Oh, forgot to point out: my whole point wasn't that Mormons and Muslims believe the same thing(s), but rather that they tend to view Christ in very similar fashions. The Mormons hold Jesus in higher esteem than the Muslims do, but even Muslims believe that:
* Jesus was without sin * He was a prophet of God, so you could say he was on a "holy mission" * He was born of a virgin * He ascended bodily into heaven and lives there now * He'll return one day to judge the world
They don't believe in the crucifixion and death/rebirth of Christ, but that's about the only part they don't line up with. So again, if merely the belief that Jesus was a nice guy and we should follow his teachings, or even believing that he'll come again to judge the living and the dead, is enough to call oneself "Christian", then all Muslims are Christians. And I don't think there's a Muslim on this planet who would agree with that statement (or anyone else who ever studied comparative theology, either).
So one last time, and then this horse will be thoroughly dead: Mormons don't believe Jesus is God, therefore they are not Christians.
But you don't believe Jesus is God in the flesh (if you do, please state so publicly and I'll happily eat my words). You believe God the Father and God the Son (and God the Holy Spirit) are three distinct people, not three incarnations of the same Godhead. All of the "his divine mission" and "Son of God" stuff just masks the fact that you don't recognize a trinitarian Godhead, or that God took human form and died for our sins.
That Jesus was God-in-the-flesh is a core definition of what it means to be Christian. If you don't believe that, you're not a Christian, no matter how much you insist you are. These are questions of doctrine that have been settled for millennia, there shouldn't even be a debate about them.
It would be like someone insisting they're a Republican, but they support nationalizing the health care system of the US, who someone who says they're a Democrat but supports supply-side economics. There are other political parties that hold those positions, why label yourself as something you're demonstrably not instead of just joining the group that agrees with your outlook?
And just to clarify: it's not insulting to call a non-Christian a non-Christian. It's simply a statement of fact: Mormons don't believe Jesus was God Himself, ergo they're not Christians.
And for those of you still denying that its anthropogenic, it hardly matters. We have the need and the power to do something about it, and it's past time we got started.
And that right there is the whole problem with this debate. At the root, we don't know what causes global warming (though there are some interesting theories out there). Until we know what causes the problem, how in the world can we hope to find a solution?
You won't find reference to the major factions that formed after Mohammed died, for example.
You mean like the Sunni and Shia, who split from each other based on differences of opinion on who should have been Mohammad's heir? Yeah, those aren't major factions at all.
Mormons believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind, as the Son of God and as the only perfect man who ever lived.
Muslims believe almost the exact same thing about Jesus. Does that make them Christian?
Christians believe Jesus Christ is God, the whole "Son of God" thing is just code-speak for the fact the He is God. If you don't believe that, you're not a Christian. And Mormons don't believe that.
So you're saying a MacPro running OS X can withstand a DOS attack AND a slashdotting? (the second one is assumed due to the number of links you put in quite a few posts) That's impressive!
The point is that the price the pedestrian has to pay is infinitely greater than that the driver would, so it only makes sense for the pedestrian to pay extra care to their surroundings.
290 pounds is big, but not big enough to require seat belt extenders. And if they were needed, why weren't they used? Personally, I don't trust anyone who immediately calls a press conference after supposedly being "harassed", too many "victims" in this country complain far too loudly most of the time, and I'm too jaded to believe many, if any, of them.
Regarding the caravan attacks: Mohammad should've followed Christ's example and turned the other cheek, if he truly was a messenger of God. But he didn't, so he wasn't. (I know that's a tautology, but don't care.) He was a political opportunist, nothing more, nothing less.
Regarding pedophilia: Mohammad was betrothed to Aisha when she was 6, and consummated the marriage when she was 9. By all accounts in the hadith, she was his favorite wife, and the other wives (all 29 of them) were jealous of how much time he spent with her. So, a middle-aged man consummates a marriage with a 9 year old girl, and spends more time in her bed than with a collection of almost 30 other grown women, and you write that off as part of the "custom" of the time? Interesting.
