Let's talk for a minute about that. In a rational, non-emotional world, I think that your thesis about unmarried sex having the same "performance characteristics" as married sex would be valid. However, we are emotional beings, and as such, these emotions play a much larger part in our life experiences than we'd ever like to admit.
I'd submit to you that the act of marriage, and the expected commitment that entails, establishes a fundamental shift in attitudes, expectations and emotions between two people. This is particularly evident in a woman's sexuality. There's a reason that men refer to having sex as "getting lucky." Most of the time, men really have little idea about what motivates a woman to be excited about intercourse.
Based on my experience, freedom and frequency of sexual expression, (inside and outside of marriage, as well as in counseling couples who are struggling in their marriages) is directly tied to how a woman feels about herself, and that is profoundly impacted by her security in the context of relationship to her man. When the level of commitment and acceptance is high, she is safe, and feels more open about sharing herself freely. When the level of commitment is low, why should she take risks with the man who is presently accompanying her?
You may argue that an unmarried couple can have the same level of emotional connection and commitment that a married couple has. I'd suggest that is possible but unlikely. Even if the man feels that he has the same attitude, self-sacrifice and commitment whether married or unmarried, a woman (in almost all cases) does not. She feels secure and valued when she sees tangible evidence of commitment.
Frankly I'd also submit to you that it's not merely "a piece of paper." The marital commitment in almost every case brings with it a change of attitude from "is this the fight that breaks us up?" to "We have to work this out. We're married."
I believe that the root cause of most divorce is frustration. Most couples are completely ignorant of conflict resolution skills and emotional insight about how the individual works. As a result, they fumble through unresolved conflict after unresolved conflict until they get fed up and quit because they see no other viable option. This is the tragedy that most adversely affects modern culture.
The list I am about to send is by no means complete. My wife and I discussed this over the weekend. Here are some reasons why marital sex while emotionally connected to your spouse is far superior to any other sexual experience.
1. At its essence, sexual expression in this way is self-less. Other sex is selfish. Does that mean that there's not something in it for me? Of course not, but if I'm really connected to my wife, I want to satisfy her at least as much as I want to have an orgasm. Her expression with me is selfless, too. Her participation is about wanting to satisfy me deeply.
2. When we're emotionally connected, we're more focused on purposefully making the time and place for intimacy in our lives. That means that if she's "ready for action" and I'm not, I'll make the "sacrifice" of making her a priority, and she will do the same for me.
3. When we're married, monogamous, and emotionally connected, we're deeply invested in studying each other. I want to learn what pleases her, and she *feels* *safe* being open about what she wants, and how I can improve as a lover to better satisfy her. For most women, the importance of this point cannot be overstated. Her feeling safe emotionally with her lover is fundamental to her overall comfort as a woman. This means that she *trusts* me to accept her, flaws and all, and *value* her for the qualities that make her an incredible person. You cannot overestimate the extent to which most women feel unsafe in their skin because they are constantly compared to porn, magazine covers, fashion models, TV and movie actresses. Helping her feel safe with me *cannot* happen in a one-night stand, and it won't happen in an uncommitted long-term sexual relationship.
4. Her safety (and mine) make for a better "palette" on which to paint the kind of picture that the other wants. Whether that means cuddling with her, holding her hand, having "fast food" sex, or a multi-course "meal" of sexual intimacy - we can learn about each other and how to participate in a way that is rich for both of us. This changes over time, and as we grow old together we will continually be learning about ourselves and about each other.
5. Orgasm always feels good, but when combined with commitment, length of relationship and emotional connectedness, it comes with a sense of safety and peace for both people. Most women don't orgasm every time they have sex, but I'd suggest that the odds of inducing physiological stimulus required for her to have an orgasm are substantially improved. Regardless of whether she has an orgasm (that's likely not a significant factor in her sexual satisfaction, BTW) her overall view of the experience is far improved, and thus her interest in future participation is improved as well.
I could go on, but suffice to say that I'm into great sex, and that requires *substantially* more than merely putting my erect penis into some available vagina. The sexual experience, security, and satisfaction that I have with my wife far surpasses any imaginable sex in any other context. (And I'm a pretty creative guy.)
weird morality standards that Christianity has adopted over the eons: sex is bad This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian view. Sex is GOOD! As a Christian, let me tell you that I enjoy sex a great deal, and praise God for creating something so pleasurable!
and should only be done within marriage This is true - because God knows that the best place to express sex and share this level of intimacy is inside marriage. everything else may feel good, but it's merely a cheap imitation of the greatness of sex with a spouse with whom you share deep emotional connection in addition to the physical stimulation. There are lots of reasons for this.
(like as if it was not God that gave us the sexual urges) True, but just because it comes naturally, that doesn't mean that it's good. For example, when I'm in a hurry to get somewhere, and I get cut off in traffic by some SUV-driver talking on a cell phone, it's natural for me to want to run them off the road. Natural is not always good. There is a time and a place to use anger in a positive way. The Bible says "be angry but do not sin" in the same way that it says that sex is only for marriage.
but conquering, slaughtering, bribing and all the other good stuff that the western world does these days are acceptable Each of these issues can rarely be boiled down to a platitude. For example: Is it wrong to stand up to defend either yourself or someone weaker? (I'd suggest that the "just war" theory says it's sometimes the morally right thing. I'd also suggest that we are doing that for the peope of Iraq, and should do it for the North Koreans and for the people of Darfur.)
Is killing always wrong? The 10 commandments say "do not murder" not "do not kill, ever" Sometimes it *is* morally right to kill.
Is it wrong to bribe corrupt officials to smuggle food to orphans? (Don't suggest this is ridiculous, I know where this happens.) I'd suggest it's not wrong.
YMMV, but IMNSHO - If I thought that "seeing a boob" was a big problem, I'd object to my wife breast feeding my kids. I don't, and she does. It's all about purpose and context. If your purpose is to use the other person for your pleasure, then you're doing something wrong - to yourself and to the other person.
Christians don't object to sex. In the context of marriage, I greatly enjoy my relationship with my wife - emotionally, spiritually, and physically. I enjoy seeing and touching her naked body, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's how God intended it to be, and it's a beautiful thing!
I moved to Linux in 1994 as my primary desktop and server OS. About three years ago I decided that I wanted to produce some video content. Video editing was theoretically possible in Linux - I hooked up my camcorder to my Linux box and did some editing, but the tools were primitive and cofiguration was unusually difficult.
Eventually I looked at OS X and iLife. I decided to jump to a Mac. What a great move!
I found that Linux made it possible to do some things, but OS X made it simple to do them.
Fast forward a few years. I now have a few macs at home - their licensing policy makes it affordable to have several machines and a five user license for the OS and tools. My family loves the power and usability of the Mac.
