OK. I wonder if those studies have investigated whether the cause is screen resolution, or staring into an electron gun.
Me? Personally? I have no more issue with reading on the screen than off the page.
I use one of these for my PDA, and it works great. Much more waterproof than a book, that's for sure. OtterBox also makes a number of waterproof play-through PDA cases.
I'm continually annoyed that I can't buy a ruggedized smartphone. I am a hostile environment.
And the Church used the politicians for their own aims. They were NOT innocent pawns. The entire Church-State power structure was, to all intents and purposes, a seamless whole oppressing the populace.
Well, who else would I be trying to serve? My faith is for me.
"flip-flopping"
Oh man. You're not serious, are you?
"goal-post-moving"
You're gonna have to walk me through that one.
"sloppy thinking"
If you say so, Clyde.
We're done here. I've got to assume that you're one of these new-fangled atheists who read that article in Wired a couple months ago, where Richard Dawkins told you that it's OK to be an asshole if you're an atheist. I do not agree with him, or with you.
I didn't miss the question, but you apparently ignored my answer. Not a problem...this thread has gotten pretty elaborate.
I think the State should have nothing to do with the definition of marriage. I think the State should be the intermediary in any contracts that one person might enter into with another person. I think that the benefits and responsibilities currently conferred by marriage should be accessible to all people. I think a "marriage" should be between you, your partner, and a figure of religious or secular authority with whom you agree.
I'm in favor of cutting the Gordian knot. I think that marriage is much more devalued by the posturing of elected windbags than it is by a gay couple who loves each other.
(On a personal note, two members of my wedding party were not straight, and I'm proud to be attending two gay marriages this year, and my wife and I seriously considered not getting married because we don't like the fact that it's not available to everyone. You are arguing with the wrong person on this topic.)
Clearly, I find value in this discussion, otherwise I wouldn't pursue it. I certainly am not at all invested in whether or not you agree with me, for all values of "you".
"then you must necessarily accept that many people will apply a stereotype to you"
I don't know how to state it any more baldly: Those stereotypes are sloppy thinking, and lead people to bad conclusions, and I think that people would be wise to dispense with them.
"And, in fact, by the very terms of the Christian religion,"
By the terms you have selected to define the Christian religion...
"if you do not believe certain things, you are not a Christian"
You are a Christian IFF you are a disciple (follower believer in) Jesus Christ. That's the only definition that makes any sense.
I don't care what they think, for all values of "they".
"By self-identifying as whatever, you are giving that movement strength"
I think the opposite. I think that when you assume that Christianity is a homogenous whole, you give the noisy reactionary right-wing fundie wingnuts way too much authority.
"and never says anything that should lead people to believe that all this ostentatious display-of-wealth shit that Christianity is associated with today, especially the Catholic sect. In fact he continually speaks out against it."
Huh. I kinda feel the same way as he did. What a stunning coincidence.
"Guess you can't have it all."
Sure I can. I can benefit from the philosophy of Jesus, and also the fruits of my own intellect and experience. I can choose what aspects of Christian doctrine I wish to subscribe to, and which I think are incorrect, and join a congregation of people who (more or less) agree with me, without compelling or requiring anybody to do anything ever.
I'm completely incapable of understanding what's wrong with that.
"I'm just saying, people have been KILLED over making up their own definitions of the word "Christian," you dig"
Oh, I know. The Catholic Church liked to kill people with the audacity to translate the Bible from the original Latin (heh heh) into local languages. I happen to think that Christ would have taken a pretty dim view of that.
My point is this: In this (and every other instance of bigotry), by self-identifying as Christian (or Jewish or black or Pakistani) some people assume that you are somehow responsible for every awful thing that anybody else who self-identifies the same way has done. I wish to underscore that I think that's a lousy assumption.