You say my forefathers married 12 year old girls. Leaving aside the fact that the age of consent hasn't been 12 years old in the English speaking world for far longer than "a few hundred years", they also brutally murdered and enslaved millions of people and forced entire nations to give up thousands of years of legal and cultural tradition to conform to their laws and their language. Do you want me to follow in those footsteps, or should I say "there's a better way"? If the latter, you need to do the same and stop making excuses for brutal behavior like that exhibited by the early (and modern) followers of the Way of Submission ("Muslimeen" in English).
I'd have a much easier time being sympathetic to Muslims if: * They stopped bitching every time someone suspected them of being a terrorist. 9/11 changed things, it's up to YOU to change them back, and you won't do it by acting like a victim. * They recognized that there are elements of their religion that don't just condone violence, but command it, and that that scares people. * They stopped lying about their faith (even though lying is a part of the faith, in the doctrine of taqqiya). For one thing, "Islam" doesn't mean "peace", it means "submission". For another, Mohammad said it's ok to rape women and stone women who were raped, saying he didn't is a direct contradiction of the Koran. * Bring your religion out of the 8th century and into the 21st.
Do any of those things, and I'll stop being so antagonistic to you Mohammedans.
The bottom line is that motorists should be looking out for pedestrians
Bzzt, wrong. We all share the roads, and we have to obey the traffic laws. But if a pedestrian doesn't obey them and steps out into traffic, he dies. If a motorist doesn't obey them and hits a pedestrian, he'll get stuck either having to fill out insurance paperwork or going to jail for a while.
Remember the guy that was not allowed to board the plane simply because he was praying?
No, but I remember six imams who: * Prayed loudly in both the airport and on the plane. * Got up and changed seat positions after the plane left the terminal, against FAA regulations. * Refused to return to their seats when told to do so by the plane's staff. * Requested seat belt extenders, then stored them under their seats (note that none of the imams were obese and did not need the extenders to fasten their belts). * In short, they broke all kinds of regulations and acted like terrorists.
Anyway, when the pope gets away with such vile statements as: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached", you know there's a problem.
OK, so you show us: what did Mohammad bring into the world that was completely new and different from, say, Judaism or Christianity that wasn't inhuman or evil? And how do you explain away the pedophile's actions such as raiding caravans or torching villages (when he wasn't busy raping his 9 year old wife)?
It is stupid to be critical of someone for their race, but IMHO we should be critical of religion, especially if, as in the case you point out, they are calling for the deaths of non-believers.
Really? Then how come I get modded Troll of Flamebait whenever I bad-mouth Mohammedans?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that a lot of the people on/. don't.
People just don't want to stand up to monsters like these. And this is regarding a religion founded by a murdering child molester, if people won't stand up against that good luck getting them riled up about a religion founded by an alcoholic, has-been sci-fi writer.
and our gummermint has a right to break in to our homes sieze our property put us on a (very special) plane and send us to an undisclosed location where there is no constitution.
I would say that interfering with someone's right to practice their religion is clearly illegal
Just to play devil's advocate: what if one's religion required you to protest other's religions and even attempt to prevent them from practicing them?
Or, what if someone's religion required them to do something that was illegal (something innocuous, like taking peyote like in certain Native American tribes, I'm not talking about murder, rape, or torture, like the Mohammedans practice all the time)? Would a police officer who arrested that person be subject to the law you mentioned?
"Power hungry" might not be the most accurate description, but when he said "There's no one more powerful than me that you can talk to" (in effect), it made him sound (to me) like he's power hungry.
As for how many times do you talk to non-paying customers, there's definitely a limit. But you don't have to be a jerk about it like this guy was. All that does is gets your employer dragged through the mud on numerous blogs. Kind of like the asshat that told that Army sergeant in Iraq to pound sand (no pun intended), instead of politely declining to do business with him. That guy was reportedly fired, it'll be interesting if Lycos chooses the same solution to their (new) PR problem.
I have a hard time with this kind of reaction from Lycos, and other companies. How can they get away with being assholes?
Considering this is the first time Lycos has been in the news for several years now, I would say the answer to your question is: they don't. They're a dead company walkin', and anyone worth their salt has probably high tailed it for greener pastures long ago. All they've got left are power hungry douche bags like Mr. Jandreau.