Recently my linux server at home began acting a bit flaky. I did some analysis and determined that hardware replacement was needed. After checking prices for CPU/motherboard/RAM (and potentially hard disk) I figured out that I'd need a few hundred bucks to replace the CentOS box with a new one. After thinking about whether to drop a few hundred bucks or not on this server, it occurred to me that I might be able to move all of the services hosted on linux to OS X.
Most of these are "in the box" with OS X. The only ones that I need to compile from source are uw-imapd and squid! Of course I need the bundled developer tools to get a compiler, and the Apple/BSD startup mechanism and the netinfo wierdness require some tweaks - but since when did Linux *not* require any tweaking?
What this means to me is that after more than a decade of running Linux at home (and work) I am *this* close to shutting down Linux for good at home.
Hope your experience is similar.
Regards, Anomaly
PS - I share your recent comments about the loss of a pet.:(
you fail to understand how I can glean any use from the bible if I find much of it to be factually inaccurate and disagree with many of its assertions No. I do see how that could be true. It's fundamentally important to me that the Bible is true, but I see that non-Christians could derive value from understanding moral principles from the teachings of allegory.
I fail to understand how you can insist on the factual veracity of wildly improbable stories Just because they seem unlikely to you does not make them untrue.
The fact that I place equal importance on the teachings of jesus and aristotle, plato, nietzsche, thoroeau, wittgenstein, etc. might confuse you, but it makes perfect sense to me. So what do you do when your guideposts differ on issues? How do you determine who to follow. I assure you that Nietszche and Christ differ.:)
if god can create such a wonderfully complicated thing as the earth and its ecosystems and all that, why couldnt he choose to do so by way of evolution from single source as advocated by evolutionary science? He could choose to do anything that He likes, but theologically speaking, Christian doctrine says that He didn't. Scientifically speaking, it is my view that because the concept of speciation through mutation and genetic favorability is not testable, I believe that view of evolution is non-scientific in nature. Reasonable people differ on this, and I recognize that the vast majority of scientists hold to this view. For what it's worth, the vast majority of scientists are philosophical materialists who deny supernatural events, too, so they have an a priori commitment to reject special creation.
science... 'destroying faith by undermining the facts laid down in the bible' No. No! NO! Science is about acquiring knowledge. Science is good - well, science done well is good, anyway. We should use the minds that God gave us to explore and attempt to explain the physical universe. There is no chasm between Christians and Science - at least not conceptually. The problem I see is that philosophical naturalism has invaded the realm of science and has corrupted parts of it.
Ultimately the important question for science to answer is "what is true?" not "what do most scientists want to be true?"
the whole "if christianity is untrue..." For me, if fundamental truths of Christianity are proven untrue, then the whole building collapses. To suggest that there was no man called Adam who rebelled against God also means that there was no need for a redeemer. When you say that the account of Adam and Eve is mere allegory, in my mind you're by logical extension saying that all of Christianity is untrue.
But apparently that's how you read my response. I'd appreciate it if we could keep this civil - can we agree to avoid character assassination and profanity, please?
I can see that for us to come to a place of understanding may take a great deal of time. Let's start at the beginning of your response, if you don't mind. Your mention of circular reasoning is totally valid in terms of rhetoric. However, in terms of assessing the validity of a world view, one factor is whether the content is internally consistent. My point is this: As you evaluate the teachings of Christianity, it is totally relevant to understand what Christianity says about itself. The fact that Christ, and Paul both dealt with Eden as a factual scenario tends to put a great deal of emphasis on Eden as a fact, rather than an allegory.
Appeal to the New Testament as a "proof" of the New Testament, or the Old Testament, would be employing the fallacy you describe. (an example of one of the ways we have already miscommunicated.)
Ever played telephone? I've heard this argument before, and I belive you to be sincere when you make it. However, the facts do not support your assertion. The telephone game relies on silliness and rules that amplify the likelihood of an error. The process for making copies of New Testament letters was designed to assure consistency and eliminate errors.
The New Testament has more documentary evidence than *any* other book of antiquity, with copies from closer to the original manuscripts than *any* other book of antiquity. Most books from ancient times have less than 10 early copies from within a few humdred years of the time that they were originally written. There are more than 5,000 New Testament document fragments which date from the first century until more recent dates. To be sure these are fragments and not complete copies, but scholars are able to show conclusively that the documents have been unchanged fundamentally since they were written. The difference - in terms of hard evidence we can hold in our hands today - between the Christian Bible and every other work of antiquity is so great as to make the reliability of every other text laughable by comparison.
the affluent should help anyone because it is the good moral action, But... Why? If Christianity is untrue, then why whould anyone do anything helpful for anyone else?
Ideas reified as authoritarian institutions, viz. The Church (not the catholic church, just organized religion), have a way of messing up good ideas We're in agreement here. Power corrupts.
whats the lesson from being so drastically punished for a bad decision made in the absence of Knowledge of Good and Evil Am I to understand that your position is that God's punishment was unjust?
Here's the thing. God is God. As Creator He gets to set the rules. Whether you agree with them is... (and I don't mean this disrespectfully - it applies to me as well) it's irrelevant.
As to the justifiability, God is Holy and Pure. Only things that are Holy and pure can be in His presence or the impurity will be completely destroyed by the force of His Goodness and purity. Impurity in man would have been purified by direct contact with God with the outcome being the physical destruction of Adam and Eve. God knew this and showed mercy on them - letting them live.
Let me ask you this. When you determine that God is unjust, are you not judging Him? If so, on what moral basis do you stand when you do that? If there is no God, then there is no absolute Good. Does this question make sense to you?
I choose not to ascribe cruelty to my concept of the divine. As do I. God is kind, compassionate, and loving. Many times my kids may perceive that I'm cuel. For example, when my 2 year old needed stiches and I held him down while the doctor stuck a needle in his face many times. Was it cruel? Perhaps from Mark's perspective it was. Perhaps many of the cruelties we perceive God to have
Hmmm. If I tell you "stand under the waterfall, and you'll get wet" or "get hit by a large mass moving at great speed and you will be injured or killed" or "touch your tongue to a pole when the outside temperature is below freezing and it will stick and hurt when you pull it off"
Is that throwing a fit, or stating fact?
God knows that if man rebels against Him, no good will come of it. He is explicit about bad things as a natural consequence of actions you choose.
Seems to me like He's pretty much saying "it's light outside during the daytime"
I don't mean to get too personal - but... have you been good? Have you ever sinned? If so, your question is moot. Because of our heritage (descendants of Adam) by nature we're inclined to sin. By decision, if you're honest with yourself and me, you'll admit that you have fallen short of perfection.
As a result, even if you were not isolated from God because of Adam, you already would be on the basis of your personal decision.
It's not like you're being unfairly or unjustly condemned. There is none righteous. All have sinned.
As to the point of your question, in spite of the fact that it's moot, it's like this. If cancer or alcoholism runs in your family, you have a genetic marker toward that. We all carry the genetic marker of sin.