That is the beginning and end of my point. "Christian" isn't a portmanteau for "illiterat backwards sheep-herding Bible thumping slack-jawed idiot". There are lots of intelligent, considerate, respectful, friendly folks who self-identify as Christian, and it's not fair to subject them to the vitriol that should be reserved for people who spew hatred.
"You said that "Christ defined what Christianity is." Based on your later arguments, you should have just said "I define what Christianity is for me" "
Well put. I didn't frame my argument well. I subscribe to Christ's teachings. I interpret what I read in my own context, and it's not up to anybody else to tell me that it's OK for me to believe the way I do. I may or may not agree with any other person on any other issue, and that's fine.
"It is arguable that we have no texts that were written by anyone who had ever met Jesus."
Yep. And if one were to base one's faith on an orthodox view of a historical Jesus, one might have a problem there. If one doesn't, one doesn't.
"You can create your own definitions for words if you like, but dont expect other people to agree with them."
That's not what I'm after. What I'm saying is, there are LOTS of different stripes of Christians, and a lot of them think that the reactionary evangelical white-house-visiting jesus camp guys are not particularly good disciples of Christ. Treating Christianity like it's some sort of monolithic entity is meaningless. It's like talking about "black people" or "redheads" or "arabs" as if they're some sort of monolithic whole. It's sloppy thinking.
"The organized religion known as Christianity that we have today is based on the outcome of the power struggle epitomized by the Councils."
You say that like there's only one organized religion known as Christianity. I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding.
"What you practice is more properly called the Christian Mysticism"
You may label me however you wish. I can label myself however I wish. What's the problem?
"But you have to understand, most people will take that to mean that you identify as a member of the organized religion known as Christianity"
Which I am...
"and that is well defined and not open to personal interpretation."
Which I dispute.
"I could claim that because I occasionally drink wine and eat biscuits that I am a Christian."
You could. I submit that that's not a particularly descriptive label. Me? I think "Follower of Christ" maps pretty well on to "Christian". There are lots of people who attach lots of other ideas to that word, but I don't think those ideas are applicable. You, of course, are free to disagree with me (which is true for all values of "you" and "me").
"Words have to have a commonly accepted meaning to be useful."
Yes. And I think that the mapping of "You are a Christian IFF you agree with Ted Haggard/Dobson/Billy Graham/The Pope/David Koresh" is not a particularly useful or accurate definition. I think my definition is better, and I'm sticking to it.
Blue is not red, but I follow Christ. That's between me, and Christ. What's the problem?
"If you're getting offended that people lump you together with Ted Haggard and the Pope, then maybe you shouldn't be calling yourself a "Christian"."
I'm not offended. I'm simply pointing out that that label is a pretty incomplete description of ANYBODY'S religious beliefs, never mind my own.
I have absolutely nothing to do with Ted Haggard of the Pope. I don't happen to think that either of these people are particularly good people. I don't, however, care to insert myself into their relationship with God. That's their business.
I follow the teachings of Christ, therefore I am a Christian. That's the only label that makes sense to me.
Slashdot Mirror
So, um, don't take 30%. The flat tax schemes I've read about are less than half that, and have mechanisms for low-income persons (and families).
OK, the other two posters have given you a more factual correction, but I just wanted to let you know that you're an idiot.
"I won't willingly pay for a new operating system that makes my life more difficult, though. That's out of the question."
So, you're not a Microsoft customer. Good for you! Neither am I.
OK. I wonder if those studies have investigated whether the cause is screen resolution, or staring into an electron gun.
Me? Personally? I have no more issue with reading on the screen than off the page.
I use one of these for my PDA, and it works great. Much more waterproof than a book, that's for sure. OtterBox also makes a number of waterproof play-through PDA cases.
I'm continually annoyed that I can't buy a ruggedized smartphone. I am a hostile environment.
You're right, because probably no record execs will ever read this letter, huh?
So have you yourself done the double blind test, or are you just assuming that it's impossible?
Not sure why I care, because (despite my numerous character flaws) I'm no audiophile.
