What's the rate on women forgetting to take The Pill and getting pregnant, anyway? Perhaps putting too fine a point on it, but I expect it's still a damn sight easier to get an abortion than to get un-HIV'd.
So basically, the only time anyone would ever collect audio evidence against someone was if they were a complete fucking moron and agreed to being recorded in advance.
"But only people with things to hide object to anal probes^W^Wbeing recorded!"
Twisting towards the right hand could be "over the top" (clockwise) or "around the bottom" (counterclockwise). Not to mention that unless you specify whether you're twisting down the strand towards or away from you (assuming the strands are pointed straight away from your body), means you end up with 4 ways to arrive at 2 possible orientations.
I suppose the scientific response is, "No, shut up; we just defined this confusing and nonstandard wording as X."
Ah. Interesting. I was aware that John was the outlier of the four, yes. Among the four they each have a tendency to focus on a different aspect of Jesus' life (his parables, his miracles...) so I guess it's always a question of "creative license"/interpretation (although some people would consider the thought blasphemous).
According to Paul N. Anderson, the gospel "contains more direct claims to eyewitness origins than any of the other Gospel traditions". F. F. Bruce argues that 19:35 contains an "emphatic and explicit claim to eyewitness authority".
Heh. Go figure...always look hardest at the guy who claims the loudest he knows what is going on:)
The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD. According to Victorinus and Irenaeus, the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Jewish Christian groups which they deemed heretical. This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century.
Sure would've been easier if Jesus and Mohammed had just gotten a guy to dictate to, eh.
(For reference historians think the crucifixion was April 30-33 A.D.)
Paul is the one saying they shouldn't make Gentiles conform to their customs and *he's* the unreasonable cult one? Umm...okay...
The Gnostic Gospels contradict all kinds of things, which is a lot of the reason why they were excluded from canon...fairly or unfairly is kind of another argument. Either the official ones are full of crap, or the "illuminated" ones are, or somewhere in between.
Differences include things like the shift from an earthly to a heavenly kingdom
Well, if we're going to limit ourselves to the Gospels as you say...
Hell, it seems like Jesus spends half the Gospels trying to get the disciples (and others) to stop asking him when he's going to start his earthly kingdom.
Sure, the Ancient Egyptian religion had a theology, but it is more general. In the same way Christianity has the theology, but the Paulian Cult has a particular theology.
Ah. You mean "more narrowly defined." I was reading it as "with a set definition at all."
Paul's beliefs and practicisewere considered deviant and novel by both other Christians
I mean, there was some argument whether to follow Paul or Apollo or etc. etc. according to Acts...but I guess I'm not familiar with that part of the history. Any good links handy?
The point I was making is that by the parents reasoning the Paulian Cult (and thus all of its descendants) is not Christianity because Jesus (if he existed and is recorded reasonably accurately in the gospels) would be unlikely to endorse Paul's bizzare theology.
I guess I'd be interested to hear what is considered "all mangled up" about Paulian dogma, considering that whole bit about Jesus saying, "Upon you I shall build this church"...oh wait; no, that was Peter. Hmm.
A cult is a religious group that follows a particular theological system.
Umm...as opposed to a religion that doesn't consistently follow any system? I thought we just called them "crazies" or "anarchists" or something.
I don't see what distinction you're trying to make here. I'd define a cult as having a single, charismatic leader, and a proportionally small number of adherents. Wikipedia claims "deviant and novel beliefs and practices."
There's this inconvenient thing called weather that tends to mean when you nuke somebody, the radiation cloud doesn't neatly fall straight down and abide by arbitrarily-drawn straight lines on maps.
The world found out about Chernobyl because scientists in *Sweden* detected the radiation.
China and Russia don't like other nations interfering on any countries sovereign soil which is near them so they have a vested interest in it.
FTFY. I'm sure China and Russia would get real riled up if somebody invaded Argentina or South Africa. In the same way, the U.S. would get pissed if someone invaded Mexico.
Slashdot Mirror
So they're choosing to be stupid already, might as well be stupid for science?
Can't argue there, I suppose.
and takes them on time
What's the rate on women forgetting to take The Pill and getting pregnant, anyway? Perhaps putting too fine a point on it, but I expect it's still a damn sight easier to get an abortion than to get un-HIV'd.
Somebody could take over the world with whatever they're using to convince people to participate in those experiments as far as I'm concerned.
Outcome A) They were right and presumably they pay you.
Outcome B) You now have HIV.
"No, no! We're reeeeally sure it's gonna be B. Almost positive. We just need more data."
Isn't most of the point of valet parking that you leave the engine running when you get out? In which case you'd've had to drive there in valet mode.
You *can*, but good luck trying it. I expect we'll be reading about it here on /. a few weeks later.
So basically, the only time anyone would ever collect audio evidence against someone was if they were a complete fucking moron and agreed to being recorded in advance.
"But only people with things to hide object to anal probes^W^Wbeing recorded!"
Either they should both be legal, or not.
Be careful what you wish for.
I think the outcome where it's legal for the government to surreptitiously record audio *and* video of me is a hell of a lot more likely than neither.