The story of adam and eve is, in my opinion, allegory that is often taken WAAAAAAY to literally. This is obvious to many devout christians I'm friends with, but seems not to be to many millions of others in this country. Here's the fallacy of that concept. Jesus himself talked about Adam and Eve as if they were real, not allegory. And in one of the key treatises on Christian theology, Paul portrayed Christ as the "second Adam." If the first Adam was allegorical, there would have been no need for a second Adam.
prevents many of the affluent from doing their share to help those less fortunate Why should the affluent help anyone? If Christianity is an outdated mind-virus, why should any individual do anything to help anyone besides themselves?
is it *really* possible for god not to have known what adam and eve would do? Nope. It's not. But that does not change the fact that Adam had a choice to make, and he made it. He "chose.....poorly." God is not responsible for Adam's choice even though He must have known the outcome before the beginning. Adam is responsible.
could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it? The question is nonsense. Could God make 4=6? Can God smell the color nine? Nonsense. Tripe. But you may ask nonsense if you like. Don't expect a sensible answer, though.
Do you kick him out of the house and stop talking to him? Well, if my kid was self-destructive, I might kick him out of the house and set up boundaries about what constituted a healthy relationship with him. FWIW - God did not stop talking to Adam. Adam still had some relationship with God - it was simply fundamentally different from the previous relationship. Adam had hope of fully restored relationship with God on the basis of God's mercy.
I'm personally not capable of belief in that which is directly contradicted by reason I'm intrigued by this statement. First, not capable, or unwilling to submit to that kind of truth (if it exists.) Secondly, can you give an example of Christian teaching which exemplifies this?
Will allow you to go your own way. You can spend this life and the next without Him - wouldn't it be cruel of Him to compel you to spend eternity with Him if you've clearly decided that you want none of that?
His mercy prevented Him from destroying Adam and Eve. Their behavior justified Him killing them. He created them and had the right to kill them. That's one of the perks of being the creator. You get to set the rules and determine consequences. Because he loved Adam and Eve He didn't destroy them.
You hear the hot stove argument because it's tangible and obvious, not because it's "in in one of those ubiquitous books"
God provided a way for Adam to be restored to relationship with God - but the scar on my kids' hand from the accidental burn doesn't go away - it's the natural consequence of the burn itself. (Thankfully he's fully recovered and will only have a scar to show for the awful experience.) Adam was not able to walk with God face to face any longer because he disobeyed God.
What God did was demonstrate that Adam and Eve's rebellion specifically separated them from Him. They were unable to have the same type of relationship and intimacy with Him that they once had.
I will never fully understand God - any more than my dog will ever fully comprehend me - *but* His actions make far more sense to me than any other explanation of the operation of the universe and of people within that universe than does any other explanation I've ever heard. God is *not* capricious.
And yet so far. Your explanation seems reasonable, but is a bit off. God is not capricious.
There is a distinct difference between discerning whether something is good or evil, and understanding that a boundary has been set and should not be crossed.
My 20 month old son does not discern that touching a hot stove will burn him, but he does comprehend that he must not touch the stove. Adam and Eve knew what God said, and that breaking the rule was BAD. In fact, God told them, if you break this rule, you will die.
Eating the fruit allowed them to understand the basis for discernment of good and evil. Before that, they clearly understood that there was a rule, and that violation of that rule made them subject to punishment.
The root problem is that they (like us) want to do what THEY want rather than obey God. When they chose to disobey God, the consequence was separation from Him, and ultimately, death - for themselves and for their offspring.
I'll agree with you readily that the world has many many many hypocrites who claim to be Christians. As a Christian, I believe that God's standard for sexual purity applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
In a letter blistering Christians for their hypocrisy, the apostle Paul wrote "Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9)
There's a long list of things that are offensive to God. In fact, it covers both heterosexual sin as well as homosexual sin, and adds a bunch of other items to the list as well. God's standard for holiness and purity applies to all people and in far deeper ways than most people appreciate.
Also, I want to clear something up here right now!
It's not about "hating gays." I DON'T hate gays. In fact, if the teaching of Christianity is 1) that people who engage in sexual activity with people of the same gender, and 2) as a result are doing something which distances them from God,
Then wouldn't people who "hate" gays want to make them far from God? If so, wouldn't the hateful thing be to let them, or perhaps encourage them to do what makes God mad? Instead, I submit to you that the loving thing is to tell people what God's standard for purity is, and what it takes to have a real, personal relationship with the God who created them - including how to live a life that is free from shame and filled with hope. As a follower of Christ, that is what I want to do.
I just picked up a "spare" thinkpad T21 (PIII 800MHz, 384MB RAM)
I booted Puppy Linux, and after about 5 minutes figuring out where Puppy stores the WEP key, had that box on line. It's rocket fast and requires no tweaking. I was blown away with how well I could open word and excel documents from OWA.
New OS' from Redmond always need more CPU and RAM. Interestingly, I was also recently shocked at how usable Tiger was on a G3 233 with 256MB RAM. DARN usable. Try that with a current MS OS and hardware built in 1999!:)
After running linux as my primary desktop OS for SEVEN years, I bought a Mac three years ago.
I wanted to have an easier time of managing music, movies, and photos as well as producing new content. What I found was that what was *possible* on Linux (after investing a ton of time) was not only possible, but actually as easy as could reasonably be expected on my Mac. I drank the kool-aid. Let's be clear here. I was a passionate advocate of Linux on the desktop - using it personally and professionally EVERY DAY - on multiple PCs, both servers and clients - I knew what I was doing with it, and had success with it. I gave up - not because Linux was incapable, but because it was too expensive in terms of time. Frankly, that OS X was more complete in terms of user-space applications was not a surprise to me. I was a little surprised that I found myself happy to pay money for the "complete-ness" because my experience (and that of my wife and kids) was so far superior to our collective Linux experience.
What *shocked* me was that I decided just a couple of months ago that I no longer NEED Linux for my server OS at home because OS X can do everything that I count on Linux to do for me. I've been running Linux servers at home since 1994! To realize that I'm quite content to completely move away from Linux as a platform at home was truly surprising. I have a couple of major services to convert, but soon all will be migrated to OS X, and I can decomm my Linux servers completely.
I suspect that other folks who have been passionate about linux adoption will have tested the waters (especially now that Parallels can provide XP/Vista w/o rebooting) and have made the same decision I have made. To me, this suggests that there is likely to be a bit of a drain on Linux devotees.
The good news for Linux is that the market of users for all OS' is continually growing, and there's room for just about every technology itch to be scratched. Not only that, but many OS X things will leverage F/OSS toolkits, and thus be fairly portable to Linux, too.
I've been poking around with ripping the content from my DVD's this week. It's time consuming, but really empowering.
