Hey, that might be the case in the US, but in other parts of the world we Christians do expect the return of the Son of God, but:
1- We don't have any idea when and how it's going to be, things might happen in any order (people that think they got a clear idea of how things are going to be from reading Revelations really startle me) and it can be tomorrow as well as it could be in ten thousand years.
2- We don't try to make the apocalypse happen - people that think they have a roadmap on how to make it happen are walking a path of big arrogance. Nowhere in the bible does God ask for any help making such things happen. He only told us to love Him and to love others, and tell them about His love. There's nothing there about manipulating geopolitics to trigger anything or any crap like that. But I guess some people find all that love stuff boring and want to collaborate by invading some country or forcing someone to say they believe in Jesus.
Writing propietary software is not justifiable no matter how much you want to feed your children.
Laughable. Writing free software might be desirable, but it's very childish to think that anything other than your preferences is "unjustifiable". For all the bashing of religion people like Stallman do, it's funny how religious they get with their own desires and philosophies.
The fact that free software and open source are good things is shown in the results, the amount of people being served by such software every day. It would be just the same if we didn't have zealots telling people that any other choice is morally wrong, save for the lack of earbleed.
Free software is a convenient way of developing solutions for people. It's convenient for society, the economy, etc... I don't know if it fits all the cases. But convenient doesn't mean "The only morally acceptable way or else you are some kind of criminal".
mod parent up. Grandparent is arguing for the legality of anything written on a piece of paper, even if it is the mass deportation to extermination camps.
In practice it works. The fact that not so many people want to put it in practice is another issue. People can twist any belief system to suit irresponsability. That's why a big chunk of the new testament is devoted to warn people about being superficial with their faith: the seed that fell on rocky soil, the man who builds his house upon sand, the pharisees, the hypocrites, the ones who think its about fulfilling a couple of social norms and just that, the ones who think it's about condemning the evil they see in others, the ones who think its about finding whose fault it is (who sinned so that this man is blind, he or his parents?) instead of improving things for people; warnings about believing in ones present state of rightousness as sufficient and as cause to proclaim some kind of superiority above others.
Iit's not like Jesus taught something like "say you are a believer and everything will be fine" or any temporal utopia like that. So I think it's pretty fair to say that anyone who claims to be a christian and believes and acts persistently against such warnings is not a christian. Following Jesus and his teachings is the definition of being a christian. If He had said "well, I dont care what you do to kids" instead of "whoever harms one of these little ones it'd be better to tie himself to a rock and jump into a river" it would be fair to say that excluding people who persist in not taking responsability, doing evil, etc... from the "christian" category is a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. But Jesus demanded some very specific behaviors from His followers: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Mt 7:21).
Many christian leaders and movements would be far more threatened by an honest reading of scripture than from any atheist attack
On the other hand, it's pretty useful to look back in history and see all the errors made in the name of faith, to evaluate them and to take responsability so that we don't repeat them again. Not only its necessary, but in order to judge it unnecessary we christians would have to put ourselves in a "100% biblical christian category, unlike everyone else" that's far from reality and from what scripture says about our nature.
Errr... Someone else correctly pointed out Luke 16. I'll add Luke 13:28: "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out" That sounds pretty much conscious.
Big misrepresentation. That's how an inmature person acts, christian or not. A lot of us thank God for good things we find in life, strive to live better lives for us and the rest of people and take responsability for our actions. God's grace is actually a great motivation to take responsability of consecuences for past acts, as those consecuences dont inhibit being loved and signified by God. And it's a great motivation to take action in the present for better, as it gives meaning to efforts.
If things go bad because I ruined them, I ruined them, period. Being a christian doesn't mean I didnt screw up. It means I should pick up, take responsability and move on. It means I don't have an excuse to stay in a state of depression and guilt, as all my sins were paid, and at the same time the God that gave me such gift expects and demands faith, love, responsability, virtue.
And, being a christian also means that if things go bad for reasons outside my control, well, it's out of my control. Gotta accept that. Believing in God's sovereignty means accepting a lot of things are outside our control. Which is usually a good realization in order to act on the things we do control.
Thinking "If it goes well its god's plan, if it goes shit then its god's plan." about stuff in which we have a say/possibility/responsability is BadTheology(TM).
I wonder what the motivation behind this is... is it to take a competitor out of the road? Or maybe it's more bening, such as gaining qualified employees?
The whole premise of "war" is that "enemy" lives are worth less than "own side" lives and that it's absurd to sacrifice yours to save theirs.
And you are putting the enemy soldiers and the civilians of their nation together in the "the enemy" category. That, to many (including me) is inmoral.
real geniuses produce breakthroughs in art, science and technology
this. You nailed it.
