If nobody is shocked by them in 1999 (and I'll agree with you on that) then why use them? Most of them are exceedingly vague, and even if nodody is shocked, few will use them around their grandmothers.
I note, with wry amusement, that only on posts of a religious nature do I get moderated both up and down. I just think it's interesting: why would posts of a religious nature be so disputed when other posts are not?
My conclusion: a large percentage have an axe to grind.
Oh. Don't get me wrong -- I fully recognize that sometimes are writes are written in dry sand on a windy day.
I just think its a hell of a lot better to have enumerated, hard to modify rights than to have the kind of wishy-washy mishmash that the British have. My impression is that Parliament could turn GB into a totalitarian state tomorrow and that nobody could do anything to stop them legally.
I think that is the peculiar genius of the american constituion: checks and balances, combined with two layers of law (i.e. statutory law and constiutional law). One is easy to change, and so we can adapt. The constitution is very difficult to change -- it is the bedrock of our society.
What scares me is the courts: they have grown more and more liberal. If they go south, then we may as well kiss the constitution goodbye.
That's what I love about the British -- on average, they are much better spoken and written than those of us on the western side of the Atlantic. They also have a gift for poetic understatement that is probably one of the funniest things on the planet.
But I wouldn't want to live there. In the US, I could challenge such a bill on a number of constitutional grounds. I could claim that it violated due process, unreasonable search and ceisure, freedom of speech, and unnenumerated rights such as privacy. It wouldn't last six months (much like the late CDA did not). However, my understanding is that in Britain their are no such consitutional protections -- don't I remember hearing that they don't even have a formal consitution?
On/., a lot of people criticize the US. And that's a good thing: there are many areas where the US deserves to be criticized. But let's not forget that in some areas at least we are far ahead of the competition.
You are ascribing to me sentiments I did not express. As for being a language elitist: better than being illiterate. I like language. I like to use it properly and gramatically. It makes me happy and in any rational value system is better than saying "fuck fuck fuck" all day long.
Oh yeah... You still haven't come up with a situation where the use of the seven deadly words accomplishes anything but demnonstrating a low IQ and a desire to shock people.
We can hook Clotho into one of Jon's sex-bots! Then, we will have that most wonderful of creations, that most mysterious of beings, that most gracious of graces. The only thing that keeps most of us from wasting the rest of our lives in an orgy of debauchery and techological gimmicks. The only thing that tells me that no, I really DON'T need a computer controlled table saw to maintain my testosterone levels:
Standard Disclaimer: I am a Christian. I am serious about it. If you don't like this, I'm sorry, but I'm not changing for you or anybody.
I wish I could be sure this is a hoax. Sadly, it looks to me like just the kind of silliness that many Christians waste their time on. I'm not going to get into the (really divisive) issues behind this. I feel an incredible sadness for this topic having come up in this forum in this way.
Instead, I would like to talk about what Christianity really is. Maybe its off-topic, maybe not. In any case, I will post it and the moderators can do their thing. I will not come back to reply to this thread to comment further -- I have no interest in doing so. If you have questions, email me. Flames will go silently to/dev/null. This is not a comprehensive theodicy (as one slashdotter criticized me for not providing in the past). I can't provide that, I'm not smart enough and a full theology takes/years/. This is my personal statement of what Christianity means to me.
At its most basic level, Christianity is the outgrowth of Judaism. Judaism, based in the Old Testament, has a very clear and radically monotheistic understanding of God. The God of the Old Testament has rigourous moral standards: the Ten Commandments are chief of these. However, all these moral standards can be summed up in his demand that we "Love God with all our hearts" (Deuteronomy something). Throughout the Old Testament, God continues to reveal himself to the Israelites, and we learn a few things about him:
He loves the little guy. That's right. He picked the Jews, as slaves in Egypt, and took care of them. There were greater peoples that he could pick as his chosen people, but he picked the Hebrews. Remember the story of David? The shepherd boy who became King?
He is forgiving. If someone seeks forgiveness, he will give it. See the end of Psalm 51 for this quote: "A contrite and broken heart, Oh God, you will not despise".