1) You don't have to give any notice, whatsoever, unless you have a contract stating otherwise, before quiting. 2) They don't have to give any notice, whatsoever, unless you have a contract stating otherwise, before shit-canning your ass. 3) You can't be prevented from seeking gainful employment after you leave, with some limited exceptions listed in non-competes (my current employment, also in Dallas, has no non-compete agreement, so I can take off whenever I want and go work for a competitor the next day).
All-in-all, I think the guy should not worry, the lawsuit isn't going to go anywhere.
As some other people said, this is just a media event (unless of course, the people involved really are retarded).
It was a marketing event for the Adult Swim cartoon Aqua Teen Hunger Force. They were either retarded or stoned our of their minds (same difference, really).
Geez, use hyperbole much? As long as we're not speaking Arabic, not forcing our women to wear floor length curtains and walk behind us, and not stoning gays for expressing themselves the way God made them, then the terrorists haven't won.
It was snowing this morning on the way into the office. But I didn't much care, because the glass and steel kept out the snow, and I could just turn up the heater in the car to keep out the cold. 4607 years ago, I'd have been risking pneumonia and death. That's progress!
You'd be surprised how poorly that tends to work. First off, when you set a higher starting price, you pay higher listing fees. Second, when the price is set low initially, it can help trigger a bidding frenzy. Especially when someone decides they're willing to pay $100 for your item, so they put that in as their max bid, but their initial bid only shows up as $1. So when someone else enters a bid, it quickly starts going up and up and up. Next thing you, people are bidding hundreds of dollars because they're now emotionally invested in getting *that* item.
The psychology of eBay is pretty fascinating. I used to buy and sell on there quite a bit, and have a friend who started his own sell-it-on-eBay company, using just the tactics I described above. Sometimes you'll end up selling for less than you wanted, but more often than not you make a killing.
Slashdot Mirror
I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying.
Oh, forgot to point out: my whole point wasn't that Mormons and Muslims believe the same thing(s), but rather that they tend to view Christ in very similar fashions. The Mormons hold Jesus in higher esteem than the Muslims do, but even Muslims believe that:
* Jesus was without sin
* He was a prophet of God, so you could say he was on a "holy mission"
* He was born of a virgin
* He ascended bodily into heaven and lives there now
* He'll return one day to judge the world
They don't believe in the crucifixion and death/rebirth of Christ, but that's about the only part they don't line up with. So again, if merely the belief that Jesus was a nice guy and we should follow his teachings, or even believing that he'll come again to judge the living and the dead, is enough to call oneself "Christian", then all Muslims are Christians. And I don't think there's a Muslim on this planet who would agree with that statement (or anyone else who ever studied comparative theology, either).
So one last time, and then this horse will be thoroughly dead: Mormons don't believe Jesus is God, therefore they are not Christians.
But you don't believe Jesus is God in the flesh (if you do, please state so publicly and I'll happily eat my words). You believe God the Father and God the Son (and God the Holy Spirit) are three distinct people, not three incarnations of the same Godhead. All of the "his divine mission" and "Son of God" stuff just masks the fact that you don't recognize a trinitarian Godhead, or that God took human form and died for our sins.
That Jesus was God-in-the-flesh is a core definition of what it means to be Christian. If you don't believe that, you're not a Christian, no matter how much you insist you are. These are questions of doctrine that have been settled for millennia, there shouldn't even be a debate about them.
It would be like someone insisting they're a Republican, but they support nationalizing the health care system of the US, who someone who says they're a Democrat but supports supply-side economics. There are other political parties that hold those positions, why label yourself as something you're demonstrably not instead of just joining the group that agrees with your outlook?
And just to clarify: it's not insulting to call a non-Christian a non-Christian. It's simply a statement of fact: Mormons don't believe Jesus was God Himself, ergo they're not Christians.
And for those of you still denying that its anthropogenic, it hardly matters. We have the need and the power to do something about it, and it's past time we got started.
And that right there is the whole problem with this debate. At the root, we don't know what causes global warming (though there are some interesting theories out there). Until we know what causes the problem, how in the world can we hope to find a solution?
You won't find reference to the major factions that formed after Mohammed died, for example.