How is it that we rate someone as genius because of this degrees and IQ?? Does anyone care about Bach's IQ / degrees? Would we remember Newton if all he had were IQ and degrees?
I've never understood why people get all shocked when someone uses a competitor's product
Maybe in this case people get shocked not because it's just a competing product but one that was deemed a "cancer" by MS itself? It's one thing to use a competitor product, it's another to use something you denounce as immoral.
do you think the TSA guys checked that the guy was carrying what he told them? Oh, we are going to accept your bribe, but we'll check your package. I don't think so.
You gotta to admit though, killing of large portions of a nation's population is good way to move towards victory.
What's so morally supreme about the US defeating Japan that would made mass killing of civilians justifiable? I'd much rather not win the war than do so in such a manner. Japan couldn't do a thing. It was surrounded. It's air force destroyed. It's navy too. What makes getting a surrender from them so important to say, yeah, lets burn those cities?
We were talking about the crimes of the various christian churches. Crimes actually committed by the INSTITUTION, and you mention a few good dids done by INDIVIDUALS, most of them not actual members of the church but just followers of the faith.
That's a fallacy if there's one... no, it was individuals doing wrong and right, and institutions and parts of institutions doing right and wrong. Wilberforce for example had the support of his church. Luther, was founding a whole new institution, so was Wesley, so was St Francis. The Jesuits on northeast argentina, paraguay, uruguay, they were an institution. I know it would make it simpler to just consider each good christian as someone in rebellion of all institutions, but history is not so simple as hate would make it seem.
Let's take the example of the Palotinos: THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND THE ACTUAL VATICAN supported the military during the dirty war in Argentina, and you take the example of 5 guys that were against it. So, that somehow changes the position of the church?
The whole catholic church? The "teologia de liberacion", "opcion por los pobres", "tercermundistas" did not exist? There even were and are bishops and whole swaths of the catholic church in said movements. I agree with you that a big chunk of the institution was on the dictatorship side, but another big chunk was against. Btw, the palotinos were and are a lot more than the five killed.
Also, Newton was a christian because everybody was a christian back then.
That would be heavily contradictory with him writing more theology than physics. The fact that he did indicates that he wasn't just trying to fit in.
Announcing god's free salvation for man? There is no god, they are not helping people, they are brainwashing then. How is that good in any way?
You sound like instead of being an agnostic who cannot prove God's existence or non-existence has strong proof of Him being a lie.
God created man and saw it was good? Nobody created man, we evolved. Again, they were lying to people, and stopping the progress of science.
Well, a lot of us christians are happy reading and creating science. I'm sorry if that disrupts the belief that "science and faith are mortal enemies", but we'll keep doing both. Too bad. Should I be sorry that a lot of us don't have a problem with evolution and any other theory being taught? Should we play the "bad guys" to fit your cosmovision? Wouldn't that be a little "dogmatic" ?
Even if their life sucks they are loved by god and the church?
Maybe you want to go into their sad lives and tell them there's no love for them, I'll sure they'll apreciate.
See, that's what the church is for: Your life sucks, you pay 100% taxes, you are born poor and you will be poor until you die, but don't worry, after you die, god will pay you back? FUCK OFF, that's the speech the powerful use to keep the oppressed masses calm.
Once again, sorry that we are not doing our role properly. We'll stop doing what we are doing and will try to be the "opium of the masses" soon. Nah, it's better to tell people that because he created us all and we are all born in sin, then there's nothing inherently better morally in the rich than in the poor. Btw, John Wesley preached that in 18th century England and many in the nobility did not like it a single bit. That message was picked up by Wilberforce to fight against slavery. Oh the horror, how dare Christians say God loves man.
And we should, tell them that they will be poor for life? Dude, people are managing to finish school in places where the biggest aim was to be a robber, because we told them than the loving God wants them to "straighten their paths so that what is twisted and broken is healed", and not only because we told them but because He supernaturally has worked such convictions in them
Sorry, I forgot - in religious arguments you're already claiming a victory, on the grounds that I'm a heretic, an apostate, a satanist or maybe even merely a misguided fool that would only see the light if I gave enough of my money to a pederast.
And in which part did I do that? I missed that part of the flick.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be easier to just add EVERYONE to the terror list?
Maybe that's exactly the idea
Hey, that might be the case in the US, but in other parts of the world we Christians do expect the return of the Son of God, but:
1- We don't have any idea when and how it's going to be, things might happen in any order (people that think they got a clear idea of how things are going to be from reading Revelations really startle me) and it can be tomorrow as well as it could be in ten thousand years.