What's that you say? The NSA didn't actually have the authority to do that? Fat lot of good it does us.
Good for them, I guess? Still nothing I would ever want to validate experimentally...
It makes more sense than saying "to the right" in a circular motion.
Looks like my guess was wrong then--that article seems to indicate that "to the right" = "counterclockwise" for some applications.
When we already have an unambiguous term to describe something, co-opting an ambiguous one instead is foolish.
And we all know that the entire field of mathematics is "because we said so" anyway so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised ;)
Why "right-handed"? Shouldn't it be "clockwise"?
Twisting towards the right hand could be "over the top" (clockwise) or "around the bottom" (counterclockwise). Not to mention that unless you specify whether you're twisting down the strand towards or away from you (assuming the strands are pointed straight away from your body), means you end up with 4 ways to arrive at 2 possible orientations.
I suppose the scientific response is, "No, shut up; we just defined this confusing and nonstandard wording as X."
Ah. Interesting. I was aware that John was the outlier of the four, yes. Among the four they each have a tendency to focus on a different aspect of Jesus' life (his parables, his miracles...) so I guess it's always a question of "creative license"/interpretation (although some people would consider the thought blasphemous).
According to Paul N. Anderson, the gospel "contains more direct claims to eyewitness origins than any of the other Gospel traditions". F. F. Bruce argues that 19:35 contains an "emphatic and explicit claim to eyewitness authority".
Heh. Go figure...always look hardest at the guy who claims the loudest he knows what is going on :)
The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD. According to Victorinus and Irenaeus, the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Jewish Christian groups which they deemed heretical. This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century.
Sure would've been easier if Jesus and Mohammed had just gotten a guy to dictate to, eh.
(For reference historians think the crucifixion was April 30-33 A.D.)
Paul is the one saying they shouldn't make Gentiles conform to their customs and *he's* the unreasonable cult one? Umm...okay...
The Gnostic Gospels contradict all kinds of things, which is a lot of the reason why they were excluded from canon...fairly or unfairly is kind of another argument. Either the official ones are full of crap, or the "illuminated" ones are, or somewhere in between.
Differences include things like the shift from an earthly to a heavenly kingdom
Well, if we're going to limit ourselves to the Gospels as you say...
My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.
Hell, it seems like Jesus spends half the Gospels trying to get the disciples (and others) to stop asking him when he's going to start his earthly kingdom.
Thanks for the explanations.
Sure, the Ancient Egyptian religion had a theology, but it is more general. In the same way Christianity has the theology, but the Paulian Cult has a particular theology.
Ah. You mean "more narrowly defined." I was reading it as "with a set definition at all."
Paul's beliefs and practicisewere considered deviant and novel by both other Christians
I mean, there was some argument whether to follow Paul or Apollo or etc. etc. according to Acts...but I guess I'm not familiar with that part of the history. Any good links handy?
The point I was making is that by the parents reasoning the Paulian Cult (and thus all of its descendants) is not Christianity because Jesus (if he existed and is recorded reasonably accurately in the gospels) would be unlikely to endorse Paul's bizzare theology.
I guess I'd be interested to hear what is considered "all mangled up" about Paulian dogma, considering that whole bit about Jesus saying, "Upon you I shall build this church"...oh wait; no, that was Peter. Hmm.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/...
"I've gotten" meaning "I have received," not "I currently have."
Ich läufe nicht einen Virusscanner und habe nie ein Virus bekommen.
A shell is a payload-carrying projectile which, as opposed to shot, contains an explosive or other filling,
Although I suppose the explodey bits may cost more than steel? It's not going to be solid steel, anyway.
A cult is a religious group that follows a particular theological system.
Umm...as opposed to a religion that doesn't consistently follow any system? I thought we just called them "crazies" or "anarchists" or something.
I don't see what distinction you're trying to make here. I'd define a cult as having a single, charismatic leader, and a proportionally small number of adherents. Wikipedia claims "deviant and novel beliefs and practices."
Just because you don't believe crazy stuff doesn't mean you eat government propaganda with a spoon. There is a middle ground.
And please feel free to NOT use the word "sheeple." Because that's so witty and I totally haven't heard it 8000 times before.
What's wrong with his grammar?
It's easier than going through point-by-point and writing "this is clearly insane" for 18 different rebuttals.
There's this inconvenient thing called weather that tends to mean when you nuke somebody, the radiation cloud doesn't neatly fall straight down and abide by arbitrarily-drawn straight lines on maps.
The world found out about Chernobyl because scientists in *Sweden* detected the radiation.
Bush Senior fabricated evidence, or Bush Junior had 40 countries behind him for Iraq II? I'm confused.
China and Russia don't like other nations interfering on any countries sovereign soil which is near them so they have a vested interest in it.
FTFY. I'm sure China and Russia would get real riled up if somebody invaded Argentina or South Africa. In the same way, the U.S. would get pissed if someone invaded Mexico.
So reciprocally you don't have any objections to the U.S. just utterly annihilating Syria and Iraq, right? Hey, it's total war, right?