His greatest desire is that we love him as he loves us. "You do not desire sacrifice" (Psalm 51 again). He doesn't really want all the complex sacrifices: those are more for the people than for him.
As the Old Testament progresses, a tradition develops that a Messiah will come, who will take the form of a "suffering servant". See Isaiah 53.
I, and all other Christians, believe that this suffering servant was Jesus Christ. In a way that is clearly mysterious, Jesus was God taken human form (John 1). He lived a very distinctive life -- throughout his life, he upheld very high moral standards. And hung around with Drunks, Prostitutes, Tax Collectors and anyone else who loved him. These people loved him because, although he was a righteous Jew, he loved them. He refused the social standards of his time that called for him to separate himself from those who were not Righteous jews as he was. See the woman at the well in John 4 for a good picture of this.
Jesus was killed for challenging the religious authorities of his day. If you will, he was executed for telling Jim Baker how wrong "prosperity theology" really was. On the third day, Jesus rose from the grave and appeared to hundreds of witnesses on many occasions. Despite substantial opposition to the Christian movement from the earliest days (Read Acts sometime) no one seriously questioned the Resurrection until the third century AD -- and then, as now, they criticized on the shaky assumption that such a thing/must/ be impossible.
The Bible teaches that Jesus' execution and resurrection bought us a unique privilege: that of being forgiven all our sins, past, present, and future and having our sinful natures (that thing which leads us to Sin) replaced with the power of Jesus. This incarnation of Jesus in us gives us the ability not to Sin. Before Jesus, we did not have even the ability not to Sin. Now, we can avoid sin although it is still hard. How this works is a mystery. When I die and meet Jesus, I plan to ask for an explanation in simple pictures and diagrams.
Why do I believe this? Because just over 4 years ago, before accepting Christ. I was a broken man. I had explored every world religious system, and had discovered that I (like all of you: don't get self-righteous on me) could not be truly "enlightened" of my own accord. I was extremely active in Eastern religions for years -- I did all the meditation, all the reading, all the study. And yet I was empty and failed being suicidal only by shear stubborness.
And then, through a series of encounters with some wonderful Christians, I accepted that I could not do it myself and asked Jesus Christ to come into my life. Immediately after this, I went home, shook my head, and muttered something to the effect of "Pat, this had to take the cake. You have now become a Bible thumper. Maybe if you don't do anything about it you'll get out of it". That's right: I didn't start going to church. I didn't even buy a Bible. I started trying to spend more time in my then current philosophy du jour (Taoism) because obviously I had flipped my lid. Incidentally, I started the definitive Taoism page on the net in like 1994. It's still out there somewhere under different management. I'm not making this up and you can verify it if you so choose.
But God had me and wasn't letting me go. First, he started straightening out my life. Then, slowly, over a period of months, he overcame my intellectual resistance to Christianity -- largely through the works of C.S. Lewis. Finally, about 4 or 5 months after accepting Christ, I reached a turning point and went to the local Christian Book Store and bought a Bible. Walking into that store was the hardest thing I ever did -- I was afraid that someone would see me and KNOW that I was a bible-thumper.
Once I got a Bible, I started reading the New Testament and have never looked back. As hokey as this sounds, I LOVE JESUS! And I know that he loves me. How? Because He, when I was still a sinner and hated him, died on a cross to save me from my sin. You don't have to believe this, but that doesn't keep it from being true.
Since that time, my life has been nothing but uphill. I enjoyed blessings in every area of my life. I have gone from being almost literally impoverished (making $4.35/hr) to a six figure income. I have gone from being lonely and horny, trying to find love wherever I could (as a classic nerd), to a beautiful wife and a wonderful 2 year old son who is smart as hell and meaner than a rattlesnake. I have gone from a fear of society -- a certainty that I was entirely alone born in my stereo-typical geek childhood including physical and sexual abuse -- to enjoying the wonderful blessings of a church family that loves me no matter how often I screw up. I have even watched God extend salvation into my family, slowly overcoming their intellectualism and unfaith and rebuilding my family to something it never could be before.