2- We don't try to make the apocalypse happen - people that think they have a roadmap on how to make it happen are walking a path of big arrogance. Nowhere in the bible does God ask for any help making such things happen. He only told us to love Him and to love others, and tell them about His love. There's nothing there about manipulating geopolitics to trigger anything or any crap like that. But I guess some people find all that love stuff boring and want to collaborate by invading some country or forcing someone to say they believe in Jesus.
I'm surprised that something written in this way made its way out the software shop doors
ROFL. I think most software is like that, what surprises me is finding that some widely deployed software is well coded.
Writing propietary software is not justifiable no matter how much you want to feed your children.
Laughable. Writing free software might be desirable, but it's very childish to think that anything other than your preferences is "unjustifiable". For all the bashing of religion people like Stallman do, it's funny how religious they get with their own desires and philosophies.
The fact that free software and open source are good things is shown in the results, the amount of people being served by such software every day. It would be just the same if we didn't have zealots telling people that any other choice is morally wrong, save for the lack of earbleed.
Free software is a convenient way of developing solutions for people. It's convenient for society, the economy, etc... I don't know if it fits all the cases. But convenient doesn't mean "The only morally acceptable way or else you are some kind of criminal".
sudo mod parent up. really
Einstein
The judges at Nuremberg did not agree with you.
mod parent up. Grandparent is arguing for the legality of anything written on a piece of paper, even if it is the mass deportation to extermination camps.
In practice it works. The fact that not so many people want to put it in practice is another issue. People can twist any belief system to suit irresponsability. That's why a big chunk of the new testament is devoted to warn people about being superficial with their faith: the seed that fell on rocky soil, the man who builds his house upon sand, the pharisees, the hypocrites, the ones who think its about fulfilling a couple of social norms and just that, the ones who think it's about condemning the evil they see in others, the ones who think its about finding whose fault it is (who sinned so that this man is blind, he or his parents?) instead of improving things for people; warnings about believing in ones present state of rightousness as sufficient and as cause to proclaim some kind of superiority above others.
Iit's not like Jesus taught something like "say you are a believer and everything will be fine" or any temporal utopia like that. So I think it's pretty fair to say that anyone who claims to be a christian and believes and acts persistently against such warnings is not a christian. Following Jesus and his teachings is the definition of being a christian. If He had said "well, I dont care what you do to kids" instead of "whoever harms one of these little ones it'd be better to tie himself to a rock and jump into a river" it would be fair to say that excluding people who persist in not taking responsability, doing evil, etc... from the "christian" category is a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. But Jesus demanded some very specific behaviors from His followers: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Mt 7:21).
Many christian leaders and movements would be far more threatened by an honest reading of scripture than from any atheist attack
On the other hand, it's pretty useful to look back in history and see all the errors made in the name of faith, to evaluate them and to take responsability so that we don't repeat them again. Not only its necessary, but in order to judge it unnecessary we christians would have to put ourselves in a "100% biblical christian category, unlike everyone else" that's far from reality and from what scripture says about our nature.
Errr... Someone else correctly pointed out Luke 16. I'll add Luke 13:28: "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out" That sounds pretty much conscious.
Big misrepresentation. That's how an inmature person acts, christian or not. A lot of us thank God for good things we find in life, strive to live better lives for us and the rest of people and take responsability for our actions. God's grace is actually a great motivation to take responsability of consecuences for past acts, as those consecuences dont inhibit being loved and signified by God. And it's a great motivation to take action in the present for better, as it gives meaning to efforts. If things go bad because I ruined them, I ruined them, period. Being a christian doesn't mean I didnt screw up. It means I should pick up, take responsability and move on. It means I don't have an excuse to stay in a state of depression and guilt, as all my sins were paid, and at the same time the God that gave me such gift expects and demands faith, love, responsability, virtue. And, being a christian also means that if things go bad for reasons outside my control, well, it's out of my control. Gotta accept that. Believing in God's sovereignty means accepting a lot of things are outside our control. Which is usually a good realization in order to act on the things we do control. Thinking "If it goes well its god's plan, if it goes shit then its god's plan." about stuff in which we have a say/possibility/responsability is BadTheology(TM).
I wonder what the motivation behind this is... is it to take a competitor out of the road? Or maybe it's more bening, such as gaining qualified employees?
The whole premise of "war" is that "enemy" lives are worth less than "own side" lives and that it's absurd to sacrifice yours to save theirs.
And you are putting the enemy soldiers and the civilians of their nation together in the "the enemy" category. That, to many (including me) is inmoral.
If all that killing and intimidation doesnt get people to obey them or them to control territory (impose their will) then yes, they are losing.