You mean like the Sunni and Shia, who split from each other based on differences of opinion on who should have been Mohammad's heir? Yeah, those aren't major factions at all.
Mormons believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind, as the Son of God and as the only perfect man who ever lived.
Muslims believe almost the exact same thing about Jesus. Does that make them Christian?
Christians believe Jesus Christ is God, the whole "Son of God" thing is just code-speak for the fact the He is God. If you don't believe that, you're not a Christian. And Mormons don't believe that.
So you're saying a MacPro running OS X can withstand a DOS attack AND a slashdotting? (the second one is assumed due to the number of links you put in quite a few posts) That's impressive!
he'll get stuck either having to fill out insurance paperwork or going to jail for a while.
Neither is worse than getting killed, so the pedestrian should have more incentive to watch what's going on around him.
The point is that the price the pedestrian has to pay is infinitely greater than that the driver would, so it only makes sense for the pedestrian to pay extra care to their surroundings.
290 pounds is big, but not big enough to require seat belt extenders. And if they were needed, why weren't they used? Personally, I don't trust anyone who immediately calls a press conference after supposedly being "harassed", too many "victims" in this country complain far too loudly most of the time, and I'm too jaded to believe many, if any, of them.
Regarding the caravan attacks: Mohammad should've followed Christ's example and turned the other cheek, if he truly was a messenger of God. But he didn't, so he wasn't. (I know that's a tautology, but don't care.) He was a political opportunist, nothing more, nothing less.
Regarding pedophilia: Mohammad was betrothed to Aisha when she was 6, and consummated the marriage when she was 9. By all accounts in the hadith, she was his favorite wife, and the other wives (all 29 of them) were jealous of how much time he spent with her. So, a middle-aged man consummates a marriage with a 9 year old girl, and spends more time in her bed than with a collection of almost 30 other grown women, and you write that off as part of the "custom" of the time? Interesting.
You say my forefathers married 12 year old girls. Leaving aside the fact that the age of consent hasn't been 12 years old in the English speaking world for far longer than "a few hundred years", they also brutally murdered and enslaved millions of people and forced entire nations to give up thousands of years of legal and cultural tradition to conform to their laws and their language. Do you want me to follow in those footsteps, or should I say "there's a better way"? If the latter, you need to do the same and stop making excuses for brutal behavior like that exhibited by the early (and modern) followers of the Way of Submission ("Muslimeen" in English).
I'd have a much easier time being sympathetic to Muslims if:
* They stopped bitching every time someone suspected them of being a terrorist. 9/11 changed things, it's up to YOU to change them back, and you won't do it by acting like a victim.
* They recognized that there are elements of their religion that don't just condone violence, but command it, and that that scares people.
* They stopped lying about their faith (even though lying is a part of the faith, in the doctrine of taqqiya). For one thing, "Islam" doesn't mean "peace", it means "submission". For another, Mohammad said it's ok to rape women and stone women who were raped, saying he didn't is a direct contradiction of the Koran.
* Bring your religion out of the 8th century and into the 21st.
Do any of those things, and I'll stop being so antagonistic to you Mohammedans.
The bottom line is that motorists should be looking out for pedestrians
Bzzt, wrong. We all share the roads, and we have to obey the traffic laws. But if a pedestrian doesn't obey them and steps out into traffic, he dies. If a motorist doesn't obey them and hits a pedestrian, he'll get stuck either having to fill out insurance paperwork or going to jail for a while.
So who should be looking out for whom?
Remember the guy that was not allowed to board the plane simply because he was praying?
No, but I remember six imams who:
* Prayed loudly in both the airport and on the plane.
* Got up and changed seat positions after the plane left the terminal, against FAA regulations.
* Refused to return to their seats when told to do so by the plane's staff.
* Requested seat belt extenders, then stored them under their seats (note that none of the imams were obese and did not need the extenders to fasten their belts).
* In short, they broke all kinds of regulations and acted like terrorists.
Anyway, when the pope gets away with such vile statements as: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached", you know there's a problem.
OK, so you show us: what did Mohammad bring into the world that was completely new and different from, say, Judaism or Christianity that wasn't inhuman or evil? And how do you explain away the pedophile's actions such as raiding caravans or torching villages (when he wasn't busy raping his 9 year old wife)?