In short, I have see how just allowing Jesus into my life has totally changed it, and I would not change back for anything. Many of you are fond of Galileo as an example to frame your anti-Christian sentiments. At the end of his trial, there is a legend that he said, under his breath, "It still moves!". Well, despite your derision, despite your pseudo-intellectual bullschnit, despite all your arguments, I say that Jesus/still/ changed my life. And there is absolutely nothing that you can say or do to take that away from me.
Yes. There is, morally, no difference between activities undertaken in real life and in "cyber-space" (sic).
The reason there is no difference is that Sin is not so much about a set of rules that thou shalt obey, but rather about the state of your heart. Man is not sinful because he sins, but sins because he is sinful.
When you view pornography, online or not, you are acting out of the sinful nature.
Your post typifies something I see constantly. People don't know anything about Christianity and yet presume to criticize it based on the shallow bit they've gleaned from Sunday School teachers at the age of six and Televangelists. This is like trying to become a Linux guru from "Linux for dummies" and Jesse Berst, failing, and deciding to use Windows!
There is a wonderful quote from George MacDonald: "We must ask whether what most non-believers think God is is worth believing in." I think he has a point. Don't assume that your preconceptions are what God is, or what most Christians actually believe.
Why is this relevant to your post? Because your post is dripping with a "thou shalt not" view of Sin, which is distinctively non-Biblical.
Your point on hubris is well-taken. I'll just be a man and swallow the urge to rationalize it away.
However, I still find it interesting that the up and down moderation effect ONLY happens on posts with religious content. The more explicitly religious the content, the more it happens.
It doesn't seem to me that my posts on religious topics are any less rational than my posts on secular ones. Why don't my posts on secular topics see-saw up and down in the ratings like this?
Heaven forfend that I should speak against pseudo-scientific rationalism! I am forbidden from observing that some moderators seem to have an axe to grind, for fear that it might offend them. You, like many others, have completely missed the point of the moderator comment: namely that the slashdot population is not religious neutral (as they would like to claim) but actively anti-religious.
My opinion, and I managed to say it without trying to insult anyone. Wow, go figure!
I"m sad to say that is a pretty common situation. For twelve long years I was pretty much excluded from the "gifted" activities because I was a "troublemaker". Never mind that my IQ was comfortably in excess of what was required and that I/knew/ more than any of the others in my grade level. I was a "troublemaker".
My offense? When mercilessly harrassed by bullies and other students, I would get angry and start screaming. I wasn't angry at the harrassment, I was crying out at the isolation.
As far as unorthodox practices go. Just remember that Martin Luther Prayed the Rosary. Now whle this seems meaninless to some calvinists. Most Protestants (even those who call themselvs just Christians are Protestant. If your not Catholic your Protestant. It's a black and White line.) should take this to heart. Martin Luther the man who led the the Protest (hence- PROTESTant) was all in favor of vernerating (not worshipping) Mary.
So you would say that (for example) members of the Orthodox or coptic or other monophysite traditions are protestant? Oh please. There have been splits in the church since no later than 50 AD. They will always be there. But there is no split in the Body of Christ.
We, as Christ-followers (and not all Christians follow Christ. Don't believe me? Look around you and see where non-Christ-Following christians have put us) need to rise above labels and simply love each other.
My background is conservative (but not fundamentalist) evangelical. I go to a church which is vaguely affiliated with the Southern Baptists. I know many Southern Baptists (who shall remain nameless) who I do not expect to see in heaven and many catholics who I am quite sure I/will/ see in heaven. Before he died, Jesus commanded us to be known as his followers by/one thing/: our love for one another. Nothing else.
Certainly not by our correct doctrine. In fact, I could make a pretty strong argument that the fullness of correct doctrine is unknowable. That the best we can do is in humility try to find the best doctrine we can while accepting that we might be very wrong.
So, I am 90% certain that the veneration of Mary (and common usage in the RC church has made it worship whatever word-game are played) is a waste of time. But I think that Catholics good intent keeps it from being idolatrous and I think that Catholic who genuinely seek after God will surely find him, veneration of Mary or not. Jesus said "Seek and you shall find". I don't think he was kidding.