1. I don't have to watch the %%&^#$@!#$$^ FBI warning. For heaven's sake - the people who BOUGHT the DVD don't need the warning. It's the pirates who don't read or care about it. It's like carping to the people who show up on time to meetings about the onse who arrive late!
2. I don't have to watch whatever commercials the content producer shoves down my throat.
3. I don't have to fiddle with media - now that it's hosted on my computer I can get to the whole catalog any time. This is rich for two reasons: a. I don't want to worry about where did I put the disc the last time I watched it? and b. I don't have to worry about my kids losing, scratching, breaking the media
On the down side, there's 1. It takes a LONG time to yank that content from the disc. 2. "bonus features" are no longer associated with the movie 3. No concept of chapters - It's one long stream from start to end - rather like videotape. When I want to watch a DVD with multiple "shorts" I can "play all" - do I rip that content to individual clips and then do some sort of playlist, or do I rip to one contiguous clip and scan along until I get to the part I want? 4. No transparent support of multiple audio tracks with each movie - If I want the content with the english and the director's commentary I need to rip the movie twice - and take 2x the time and DASD. 5. Less portable - I can't as easily take one piece of content to my friend's house to watch, nor can I trivially loan this content to a friend on something cheap. 6. Hookup to TV - since I don't (yet) have a video iPod, my choices are: a. watch on my computer b. hook up a computer to the TV and play it there. Still working on that one - Love my Tivo and the menu-driven simplicity. Do I set up Myth, too? (Tivo's networking is AWFUL - in series 2) Do I buy a mini and play thru itunes to my tv? Do I wait until St. Steve releases the "official" Apple way (iTV) - dunno - none of the ideas available to me are trivial and/or inexpensive.
In general, I'm happy with the shackles of content control being lifted from me. There are still some issues to resolve, but choice is good. I don't mind paying the content providers, but once I have paid them, I should be able to manipulate the data for personal use the way I want to.
The last several times that the US military has been deployed it has been to help Muslims: Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Kosovo, Somalia.... We have liberated 50 million or more Muslims, and we are hated for it?
American forced rained death on those fighting, but then brought inconceivable amounts of humanitarian aid to the people afflicted by the violence. We destroyed infrastructure - and then have engaged in a rebuilding campaign on the scale of the Marshall plan. What we are building is better and stronger than what existed when we arrived on the scene to protect liberty, freedom, and inalienable rights of mankind.
I will make no defense of the Crusades. The behavior of those participating was not in keeping with Christian teaching, and should have been rejected. It was reprehensible then and is today. Hwever deplorable the abuses of the Crusades, they cannot minimize the cruelty, oppression, slavery, and evil of the Muslim alternative.
The true test of a world view is the logical outcome of those people who adhere to its teachings carefully. The natural outworking of the Islamic world view is tyranny, oppression and murder for those who will not convert. We have no alternative other than to fight. For what it's worth, the natural outworking of a Christian world view is a country that values citizens, protects the innocent, and is tolerant of dissenting world views.
Columbus wanted to go to the far east, but wanted to avoid the Middle East because it had the same problems then that exist now. The conflict between the west and the middle east is far older than merely recent generations. They don't hate us because of what we have done to them, they hate us now for the same reason they have hated the west for centuries - because we deny the fundamental teachings of their world view - and therefore we must be destroyed.
Islam's war with the US has been a long-running one. Ever hear of the Barbary Pirates?
You can argue that this is a war where we have been intervening where it's none of our business and they are "paying us back" but really this is an ideological conflict that has roots far deeper than the last couple of decades.
International politics are frequently far more complex than "You started it!"
"Did Not!"
Regardless of recent events, the actions of the terrorists are indefensible. If we say "Sorry" and then we "Butt out and mind our own business" for the rest of time, Osama's followers will continue to wage war against us until they all die or we all die.
Find a better place to live and go - don't stay around here carping about how awful we are. If we're awful, don't pollute yourself any longer with our awful-ness. Get out today while you're still pure.
Explosive decompression only happens in movies. Essentially a bullet through the ski of an aircraft, through a window, or even blowing out an entire window won't create explosive decompression.
If you blow out the side of an aircraft with explosives, you can experience explosive decompression. (See mythbusters for the graphic demonstration of this idea.)
why are the bad guys screwing with us in the first place. Oh ya, because we've been screwing with them for decades. Interesting perspective. You know, the core problem is our inability to understand exactly why these people hate us. They hate us because their view of the world tells them that we need to be converted to their world view, or they need to kill us.
Their evidence for our need to die is the music, movies and television that we pump around the world glorifying a lifestyle that is completely objectionable to their way of thinking. They also may be upset about our past political and military interventions, but those are not the primary motivation.
It's simply not possible to negotiate with someone who demands that you become like them or die. In fact, in our "civilized society" we can't imagine that negotiation of compromise is impossible. What we fail to recognize is that you cannot negotiate with someone whose only acceptable conditions are your death or conversion. These terrorists are like the Borg, and the only thing that they understand is force.
Negotiation or withdrawal will return the exact same result as appeasement did in Eastern Europe.
They hate us because, regardless of what we've done, their view of the world says that we must die. It simply does not matter what we have done or will do. We can't make friends with them.
It's this misunderstanding that leads people down the wrong path - thinking that there is a negotiable peace, or that they are upset with us because they have been wronged by us.
Our only choice is to convert to their world view or be killed. I will choose to fight them. Today that means supporting our military actions. If their strength grows and I am needed on the battlefield, I will do what must be done to protect my children from oppression and tyranny.
If you think our government is tyrannical, you have no idea of the definition of that term. I don't defend every action of my government or leaders, but I live in the best place on earth to live, and I tire of people complaining about every little thing as if it's the end of freedom for Americans.
Does it really matter whether Terri would have been indiscernable from the pre-injury Terri? Human life is sacred and should be protected. I would think that if Terri had above-average IQ to begin with, and after treatment she had below-average IQ, she would have been OK with that. It beats being dead!
The Schiavo case was more complex than that anyway - her husband denied her opportunities to have treatment which could have been beneficial for her, and had much to gain from her demise - freedom from responsibility of caring for her, money which had been allocated for her care, etc.
IMNSHO, he should have given the money and the responsibility for her care to her mom and dad - who wanted that. He could have walked away and had his freedom. Instead he chose to have her legally killed.
Let me ask you. If you're in a similar situtation, would you want your "guardian" to have you starved to death with no food and no water?
Slashdot Mirror
Let's talk for a minute about that. In a rational, non-emotional world, I think that your thesis about unmarried sex having the same "performance characteristics" as married sex would be valid. However, we are emotional beings, and as such, these emotions play a much larger part in our life experiences than we'd ever like to admit.
:)
I'd submit to you that the act of marriage, and the expected commitment that entails, establishes a fundamental shift in attitudes, expectations and emotions between two people. This is particularly evident in a woman's sexuality. There's a reason that men refer to having sex as "getting lucky." Most of the time, men really have little idea about what motivates a woman to be excited about intercourse.