"they surely can demand it of the labels themselves - why are they whining to us?"
What do you think Jobs just did?
"you'll need to nail everyone that puts up anything short of a piece of paper."
Now you're getting it. I liked it better when the New World Order was a wrestling thing I could safely ignore.
And the Church used the politicians for their own aims. They were NOT innocent pawns. The entire Church-State power structure was, to all intents and purposes, a seamless whole oppressing the populace.
"wishful"
I wish you'd lay off the ad hominem attacks.
"self-serving"
Well, who else would I be trying to serve? My faith is for me.
"flip-flopping"
Oh man. You're not serious, are you?
"goal-post-moving"
You're gonna have to walk me through that one.
"sloppy thinking"
If you say so, Clyde.
We're done here. I've got to assume that you're one of these new-fangled atheists who read that article in Wired a couple months ago, where Richard Dawkins told you that it's OK to be an asshole if you're an atheist. I do not agree with him, or with you.
I didn't miss the question, but you apparently ignored my answer. Not a problem...this thread has gotten pretty elaborate.
I think the State should have nothing to do with the definition of marriage. I think the State should be the intermediary in any contracts that one person might enter into with another person. I think that the benefits and responsibilities currently conferred by marriage should be accessible to all people. I think a "marriage" should be between you, your partner, and a figure of religious or secular authority with whom you agree.
I'm in favor of cutting the Gordian knot. I think that marriage is much more devalued by the posturing of elected windbags than it is by a gay couple who loves each other.
(On a personal note, two members of my wedding party were not straight, and I'm proud to be attending two gay marriages this year, and my wife and I seriously considered not getting married because we don't like the fact that it's not available to everyone. You are arguing with the wrong person on this topic.)
"So why aren't you all huffy and in-your-face with the dogmatic Christians who are giving Christianity a bad name?"
I am.
"When's the last time you had an argument with a Creationist"
Last week.
Any other questions I can help you with?
Guess that's between me and Christ, isn't it?
Clearly, I find value in this discussion, otherwise I wouldn't pursue it. I certainly am not at all invested in whether or not you agree with me, for all values of "you".
You did catch the part that nothing was actually stolen, right?
"then you must necessarily accept that many people will apply a stereotype to you"
I don't know how to state it any more baldly: Those stereotypes are sloppy thinking, and lead people to bad conclusions, and I think that people would be wise to dispense with them.
"And, in fact, by the very terms of the Christian religion,"
By the terms you have selected to define the Christian religion...
"if you do not believe certain things, you are not a Christian"
You are a Christian IFF you are a disciple (follower believer in) Jesus Christ. That's the only definition that makes any sense.
I don't care what they think, for all values of "they".
I agree completely. (There we go again!)
The reason I stick to my guns and pursue discussions like this is because I sometimes find value in them. Way to be valuable. : )
"By self-identifying as whatever, you are giving that movement strength"
I think the opposite. I think that when you assume that Christianity is a homogenous whole, you give the noisy reactionary right-wing fundie wingnuts way too much authority.
"and never says anything that should lead people to believe that all this ostentatious display-of-wealth shit that Christianity is associated with today, especially the Catholic sect. In fact he continually speaks out against it."
Huh. I kinda feel the same way as he did. What a stunning coincidence.
"Guess you can't have it all."
Sure I can. I can benefit from the philosophy of Jesus, and also the fruits of my own intellect and experience. I can choose what aspects of Christian doctrine I wish to subscribe to, and which I think are incorrect, and join a congregation of people who (more or less) agree with me, without compelling or requiring anybody to do anything ever.
I'm completely incapable of understanding what's wrong with that.
"Christianity was just not meant to be my path."
I wish you all the best in finding your own path.
Do you think we could patent the idea of two people who don't agree, but have mutual respect? There's not a hell of a lot of prior art...
"but what about my rights as a developer or music producer?"
