Now here's the interestint thing: if you reject Aquinas's notion - that is, you think both people are right, that we can manifest our own God for our own purposes - then you must reject the existence of God, because at that point there can be no such thing as an eternal God because our own God dies with us.
I disagree with two conclusions made in this paragraph.
First, you can think both people are right without rejecting the existence of God, or even the immutability of God. You assume a God whose existence is governed by the human understanding of logic and rationality, which is not necessarily the case. The nature of God could be such that multiple seemingly-exclusive interpretations of God's will or existence are both, for lack of a better word, "right" or "true".
Second, and this objection stands without the first objection, even if "God" is a personal construct, that doesn't mean God "goes away" when the believing human dies. The human could go on beyond earthly existence (indeed, this is a canonical Christian belief); or his God could be eternal notwithstanding the believing human.
Me, I don't believe any of those things necessarily. All I'm saying is either the theological argument is incomplete, or incompletely stated.
This is a non-sequitir, but can I ask you a religous question? Mormons believe in three different Gods (right?). Christians (as I know them) believe in one God (right?). To me, it's an essential difference which excludes the two groups from one another. Can you help me rectify this? I don't want a big theological discussion, but I figure you probably have a good response, based on that comment you made about the Baptists.
That is a valid argument based on an unproven assumption, which is that logic as understood by humans today (specifically, you) governs the nature of God.
I submit that the nature of God may not be logical. Until it can be shown that God is rational, there is nothing stopping us from believing that more than one seemingly-exclusive interpretation of divinity is correct. What I'm saying is, in fact Jews and Muslims and Christians could all be correct -- other religions, too.
(Also possible, and statistically more likely, is that they are all wrong. This is the view I personally take, not just upon the beliefs of everyone else, but also my own beliefs: it is strange and difficult at times, but I do in fact believe that most of what I believe is wrong. Of course, that implies the unproven assumption that there is a Truth.)
Jesus released us from the commandments of the old testament. He replaced them with new commandments, it was called a "New Covenant".
However, the New Testament is also full of refrences to avoiding "sexual immorality", and even though it's not explicitly laid out, I imagine the original intent of that phrase included homosexuality.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether Pru uses more addresses than Africa. My understanding is that Africa is not, currently, a high-internet-using continent -- besides Ghana, maybe.
Oh, no wait I understand you now, you are saying exactly what I'm saying. You're saying that the sad part is that Pru uses more internet addresses than all of Africa. If that's your point then I agree with you. Well, again, maybe maybe not: maybe Africa is just as well off without the internet. I'm not sure.
In fact yes they pay themselves *exactly* the highest rate for those adwords, because "paying themselves" is the same as saying "not getting paid by someone else". I mean, when google takes an adword, they are no longer paid for that adword by the person who otherwise would have paid the most for it. It is possible that google literally pays itself, but even if it doesn't, it still costs them in lost revenue, and this point is surely not lost on their accountants.
Yes. And furthermore the opportunity cost is equal to the price paid by the otherwise highest bidder for that search term. So, if google wants to own a term, they lose out not only on some amount of money, but the maximum amount of money the market would bear.
if the man is even THINKING of running for President in '08, he certainly isn't going to get elected if he runs on a platform of RESTRICTING basic freedom of speech.
You are right and wrong. First, it's not hard to develop that stereotype after watching the news in America for the last twelve years. The stereotype you decry might not be universal amongst American Christians/evangelicals, but it is the loudest voice today, and also the voice of the leadership heard in the media. Sure, there are lots of mainline churches quietly doing the Lord's work in love and understanding, but if you're not part of one of those churches, then what you see and hear is the hate and division coming from the top. So I guess that's the answer to your question "Where did you pick up this... inaccurate view": he picked it up by listening to the loudest voice.
On the other hand, you are spot on with your comment about college campuses. I'm not sure how it happens, but those bastions of free speech (read that with irony) have their own loudest voices, which are the far-left liberals who do in fact shout down anyone who disagrees with them, shun them, and keep them out of the dialogue. That goes to show what my poli sci teacher once explained, which is that the political spectrum isn't a spectrum so much as a circle, where the far left and the far right approach one another. The message is: be moderate. But that's all only because colleges tend to be liberal strongholds. If they were conservative strongholds, there would probably be a similar squelching of oppositional views, as there are in extant conservative strongholds.
You say all that as if there is no difference between killing someone and disagreeing with them, as if having an opinion is the same as murdering a person with a different opinion.
As a liberal, I can easily tolerate fundies who think I'm going to hell for not believing what they believe, but I can't tolerate terrorists who will KILL me for not believing what they believe.
Thank you for explaining. I'm no Marxist scholar so I didn't put it all together.