Based on my experience, freedom and frequency of sexual expression, (inside and outside of marriage, as well as in counseling couples who are struggling in their marriages) is directly tied to how a woman feels about herself, and that is profoundly impacted by her security in the context of relationship to her man. When the level of commitment and acceptance is high, she is safe, and feels more open about sharing herself freely. When the level of commitment is low, why should she take risks with the man who is presently accompanying her?
You may argue that an unmarried couple can have the same level of emotional connection and commitment that a married couple has. I'd suggest that is possible but unlikely. Even if the man feels that he has the same attitude, self-sacrifice and commitment whether married or unmarried, a woman (in almost all cases) does not. She feels secure and valued when she sees tangible evidence of commitment.
Frankly I'd also submit to you that it's not merely "a piece of paper." The marital commitment in almost every case brings with it a change of attitude from "is this the fight that breaks us up?" to "We have to work this out. We're married."
I believe that the root cause of most divorce is frustration. Most couples are completely ignorant of conflict resolution skills and emotional insight about how the individual works. As a result, they fumble through unresolved conflict after unresolved conflict until they get fed up and quit because they see no other viable option. This is the tragedy that most adversely affects modern culture.
Thanks for listening.
*puts soapbox away*
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Life intervened. :)
The list I am about to send is by no means complete. My wife and I discussed this over the weekend. Here are some reasons why marital sex while emotionally connected to your spouse is far superior to any other sexual experience.
1. At its essence, sexual expression in this way is self-less. Other sex is selfish. Does that mean that there's not something in it for me? Of course not, but if I'm really connected to my wife, I want to satisfy her at least as much as I want to have an orgasm. Her expression with me is selfless, too. Her participation is about wanting to satisfy me deeply.
2. When we're emotionally connected, we're more focused on purposefully making the time and place for intimacy in our lives. That means that if she's "ready for action" and I'm not, I'll make the "sacrifice" of making her a priority, and she will do the same for me.
3. When we're married, monogamous, and emotionally connected, we're deeply invested in studying each other. I want to learn what pleases her, and she *feels* *safe* being open about what she wants, and how I can improve as a lover to better satisfy her. For most women, the importance of this point cannot be overstated. Her feeling safe emotionally with her lover is fundamental to her overall comfort as a woman. This means that she *trusts* me to accept her, flaws and all, and *value* her for the qualities that make her an incredible person. You cannot overestimate the extent to which most women feel unsafe in their skin because they are constantly compared to porn, magazine covers, fashion models, TV and movie actresses. Helping her feel safe with me *cannot* happen in a one-night stand, and it won't happen in an uncommitted long-term sexual relationship.
4. Her safety (and mine) make for a better "palette" on which to paint the kind of picture that the other wants. Whether that means cuddling with her, holding her hand, having "fast food" sex, or a multi-course "meal" of sexual intimacy - we can learn about each other and how to participate in a way that is rich for both of us. This changes over time, and as we grow old together we will continually be learning about ourselves and about each other.
5. Orgasm always feels good, but when combined with commitment, length of relationship and emotional connectedness, it comes with a sense of safety and peace for both people. Most women don't orgasm every time they have sex, but I'd suggest that the odds of inducing physiological stimulus required for her to have an orgasm are substantially improved. Regardless of whether she has an orgasm (that's likely not a significant factor in her sexual satisfaction, BTW) her overall view of the experience is far improved, and thus her interest in future participation is improved as well.
I could go on, but suffice to say that I'm into great sex, and that requires *substantially* more than merely putting my erect penis into some available vagina. The sexual experience, security, and satisfaction that I have with my wife far surpasses any imaginable sex in any other context. (And I'm a pretty creative guy.)
Respectfully,
Anomaly
weird morality standards that Christianity has adopted over the eons: sex is bad
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian view. Sex is GOOD! As a Christian, let me tell you that I enjoy sex a great deal, and praise God for creating something so pleasurable!
and should only be done within marriage
This is true - because God knows that the best place to express sex and share this level of intimacy is inside marriage. everything else may feel good, but it's merely a cheap imitation of the greatness of sex with a spouse with whom you share deep emotional connection in addition to the physical stimulation. There are lots of reasons for this.
(like as if it was not God that gave us the sexual urges)
True, but just because it comes naturally, that doesn't mean that it's good. For example, when I'm in a hurry to get somewhere, and I get cut off in traffic by some SUV-driver talking on a cell phone, it's natural for me to want to run them off the road. Natural is not always good. There is a time and a place to use anger in a positive way. The Bible says "be angry but do not sin" in the same way that it says that sex is only for marriage.
but conquering, slaughtering, bribing and all the other good stuff that the western world does these days are acceptable
Each of these issues can rarely be boiled down to a platitude.
For example:
Is it wrong to stand up to defend either yourself or someone weaker? (I'd suggest that the "just war" theory says it's sometimes the morally right thing. I'd also suggest that we are doing that for the peope of Iraq, and should do it for the North Koreans and for the people of Darfur.)
Is killing always wrong? The 10 commandments say "do not murder" not "do not kill, ever" Sometimes it *is* morally right to kill.
Is it wrong to bribe corrupt officials to smuggle food to orphans? (Don't suggest this is ridiculous, I know where this happens.) I'd suggest it's not wrong.
YMMV, but IMNSHO - If I thought that "seeing a boob" was a big problem, I'd object to my wife breast feeding my kids. I don't, and she does. It's all about purpose and context. If your purpose is to use the other person for your pleasure, then you're doing something wrong - to yourself and to the other person.
Christians don't object to sex. In the context of marriage, I greatly enjoy my relationship with my wife - emotionally, spiritually, and physically. I enjoy seeing and touching her naked body, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's how God intended it to be, and it's a beautiful thing!
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I moved to Linux in 1994 as my primary desktop and server OS. About three years ago I decided that I wanted to produce some video content. Video editing was theoretically possible in Linux - I hooked up my camcorder to my Linux box and did some editing, but the tools were primitive and cofiguration was unusually difficult.
:(
Eventually I looked at OS X and iLife. I decided to jump to a Mac. What a great move!
I found that Linux made it possible to do some things, but OS X made it simple to do them.
Fast forward a few years. I now have a few macs at home - their licensing policy makes it affordable to have several machines and a five user license for the OS and tools. My family loves the power and usability of the Mac.
Recently my linux server at home began acting a bit flaky. I did some analysis and determined that hardware replacement was needed. After checking prices for CPU/motherboard/RAM (and potentially hard disk) I figured out that I'd need a few hundred bucks to replace the CentOS box with a new one. After thinking about whether to drop a few hundred bucks or not on this server, it occurred to me that I might be able to move all of the services hosted on linux to OS X.