Re:Scary (Score:1, Troll)
See what I mean?
It is stupid to be critical of someone for their race, but IMHO we should be critical of religion, especially if, as in the case you point out, they are calling for the deaths of non-believers.
/. don't.
Really? Then how come I get modded Troll of Flamebait whenever I bad-mouth Mohammedans?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that a lot of the people on
People just don't want to stand up to monsters like these. And this is regarding a religion founded by a murdering child molester, if people won't stand up against that good luck getting them riled up about a religion founded by an alcoholic, has-been sci-fi writer.
and our gummermint has a right to break in to our homes sieze our property
put us on a (very special) plane and send us to an undisclosed location where there is no constitution.
Really? This happened to someone? When?
I would say that interfering with someone's right to practice their religion is clearly illegal
Just to play devil's advocate: what if one's religion required you to protest other's religions and even attempt to prevent them from practicing them?
Or, what if someone's religion required them to do something that was illegal (something innocuous, like taking peyote like in certain Native American tribes, I'm not talking about murder, rape, or torture, like the Mohammedans practice all the time)? Would a police officer who arrested that person be subject to the law you mentioned?
"Power hungry" might not be the most accurate description, but when he said "There's no one more powerful than me that you can talk to" (in effect), it made him sound (to me) like he's power hungry.
As for how many times do you talk to non-paying customers, there's definitely a limit. But you don't have to be a jerk about it like this guy was. All that does is gets your employer dragged through the mud on numerous blogs. Kind of like the asshat that told that Army sergeant in Iraq to pound sand (no pun intended), instead of politely declining to do business with him. That guy was reportedly fired, it'll be interesting if Lycos chooses the same solution to their (new) PR problem.
I have a hard time with this kind of reaction from Lycos, and other companies. How can they get away with being assholes?
Considering this is the first time Lycos has been in the news for several years now, I would say the answer to your question is: they don't. They're a dead company walkin', and anyone worth their salt has probably high tailed it for greener pastures long ago. All they've got left are power hungry douche bags like Mr. Jandreau.
Texas is an "at-will" state, which means:
1) You don't have to give any notice, whatsoever, unless you have a contract stating otherwise, before quiting.
2) They don't have to give any notice, whatsoever, unless you have a contract stating otherwise, before shit-canning your ass.
3) You can't be prevented from seeking gainful employment after you leave, with some limited exceptions listed in non-competes (my current employment, also in Dallas, has no non-compete agreement, so I can take off whenever I want and go work for a competitor the next day).
All-in-all, I think the guy should not worry, the lawsuit isn't going to go anywhere.
One billion Catholics disagree with your premise that you must be pro-death penalty if you're anti-abortion.
As some other people said, this is just a media event (unless of course, the people involved really are retarded).
It was a marketing event for the Adult Swim cartoon Aqua Teen Hunger Force. They were either retarded or stoned our of their minds (same difference, really).
Geez, use hyperbole much? As long as we're not speaking Arabic, not forcing our women to wear floor length curtains and walk behind us, and not stoning gays for expressing themselves the way God made them, then the terrorists haven't won.
It was snowing this morning on the way into the office. But I didn't much care, because the glass and steel kept out the snow, and I could just turn up the heater in the car to keep out the cold. 4607 years ago, I'd have been risking pneumonia and death. That's progress!
Even Ronald Regan acknowledged that it would be very difficult and possibly take several decades to get right.
Interestingly, he said that several decades ago.
You'd be surprised how poorly that tends to work. First off, when you set a higher starting price, you pay higher listing fees. Second, when the price is set low initially, it can help trigger a bidding frenzy. Especially when someone decides they're willing to pay $100 for your item, so they put that in as their max bid, but their initial bid only shows up as $1. So when someone else enters a bid, it quickly starts going up and up and up. Next thing you, people are bidding hundreds of dollars because they're now emotionally invested in getting *that* item.
The psychology of eBay is pretty fascinating. I used to buy and sell on there quite a bit, and have a friend who started his own sell-it-on-eBay company, using just the tactics I described above. Sometimes you'll end up selling for less than you wanted, but more often than not you make a killing.