I can see how, if you define religion in a certain way and oppression in a certain way, then you can make conclusions such as oppression is an essential feature of religion (or, as I think you said it, religion *is* oppression). Since I don't really agree with the conclusion, I guess if I knew more about the general argument, I might be able to say which of the more fundamental assumptions or definitions I disagree with. But, I don't, so I'll just bow out of the conversation by thanking you again for the explanation. You were +4 Informative.
i don't understant why religion is by definitoin oppression. religions suggest answers to question but don't eliminate your ability to to make them for yourself. religion can tell you about destiny, but it doesn't eliminate your ability to control your own.
GP is indeed a shining example of a police officer, IF his professional actions are consistent with his rhetoric. Since we have no evidence to the contrary, we will assume that they are. Just don't mistake an angel with someone who claims to be an angel. cf. Mark Foley.
As computer-oriented people, I'm a little surprised that people are making this huge distinction between IM and eMail. The difference is merely one of presentation. Each passes text messages between two or more recipients, displays the text messages, often saves them, sorts them, and can present them again in the future. In both, the messages come with metadata giving the time and date, the person who sent it and the recipient. And before the world had IM, people used eMail in the same way they now use IM, to have text conversations.
Here are slashdot we are very fond of generalizing, and for good reason. When we hear a court case or patent application which makes a certain claim, we are quick to generalize and make predictions about how the ruling/patent will impact other technologies, and we are right to do so, because that's how the law works. In this case, we have a law which applies to email, and the judge found that IM is enough like eMail to call it eMail, and he's right.
I might ask you, what would you call Gmail? to me, the interface looks more like an IM interface, with conversations being presented in crono order. And personally I've often wondered why eMail and IM have not yet merged into a single application concept.
Finally, this ruling helped put a predator in prison, so the outcome is also positive, in addition to the legal ruling being positive.
Slashdot Mirror
Now here's the interestint thing: if you reject Aquinas's notion - that is, you think both people are right, that we can manifest our own God for our own purposes - then you must reject the existence of God, because at that point there can be no such thing as an eternal God because our own God dies with us.
I disagree with two conclusions made in this paragraph.
First, you can think both people are right without rejecting the existence of God, or even the immutability of God. You assume a God whose existence is governed by the human understanding of logic and rationality, which is not necessarily the case. The nature of God could be such that multiple seemingly-exclusive interpretations of God's will or existence are both, for lack of a better word, "right" or "true".
Second, and this objection stands without the first objection, even if "God" is a personal construct, that doesn't mean God "goes away" when the believing human dies. The human could go on beyond earthly existence (indeed, this is a canonical Christian belief); or his God could be eternal notwithstanding the believing human.
Me, I don't believe any of those things necessarily. All I'm saying is either the theological argument is incomplete, or incompletely stated.
This is a non-sequitir, but can I ask you a religous question? Mormons believe in three different Gods (right?). Christians (as I know them) believe in one God (right?). To me, it's an essential difference which excludes the two groups from one another. Can you help me rectify this? I don't want a big theological discussion, but I figure you probably have a good response, based on that comment you made about the Baptists.
That is a valid argument based on an unproven assumption, which is that logic as understood by humans today (specifically, you) governs the nature of God.
I submit that the nature of God may not be logical. Until it can be shown that God is rational, there is nothing stopping us from believing that more than one seemingly-exclusive interpretation of divinity is correct. What I'm saying is, in fact Jews and Muslims and Christians could all be correct -- other religions, too.
(Also possible, and statistically more likely, is that they are all wrong. This is the view I personally take, not just upon the beliefs of everyone else, but also my own beliefs: it is strange and difficult at times, but I do in fact believe that most of what I believe is wrong. Of course, that implies the unproven assumption that there is a Truth.)
No. Please reconsider your use of the word "literal".
The game is quite literally *teaching* hatred.
or
The game is quite *figuratively* preaching hatred.
literal adjective 1 taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory
Jesus released us from the commandments of the old testament. He replaced them with new commandments, it was called a "New Covenant".
However, the New Testament is also full of refrences to avoiding "sexual immorality", and even though it's not explicitly laid out, I imagine the original intent of that phrase included homosexuality.
Don't even get me started on Office 2007. My wife is a pretty skilled Office user and she couldn't do anything with Word 2007.
Yeah, but just imagine if she'd never used Word before, then it would be a snap!
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether Pru uses more addresses than Africa. My understanding is that Africa is not, currently, a high-internet-using continent -- besides Ghana, maybe.
Oh, no wait I understand you now, you are saying exactly what I'm saying. You're saying that the sad part is that Pru uses more internet addresses than all of Africa. If that's your point then I agree with you. Well, again, maybe maybe not: maybe Africa is just as well off without the internet. I'm not sure.
"have went"? are you serious?