You have the same rights as everybody else. You do NOT have the right to profit. You are FREE to profit, but you are not ENTITLED to profit.
"I'm just saying, people have been KILLED over making up their own definitions of the word "Christian," you dig"
Oh, I know. The Catholic Church liked to kill people with the audacity to translate the Bible from the original Latin (heh heh) into local languages. I happen to think that Christ would have taken a pretty dim view of that.
My point is this: In this (and every other instance of bigotry), by self-identifying as Christian (or Jewish or black or Pakistani) some people assume that you are somehow responsible for every awful thing that anybody else who self-identifies the same way has done. I wish to underscore that I think that's a lousy assumption.
That is the beginning and end of my point. "Christian" isn't a portmanteau for "illiterat backwards sheep-herding Bible thumping slack-jawed idiot". There are lots of intelligent, considerate, respectful, friendly folks who self-identify as Christian, and it's not fair to subject them to the vitriol that should be reserved for people who spew hatred.
Bigotry is bad. Always.
"You said that "Christ defined what Christianity is." Based on your later arguments, you should have just said "I define what Christianity is for me" "
Well put. I didn't frame my argument well. I subscribe to Christ's teachings. I interpret what I read in my own context, and it's not up to anybody else to tell me that it's OK for me to believe the way I do. I may or may not agree with any other person on any other issue, and that's fine.
"It is arguable that we have no texts that were written by anyone who had ever met Jesus."
Yep. And if one were to base one's faith on an orthodox view of a historical Jesus, one might have a problem there. If one doesn't, one doesn't.
"You can create your own definitions for words if you like, but dont expect other people to agree with them."
That's not what I'm after. What I'm saying is, there are LOTS of different stripes of Christians, and a lot of them think that the reactionary evangelical white-house-visiting jesus camp guys are not particularly good disciples of Christ. Treating Christianity like it's some sort of monolithic entity is meaningless. It's like talking about "black people" or "redheads" or "arabs" as if they're some sort of monolithic whole. It's sloppy thinking.
"The organized religion known as Christianity that we have today is based on the outcome of the power struggle epitomized by the Councils."
You say that like there's only one organized religion known as Christianity. I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding.
"What you practice is more properly called the Christian Mysticism"
You may label me however you wish. I can label myself however I wish. What's the problem?
"But you have to understand, most people will take that to mean that you identify as a member of the organized religion known as Christianity"
Which I am...
"and that is well defined and not open to personal interpretation."
Which I dispute.
"I could claim that because I occasionally drink wine and eat biscuits that I am a Christian."
You could. I submit that that's not a particularly descriptive label. Me? I think "Follower of Christ" maps pretty well on to "Christian". There are lots of people who attach lots of other ideas to that word, but I don't think those ideas are applicable. You, of course, are free to disagree with me (which is true for all values of "you" and "me").
"Words have to have a commonly accepted meaning to be useful."
Yes. And I think that the mapping of "You are a Christian IFF you agree with Ted Haggard/Dobson/Billy Graham/The Pope/David Koresh" is not a particularly useful or accurate definition. I think my definition is better, and I'm sticking to it.
Blue is not red, but I follow Christ. That's between me, and Christ. What's the problem?
"If you're getting offended that people lump you together with Ted Haggard and the Pope, then maybe you shouldn't be calling yourself a "Christian"."
I'm not offended. I'm simply pointing out that that label is a pretty incomplete description of ANYBODY'S religious beliefs, never mind my own.
I have absolutely nothing to do with Ted Haggard of the Pope. I don't happen to think that either of these people are particularly good people. I don't, however, care to insert myself into their relationship with God. That's their business.
I follow the teachings of Christ, therefore I am a Christian. That's the only label that makes sense to me.
Well, golly, thanks for bringing in a car analogy. I'm sure that that will make things way clearer.
I don't require anybody's approval or support to have a relationship with God. Period.