
In the US, it's your right to produce whatever content you want to produce (that complies with US law, which is a pretty broad area.) I support your right to produce materials that go against what I believe.
Just don't complain when I ask you not to foist your content upon me. Please understand that there are people who are not interested in your content, and don't try to trick us into visiting your site.
That's my point.
I get frustrated when the 'anti-censorship' crowd thinks that all information is to be shared with all people, and any attempts to slow that down are 'the man' trying to oppress someone.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I find it interesting that you assert many things about me without benefit of direct knowledge of who I am and what I really believe.
What does that say about "close minded" to you?
I know quite well about pornography. I know that there is none in my home, either.
Like most American men, I have seen a great deal of it. Over the years, I intentionally viewed it, and at the time found it enjoyable. Like the cocaine addict, while enjoying it, I was apathetic about the harm it was doing to my perception of sexuality and healthy relationships.
Sex is not bad. Sex is VERY good! Much the same way that food is very good, but if I abuse my body by overeating or undereating it can be harmful. (Another difference is that no one ever died from lack of sex.)
I enjoy sex with my wife very much. I teach my kids that sex in the context of marriage can be a wonderful thing. When you are emotionally connected and committed to your lover, sex is exponentially better than mere orgasm. Studies have shown that the most sexually satisfied women are married Christian women. This is because they are enjoying the benefits of what sex was intended to be - in a committed marriage relationship!
Pornography and masturbation are all about "what's in it for me." Ultimately going after and getting what you want to fulfill your every desire is an empty pursuit. Do you think that Hugh Hefner is fulfilled? Really? Even though I'm sure that he's had sex with more women than I care to imagine, and physiologically orgasm is quite pleasurable - is that all there is? Even with a constant stream of young beautiful women - is that all there is? Just sex? What an empty life!
I've heard John D. Rockefeller quoted in response to the question
"How much is enough?"
- "just a little bit more"
Pornography lies to you. It paints a picture in your mind of veloptuous women whose every desire in life is to satisfy your sexual desires without making any inevstment in their wants/needs/desires. This is totally in contradiction to the real world.
Go ahead. Assert that I have no idea what life is about and that I'm unthinking and a lout, to boot. Why not? You're the one missing out on REALLY great sex, and the benefits of genuine relationships as well.
Your loss.
It's all to easy to see this issue as "the man" keeping down free speech, but what if I desire to limit what I see? In the book of Job in the Bible, Job says "I have made a covenant with my eyes not to look at a young woman" (presumably in a lustful way.) Like Job, I have no desire to see anyone naked besides myself, my wife and my kids (when bathing them.)
I am coming at this issue from a Christian perspective, but devout Muslims feel strongly about this, too.
Yet, it is extremely difficult for me NOT to see lewd and crude images displayed on my PC.
Some will say - "just don't go to those sites" but the fact is that I receive dozens of SPAM messages with pornographic images each week. These are unsolicited, and unwelcome. They appear in all of the mailboxes that I have, whether or not I use those addresses to post to usenet groups or websites.
Finally, I have tried implementing controls within my browser to respect the self-imposed ratings on web sites and have found that to be relatively worthless because most sites do not participate.
I was SHOCKED to find on my work PC running Linux with xscreensaver that one of the screensavers (it's configured for random mode) contains a photo collage in which one photo depicts a woman penetrating herself with a vibrator! Regardless of my personal convictions on this issue, I could be fired for having that on my PC!
For my house, I'd like to limit the information that is delivered to my home. I don't watch "R" rated movies anymore, (unless the content is so compelling that it calls for me to watch - something that has occurred only once or twice) so why should I allow R and NC17 materials to enter my home through other means?
I want to have good tools for limiting access to that kind of material. Isn't that permissible, or does your picture of "free speech" include jamming whatever content you feel like generating down my throat?
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more, please email me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.
The story is no longer on the web, nor is it in google's cache but it is available from the wayback machine