I'm not bashing it being news, which it is. I'm bashing the summary for declaring him "above genius level".
real geniuses produce breakthroughs in art, science and technology
this. You nailed it. How is it that we rate someone as genius because of this degrees and IQ?? Does anyone care about Bach's IQ / degrees? Would we remember Newton if all he had were IQ and degrees?
and where did the quantum soup come from?
how in earth was such "failed at reading comprehension" junk get up-modded?
I've never understood why people get all shocked when someone uses a competitor's product
Maybe in this case people get shocked not because it's just a competing product but one that was deemed a "cancer" by MS itself? It's one thing to use a competitor product, it's another to use something you denounce as immoral.
right, because the people that dies fighting in a war always do it voluntarily/consentfully ????
do you think the TSA guys checked that the guy was carrying what he told them? Oh, we are going to accept your bribe, but we'll check your package. I don't think so.
You gotta to admit though, killing of large portions of a nation's population is good way to move towards victory.
What's so morally supreme about the US defeating Japan that would made mass killing of civilians justifiable? I'd much rather not win the war than do so in such a manner. Japan couldn't do a thing. It was surrounded. It's air force destroyed. It's navy too. What makes getting a surrender from them so important to say, yeah, lets burn those cities?
"everybody is doing it" is not an acceptable justification.
We were talking about the crimes of the various christian churches. Crimes actually committed by the INSTITUTION, and you mention a few good dids done by INDIVIDUALS, most of them not actual members of the church but just followers of the faith.
That's a fallacy if there's one... no, it was individuals doing wrong and right, and institutions and parts of institutions doing right and wrong. Wilberforce for example had the support of his church. Luther, was founding a whole new institution, so was Wesley, so was St Francis. The Jesuits on northeast argentina, paraguay, uruguay, they were an institution. I know it would make it simpler to just consider each good christian as someone in rebellion of all institutions, but history is not so simple as hate would make it seem.
Let's take the example of the Palotinos: THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND THE ACTUAL VATICAN supported the military during the dirty war in Argentina, and you take the example of 5 guys that were against it. So, that somehow changes the position of the church?
The whole catholic church? The "teologia de liberacion", "opcion por los pobres", "tercermundistas" did not exist? There even were and are bishops and whole swaths of the catholic church in said movements. I agree with you that a big chunk of the institution was on the dictatorship side, but another big chunk was against. Btw, the palotinos were and are a lot more than the five killed.
Also, Newton was a christian because everybody was a christian back then.
That would be heavily contradictory with him writing more theology than physics. The fact that he did indicates that he wasn't just trying to fit in.
Announcing god's free salvation for man? There is no god, they are not helping people, they are brainwashing then. How is that good in any way?
You sound like instead of being an agnostic who cannot prove God's existence or non-existence has strong proof of Him being a lie.
God created man and saw it was good? Nobody created man, we evolved. Again, they were lying to people, and stopping the progress of science.
Well, a lot of us christians are happy reading and creating science. I'm sorry if that disrupts the belief that "science and faith are mortal enemies", but we'll keep doing both. Too bad. Should I be sorry that a lot of us don't have a problem with evolution and any other theory being taught? Should we play the "bad guys" to fit your cosmovision? Wouldn't that be a little "dogmatic" ?
Even if their life sucks they are loved by god and the church?
Maybe you want to go into their sad lives and tell them there's no love for them, I'll sure they'll apreciate.
See, that's what the church is for: Your life sucks, you pay 100% taxes, you are born poor and you will be poor until you die, but don't worry, after you die, god will pay you back? FUCK OFF, that's the speech the powerful use to keep the oppressed masses calm.
Once again, sorry that we are not doing our role properly. We'll stop doing what we are doing and will try to be the "opium of the masses" soon. Nah, it's better to tell people that because he created us all and we are all born in sin, then there's nothing inherently better morally in the rich than in the poor. Btw, John Wesley preached that in 18th century England and many in the nobility did not like it a single bit. That message was picked up by Wilberforce to fight against slavery. Oh the horror, how dare Christians say God loves man. And we should, tell them that they will be poor for life? Dude, people are managing to finish school in places where the biggest aim was to be a robber, because we told them than the loving God wants them to "straighten their paths so that what is twisted and broken is healed", and not only because we told them but because He supernaturally has worked such convictions in them
Sorry, I forgot - in religious arguments you're already claiming a victory, on the grounds that I'm a heretic, an apostate, a satanist or maybe even merely a misguided fool that would only see the light if I gave enough of my money to a pederast.
And in which part did I do that? I missed that part of the flick.