In fact yes they pay themselves *exactly* the highest rate for those adwords, because "paying themselves" is the same as saying "not getting paid by someone else". I mean, when google takes an adword, they are no longer paid for that adword by the person who otherwise would have paid the most for it. It is possible that google literally pays itself, but even if it doesn't, it still costs them in lost revenue, and this point is surely not lost on their accountants.
Yes. And furthermore the opportunity cost is equal to the price paid by the otherwise highest bidder for that search term. So, if google wants to own a term, they lose out not only on some amount of money, but the maximum amount of money the market would bear.
are you suggesting that webpages have the same level of functionality as real GUIs? i imagine you aren't, because that would be absurd.
even so, i am impressed with how much can be done with a modern browser.
if the man is even THINKING of running for President in '08, he certainly isn't going to get elected if he runs on a platform of RESTRICTING basic freedom of speech.
Why not? Bush successfully did it.
You are right and wrong. First, it's not hard to develop that stereotype after watching the news in America for the last twelve years. The stereotype you decry might not be universal amongst American Christians/evangelicals, but it is the loudest voice today, and also the voice of the leadership heard in the media. Sure, there are lots of mainline churches quietly doing the Lord's work in love and understanding, but if you're not part of one of those churches, then what you see and hear is the hate and division coming from the top. So I guess that's the answer to your question "Where did you pick up this ... inaccurate view": he picked it up by listening to the loudest voice.
On the other hand, you are spot on with your comment about college campuses. I'm not sure how it happens, but those bastions of free speech (read that with irony) have their own loudest voices, which are the far-left liberals who do in fact shout down anyone who disagrees with them, shun them, and keep them out of the dialogue. That goes to show what my poli sci teacher once explained, which is that the political spectrum isn't a spectrum so much as a circle, where the far left and the far right approach one another. The message is: be moderate. But that's all only because colleges tend to be liberal strongholds. If they were conservative strongholds, there would probably be a similar squelching of oppositional views, as there are in extant conservative strongholds.
You say all that as if there is no difference between killing someone and disagreeing with them, as if having an opinion is the same as murdering a person with a different opinion.
As a liberal, I can easily tolerate fundies who think I'm going to hell for not believing what they believe, but I can't tolerate terrorists who will KILL me for not believing what they believe.
The people who think that we need to sacrifice our civil liberties to fight terrorism really don't understand our liberties
You accuse them of not understanding; I accuse them of not caring. They know what freedom of speech and rule of law are, they just don't care.
Have you never noticed the audio jack and braille on all ATMs?
don't worry you'll have your chance in the 2008 primaries
A $1 bill could smell like the crack of your ass. Or, even better, George Washington's ass.
Google ceases and desists whenever someone asks them to.
Thank you for explaining. I'm no Marxist scholar so I didn't put it all together.
I can see how, if you define religion in a certain way and oppression in a certain way, then you can make conclusions such as oppression is an essential feature of religion (or, as I think you said it, religion *is* oppression). Since I don't really agree with the conclusion, I guess if I knew more about the general argument, I might be able to say which of the more fundamental assumptions or definitions I disagree with. But, I don't, so I'll just bow out of the conversation by thanking you again for the explanation. You were +4 Informative.
i don't understant why religion is by definitoin oppression. religions suggest answers to question but don't eliminate your ability to to make them for yourself. religion can tell you about destiny, but it doesn't eliminate your ability to control your own.
GP is indeed a shining example of a police officer, IF his professional actions are consistent with his rhetoric. Since we have no evidence to the contrary, we will assume that they are. Just don't mistake an angel with someone who claims to be an angel. cf. Mark Foley.
Mmm hmmm. Agreed. Maybe the police missed their Substantive Justice class. Or maybe it was the Process of Law class.
Yepp. I think you nailed it, especially with your last paragraph.
As computer-oriented people, I'm a little surprised that people are making this huge distinction between IM and eMail. The difference is merely one of presentation. Each passes text messages between two or more recipients, displays the text messages, often saves them, sorts them, and can present them again in the future. In both, the messages come with metadata giving the time and date, the person who sent it and the recipient. And before the world had IM, people used eMail in the same way they now use IM, to have text conversations.
Here are slashdot we are very fond of generalizing, and for good reason. When we hear a court case or patent application which makes a certain claim, we are quick to generalize and make predictions about how the ruling/patent will impact other technologies, and we are right to do so, because that's how the law works. In this case, we have a law which applies to email, and the judge found that IM is enough like eMail to call it eMail, and he's right.
I might ask you, what would you call Gmail? to me, the interface looks more like an IM interface, with conversations being presented in crono order. And personally I've often wondered why eMail and IM have not yet merged into a single application concept.
Finally, this ruling helped put a predator in prison, so the outcome is also positive, in addition to the legal ruling being positive.