I found that samba,
hotwayd,
dansguardian,
uw-imapd,
fetchmail,
procmail,
spamassassin,
rsync,
rsnapshot,
apache2,
MySQL4,
PHP,
perl,
java, and
squid were all available for OS X.
Most of these are "in the box" with OS X. The only ones that I need to compile from source are uw-imapd and squid! Of course I need the bundled developer tools to get a compiler, and the Apple/BSD startup mechanism and the netinfo wierdness require some tweaks - but since when did Linux *not* require any tweaking?
What this means to me is that after more than a decade of running Linux at home (and work) I am *this* close to shutting down Linux for good at home.
Hope your experience is similar.
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - I share your recent comments about the loss of a pet.
you fail to understand how I can glean any use from the bible if I find much of it to be factually inaccurate and disagree with many of its assertions
:)
... 'destroying faith by undermining the facts laid down in the bible'
No. I do see how that could be true. It's fundamentally important to me that the Bible is true, but I see that non-Christians could derive value from understanding moral principles from the teachings of allegory.
I fail to understand how you can insist on the factual veracity of wildly improbable stories
Just because they seem unlikely to you does not make them untrue.
The fact that I place equal importance on the teachings of jesus and aristotle, plato, nietzsche, thoroeau, wittgenstein, etc. might confuse you, but it makes perfect sense to me.
So what do you do when your guideposts differ on issues? How do you determine who to follow. I assure you that Nietszche and Christ differ.
if god can create such a wonderfully complicated thing as the earth and its ecosystems and all that, why couldnt he choose to do so by way of evolution from single source as advocated by evolutionary science?
He could choose to do anything that He likes, but theologically speaking, Christian doctrine says that He didn't. Scientifically speaking, it is my view that because the concept of speciation through mutation and genetic favorability is not testable, I believe that view of evolution is non-scientific in nature. Reasonable people differ on this, and I recognize that the vast majority of scientists hold to this view. For what it's worth, the vast majority of scientists are philosophical materialists who deny supernatural events, too, so they have an a priori commitment to reject special creation.
science
No. No! NO!
Science is about acquiring knowledge. Science is good - well, science done well is good, anyway. We should use the minds that God gave us to explore and attempt to explain the physical universe. There is no chasm between Christians and Science - at least not conceptually. The problem I see is that philosophical naturalism has invaded the realm of science and has corrupted parts of it.
Ultimately the important question for science to answer is "what is true?" not "what do most scientists want to be true?"
the whole "if christianity is untrue..."
For me, if fundamental truths of Christianity are proven untrue, then the whole building collapses. To suggest that there was no man called Adam who rebelled against God also means that there was no need for a redeemer. When you say that the account of Adam and Eve is mere allegory, in my mind you're by logical extension saying that all of Christianity is untrue.
But apparently that's how you read my response. I'd appreciate it if we could keep this civil - can we agree to avoid character assassination and profanity, please?
I can see that for us to come to a place of understanding may take a great deal of time. Let's start at the beginning of your response, if you don't mind. Your mention of circular reasoning is totally valid in terms of rhetoric. However, in terms of assessing the validity of a world view, one factor is whether the content is internally consistent. My point is this: As you evaluate the teachings of Christianity, it is totally relevant to understand what Christianity says about itself. The fact that Christ, and Paul both dealt with Eden as a factual scenario tends to put a great deal of emphasis on Eden as a fact, rather than an allegory.
Appeal to the New Testament as a "proof" of the New Testament, or the Old Testament, would be employing the fallacy you describe. (an example of one of the ways we have already miscommunicated.)
Ever played telephone?
I've heard this argument before, and I belive you to be sincere when you make it. However, the facts do not support your assertion. The telephone game relies on silliness and rules that amplify the likelihood of an error. The process for making copies of New Testament letters was designed to assure consistency and eliminate errors.
The New Testament has more documentary evidence than *any* other book of antiquity, with copies from closer to the original manuscripts than *any* other book of antiquity. Most books from ancient times have less than 10 early copies from within a few humdred years of the time that they were originally written. There are more than 5,000 New Testament document fragments which date from the first century until more recent dates. To be sure these are fragments and not complete copies, but scholars are able to show conclusively that the documents have been unchanged fundamentally since they were written. The difference - in terms of hard evidence we can hold in our hands today - between the Christian Bible and every other work of antiquity is so great as to make the reliability of every other text laughable by comparison.
the affluent should help anyone because it is the good moral action,
But... Why? If Christianity is untrue, then why whould anyone do anything helpful for anyone else?
Ideas reified as authoritarian institutions, viz. The Church (not the catholic church, just organized religion), have a way of messing up good ideas
We're in agreement here. Power corrupts.
whats the lesson from being so drastically punished for a bad decision made in the absence of Knowledge of Good and Evil
Am I to understand that your position is that God's punishment was unjust?
Here's the thing. God is God. As Creator He gets to set the rules. Whether you agree with them is... (and I don't mean this disrespectfully - it applies to me as well) it's irrelevant.
As to the justifiability, God is Holy and Pure. Only things that are Holy and pure can be in His presence or the impurity will be completely destroyed by the force of His Goodness and purity. Impurity in man would have been purified by direct contact with God with the outcome being the physical destruction of Adam and Eve. God knew this and showed mercy on them - letting them live.
Let me ask you this. When you determine that God is unjust, are you not judging Him? If so, on what moral basis do you stand when you do that? If there is no God, then there is no absolute Good. Does this question make sense to you?
I choose not to ascribe cruelty to my concept of the divine.
As do I. God is kind, compassionate, and loving. Many times my kids may perceive that I'm cuel. For example, when my 2 year old needed stiches and I held him down while the doctor stuck a needle in his face many times. Was it cruel? Perhaps from Mark's perspective it was. Perhaps many of the cruelties we perceive God to have
The creator of a thing has the right to do whatever he or she wants with the thing that he or she created. The creator gets to make the rules.
Besides, God says "you can do A and bad things will happen, or do B and good things will happen" That's a little different than your analogy.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Hmmm. If I tell you
"stand under the waterfall, and you'll get wet" or
"get hit by a large mass moving at great speed and you will be injured or killed" or
"touch your tongue to a pole when the outside temperature is below freezing and it will stick and hurt when you pull it off"
Is that throwing a fit, or stating fact?
God knows that if man rebels against Him, no good will come of it. He is explicit about bad things as a natural consequence of actions you choose.
Seems to me like He's pretty much saying "it's light outside during the daytime"
YMMV
I don't mean to get too personal - but... have you been good? Have you ever sinned? If so, your question is moot. Because of our heritage (descendants of Adam) by nature we're inclined to sin. By decision, if you're honest with yourself and me, you'll admit that you have fallen short of perfection.
As a result, even if you were not isolated from God because of Adam, you already would be on the basis of your personal decision.
It's not like you're being unfairly or unjustly condemned. There is none righteous. All have sinned.
As to the point of your question, in spite of the fact that it's moot, it's like this. If cancer or alcoholism runs in your family, you have a genetic marker toward that. We all carry the genetic marker of sin.
Does this explanation make sense?
I wondered if anyone on slashdot would get that. You get bonus points. :)
The story of adam and eve is, in my opinion, allegory that is often taken WAAAAAAY to literally. This is obvious to many devout christians I'm friends with, but seems not to be to many millions of others in this country.
Here's the fallacy of that concept. Jesus himself talked about Adam and Eve as if they were real, not allegory. And in one of the key treatises on Christian theology, Paul portrayed Christ as the "second Adam." If the first Adam was allegorical, there would have been no need for a second Adam.
prevents many of the affluent from doing their share to help those less fortunate
Why should the affluent help anyone? If Christianity is an outdated mind-virus, why should any individual do anything to help anyone besides themselves?
is it *really* possible for god not to have known what adam and eve would do?
Nope. It's not. But that does not change the fact that Adam had a choice to make, and he made it. He "chose.....poorly." God is not responsible for Adam's choice even though He must have known the outcome before the beginning. Adam is responsible.
could jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?
The question is nonsense. Could God make 4=6? Can God smell the color nine? Nonsense. Tripe. But you may ask nonsense if you like. Don't expect a sensible answer, though.
Do you kick him out of the house and stop talking to him?
Well, if my kid was self-destructive, I might kick him out of the house and set up boundaries about what constituted a healthy relationship with him. FWIW - God did not stop talking to Adam. Adam still had some relationship with God - it was simply fundamentally different from the previous relationship. Adam had hope of fully restored relationship with God on the basis of God's mercy.
I'm personally not capable of belief in that which is directly contradicted by reason
I'm intrigued by this statement. First, not capable, or unwilling to submit to that kind of truth (if it exists.) Secondly, can you give an example of Christian teaching which exemplifies this?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Will allow you to go your own way. You can spend this life and the next without Him - wouldn't it be cruel of Him to compel you to spend eternity with Him if you've clearly decided that you want none of that?
His mercy prevented Him from destroying Adam and Eve. Their behavior justified Him killing them. He created them and had the right to kill them. That's one of the perks of being the creator. You get to set the rules and determine consequences. Because he loved Adam and Eve He didn't destroy them.
You hear the hot stove argument because it's tangible and obvious, not because it's "in in one of those ubiquitous books"
God provided a way for Adam to be restored to relationship with God - but the scar on my kids' hand from the accidental burn doesn't go away - it's the natural consequence of the burn itself. (Thankfully he's fully recovered and will only have a scar to show for the awful experience.) Adam
was not able to walk with God face to face any longer because he disobeyed God.
What God did was demonstrate that Adam and Eve's rebellion specifically separated them from Him. They were unable to have the same type of relationship and intimacy with Him that they once had.
I will never fully understand God - any more than my dog will ever fully comprehend me - *but* His actions make far more sense to me than any other explanation of the operation of the universe and of people within that universe than does any other explanation I've ever heard. God is *not* capricious.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
And yet so far. Your explanation seems reasonable, but is a bit off. God is not capricious.
There is a distinct difference between discerning whether something is good or evil, and understanding that a boundary has been set and should not be crossed.
My 20 month old son does not discern that touching a hot stove will burn him, but he does comprehend that he must not touch the stove. Adam and Eve knew what God said, and that breaking the rule was BAD. In fact, God told them, if you break this rule, you will die.
Eating the fruit allowed them to understand the basis for discernment of good and evil. Before that, they clearly understood that there was a rule, and that violation of that rule made them subject to punishment.
The root problem is that they (like us) want to do what THEY want rather than obey God. When they chose to disobey God, the consequence was separation from Him, and ultimately, death - for themselves and for their offspring.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I'll agree with you readily that the world has many many many hypocrites who claim to be Christians. As a Christian, I believe that God's standard for sexual purity applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
In a letter blistering Christians for their hypocrisy, the apostle Paul wrote
"Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
(1 Cor 6:9)
There's a long list of things that are offensive to God. In fact, it covers both heterosexual sin as well as homosexual sin, and adds a bunch of other items to the list as well. God's standard for holiness and purity applies to all people and in far deeper ways than most people appreciate.
Also, I want to clear something up here right now!
It's not about "hating gays." I DON'T hate gays. In fact, if the teaching of Christianity is
1) that people who engage in sexual activity with people of the same gender, and
2) as a result are doing something which distances them from God,
Then wouldn't people who "hate" gays want to make them far from God? If so, wouldn't the hateful thing be to let them, or perhaps encourage them to do what makes God mad? Instead, I submit to you that the loving thing is to tell people what God's standard for purity is, and what it takes to have a real, personal relationship with the God who created them - including how to live a life that is free from shame and filled with hope. As a follower of Christ, that is what I want to do.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I just picked up a "spare" thinkpad T21 (PIII 800MHz, 384MB RAM)
:)
I booted Puppy Linux, and after about 5 minutes figuring out where Puppy stores the WEP key, had that box on line. It's rocket fast and requires no tweaking. I was blown away with how well I could open word and excel documents from OWA.
New OS' from Redmond always need more CPU and RAM. Interestingly, I was also recently shocked at how usable Tiger was on a G3 233 with 256MB RAM. DARN usable. Try that with a current MS OS and hardware built in 1999!
After running linux as my primary desktop OS for SEVEN years, I bought a Mac three years ago.
I wanted to have an easier time of managing music, movies, and photos as well as producing new content. What I found was that what was *possible* on Linux (after investing a ton of time) was not only possible, but actually as easy as could reasonably be expected on my Mac. I drank the kool-aid. Let's be clear here. I was a passionate advocate of Linux on the desktop - using it personally and professionally EVERY DAY - on multiple PCs, both servers and clients - I knew what I was doing with it, and had success with it. I gave up - not because Linux was incapable, but because it was too expensive in terms of time. Frankly, that OS X was more complete in terms of user-space applications was not a surprise to me. I was a little surprised that I found myself happy to pay money for the "complete-ness" because my experience (and that of my wife and kids) was so far superior to our collective Linux experience.
What *shocked* me was that I decided just a couple of months ago that I no longer NEED Linux for my server OS at home because OS X can do everything that I count on Linux to do for me. I've been running Linux servers at home since 1994! To realize that I'm quite content to completely move away from Linux as a platform at home was truly surprising. I have a couple of major services to convert, but soon all will be migrated to OS X, and I can decomm my Linux servers completely.
I suspect that other folks who have been passionate about linux adoption will have tested the waters (especially now that Parallels can provide XP/Vista w/o rebooting) and have made the same decision I have made. To me, this suggests that there is likely to be a bit of a drain on Linux devotees.
The good news for Linux is that the market of users for all OS' is continually growing, and there's room for just about every technology itch to be scratched. Not only that, but many OS X things will leverage F/OSS toolkits, and thus be fairly portable to Linux, too.
I've been poking around with ripping the content from my DVD's this week. It's time consuming, but really empowering.
1. I don't have to watch the %%&^#$@!#$$^ FBI warning. For heaven's sake - the people who BOUGHT the DVD don't need the warning. It's the pirates who don't read or care about it. It's like carping to the people who show up on time to meetings about the onse who arrive late!
2. I don't have to watch whatever commercials the content producer shoves down my throat.
3. I don't have to fiddle with media - now that it's hosted on my computer I can get to the whole catalog any time. This is rich for two reasons:
a. I don't want to worry about where did I put the disc the last time I watched it? and
b. I don't have to worry about my kids losing, scratching, breaking the media
On the down side, there's
1. It takes a LONG time to yank that content from the disc.
2. "bonus features" are no longer associated with the movie
3. No concept of chapters - It's one long stream from start to end - rather like videotape. When I want to watch a DVD with multiple "shorts" I can "play all" - do I rip that content to individual clips and then do some sort of playlist, or do I rip to one contiguous clip and scan along until I get to the part I want?
4. No transparent support of multiple audio tracks with each movie - If I want the content with the english and the director's commentary I need to rip the movie twice - and take 2x the time and DASD.
5. Less portable - I can't as easily take one piece of content to my friend's house to watch, nor can I trivially loan this content to a friend on something cheap.
6. Hookup to TV - since I don't (yet) have a video iPod, my choices are:
a. watch on my computer
b. hook up a computer to the TV and play it there.
Still working on that one - Love my Tivo and the menu-driven simplicity. Do I set up Myth, too? (Tivo's networking is AWFUL - in series 2) Do I buy a mini and play thru itunes to my tv? Do I wait until St. Steve releases the "official" Apple way (iTV) - dunno - none of the ideas available to me are trivial and/or inexpensive.
In general, I'm happy with the shackles of content control being lifted from me. There are still some issues to resolve, but choice is good. I don't mind paying the content providers, but once I have paid them, I should be able to manipulate the data for personal use the way I want to.
The last several times that the US military has been deployed it has been to help Muslims:
Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Kosovo, Somalia.... We have liberated 50 million or more Muslims, and we are hated for it?
American forced rained death on those fighting, but then brought inconceivable amounts of humanitarian aid to the people afflicted by the violence. We destroyed infrastructure - and then have engaged in a rebuilding campaign on the scale of the Marshall plan. What we are building is better and stronger than what existed when we arrived on the scene to protect liberty, freedom, and inalienable rights of mankind.
I will make no defense of the Crusades. The behavior of those participating was not in keeping with Christian teaching, and should have been rejected. It was reprehensible then and is today. Hwever deplorable the abuses of the Crusades, they cannot minimize the cruelty, oppression, slavery, and evil of the Muslim alternative.
The true test of a world view is the logical outcome of those people who adhere to its teachings carefully. The natural outworking of the Islamic world view is tyranny, oppression and murder for those who will not convert. We have no alternative other than to fight. For what it's worth, the natural outworking of a Christian world view is a country that values citizens, protects the innocent, and is tolerant of dissenting world views.
Columbus wanted to go to the far east, but wanted to avoid the Middle East because it had the same problems then that exist now. The conflict between the west and the middle east is far older than merely recent generations. They don't hate us because of what we have done to them, they hate us now for the same reason they have hated the west for centuries - because we deny the fundamental teachings of their world view - and therefore we must be destroyed.
Islam's war with the US has been a long-running one. Ever hear of the Barbary Pirates?
You can argue that this is a war where we have been intervening where it's none of our business and they are "paying us back" but really this is an ideological conflict that has roots far deeper than the last couple of decades.
International politics are frequently far more complex than
"You started it!"
"Did Not!"
Regardless of recent events, the actions of the terrorists are indefensible. If we say "Sorry" and then we "Butt out and mind our own business" for the rest of time, Osama's followers will continue to wage war against us until they all die or we all die.
Who let new people in the pool?
Find a better place to live and go - don't stay around here carping about how awful we are. If we're awful, don't pollute yourself any longer with our awful-ness. Get out today while you're still pure.
Explosive decompression only happens in movies. Essentially a bullet through the ski of an aircraft, through a window, or even blowing out an entire window won't create explosive decompression.
If you blow out the side of an aircraft with explosives, you can experience explosive decompression. (See mythbusters for the graphic demonstration of this idea.)
Interestingly, even if the a top section of an aircraft blows away, the plane can still be viable (till landing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Flight_243
Regards,
Anomaly
why are the bad guys screwing with us in the first place. Oh ya, because we've been screwing with them for decades.
Interesting perspective. You know, the core problem is our inability to understand exactly why these people hate us. They hate us because their view of the world tells them that we need to be converted to their world view, or they need to kill us.
Their evidence for our need to die is the music, movies and television that we pump around the world glorifying a lifestyle that is completely objectionable to their way of thinking. They also may be upset about our past political and military interventions, but those are not the primary motivation.
It's simply not possible to negotiate with someone who demands that you become like them or die. In fact, in our "civilized society" we can't imagine that negotiation of compromise is impossible. What we fail to recognize is that you cannot negotiate with someone whose only acceptable conditions are your death or conversion. These terrorists are like the Borg, and the only thing that they understand is force.
Negotiation or withdrawal will return the exact same result as appeasement did in Eastern Europe.
They hate us because, regardless of what we've done, their view of the world says that we must die. It simply does not matter what we have done or will do. We can't make friends with them.
It's this misunderstanding that leads people down the wrong path - thinking that there is a negotiable peace, or that they are upset with us because they have been wronged by us.
Our only choice is to convert to their world view or be killed. I will choose to fight them. Today that means supporting our military actions. If their strength grows and I am needed on the battlefield, I will do what must be done to protect my children from oppression and tyranny.
If you think our government is tyrannical, you have no idea of the definition of that term. I don't defend every action of my government or leaders, but I live in the best place on earth to live, and I tire of people complaining about every little thing as if it's the end of freedom for Americans.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Does it really matter whether Terri would have been indiscernable from the pre-injury Terri? Human life is sacred and should be protected. I would think that if Terri had above-average IQ to begin with, and after treatment she had below-average IQ, she would have been OK with that. It beats being dead!
The Schiavo case was more complex than that anyway - her husband denied her opportunities to have treatment which could have been beneficial for her, and had much to gain from her demise - freedom from responsibility of caring for her, money which had been allocated for her care, etc.
IMNSHO, he should have given the money and the responsibility for her care to her mom and dad - who wanted that. He could have walked away and had his freedom. Instead he chose to have her legally killed.
Let me ask you. If you're in a similar situtation, would you want your "guardian" to have you starved to death with no food and no water?