Similarly, I think that baptism by dunking is probably not a very important doctrine: but don't tell some of the people at my church I said that!
All doctrine falls flat in the face of God's incredible love for us through Jesus Christ. Nothing else is really worth talking about.
Ultimately, I find that I use paper on a few occasions.
First, for documentation. Bluntly, this is just because it is much easier to have the book to the left of the keyboard, the mouse to the right and the screen in the middle. Maybe if I got two monitors...
Second, for things that I want to study (and understand) deeply. For example, when I study religious matters (e.g. the bible) I almost always use paper copies, even though a lot of the materials I use are quite expensive on paper and cheap or free online. For whatever reason, I have a more solid connection to a paper document than to an electronic one.
This really isn't about paper, but I'll throw it out. Another reason I use paper for religious studies is because I find that I am tired of computers at the end of the day. I want at least one area of my life that is not computer oriented.
I guess that's the same reason I play a piano instead of a keyboard.
A couple of people have asked that I expand on how the Amish incorporate new technology. Basically (although this doesn't hold true in all cases) some enterprising young Amish-man decides that he is going to use X piece of technology. At this point, one of two things happen. Either the Elders (or rather bishops) let it slide and it becomes (implicitly) allowed, or they forbid it. In some cases that aren't clearly defined the matter will come to a vote among the membership. In some cases pieces of technology are forbidden before they are even tried -- but typically not.
Someone made the point that he thought the decision should be made by the individuals. I personally tend to agree. But Amish have made a commitment to a lifestyle lived deliberately -- they have agreed as adults to be held to the standards of their community, as defined by the elders of the church. I can't find fault with that -- people have the right to choose freely, and they have the right to forego that right. The only compulsion facing an Amish is that, if once they have joined the church, they defy it or refuse to live by its rules they will be shunned by church members. But they are in no way coerced to join the church. The have the opportunity to make an informed decision: most Amish children spend a period of years (starting at 16) exploring the larger culture. They own cars, go to the movies, listen to rock and roll, smoke dope, and everything else. Something like 80%, having experienced everything the larger culture has to offer (and everything Amish culture has) join the church in the end.
By the way, something like 10% of all Amish are millionaires.
Most of this information is based on the Lancaster PA Amish. Other groups may differ.
What then should we consider the Inquisition to be? I'd say it qualifies as evil, and certainly was created and sanctioned by the Pope.
Ultimately, I'm not disposed to defend catholicism because I don't think that organized religion as such is good.
I do, however, have to say that arguments based on the "evils" of the Inquisition are typically over-wrought. While I think that the idea of the inquisition (and the ideal of "Christendom/the City of God" behind it) are/wrong/, most of the more egregious abuses were the result of corrupt associations between lesser church officials and secular authority.
Blaming the Pope is just not fair. Moreso, it doesn't really answer the posters point. His point was that, while individual popes might be corrupt, the church as a whole was not. Inquisition was an/isolated/ phenomenon that only happened in a few places for a few years before being abolished. And no, torture was not used as routinely as you might gather from popular myth.
I think a lot of the problem is that the stories are radically overblown and that most people today don't seems to be able to garner information other than by soundbites and inuendo. Research has become optional.
Hmmm... The thing is that the stereo-type is not true in either case. Maybe we should stop listening to the media (think Jon Katz with his sharply slanted articles) and concentrate on those religious people we actually know?
I must admit that Christianity in the US is coming out of a dark age right now. The previous generation seemed to have lost all touch with God and the light nearly died. But that doesn't invalidate it. Read the Bible (start with the Gospel according to John if I may suggest) and judge for yourself.
Maybe the majority in any religion will be at least less than ideal for the same reason that most computer programmers are simply time-clock punchers with little understanding of their jobs -- the majority in any area of human endeavour tends to be incompetent.
Of course, in christianity we have to love them anyway, but that's another article.
And what about when christians praying in church are shot?
I must say I am shocked and appalled at the lack of coverage surrounding the shootings of 7 children, praying in church. Take a look. Compare it to the coverage given to (for example) Columbine. A crazy man comes into a church, shoots seven children dead and wounds more including an associate pastor, then kills himself, and it didn't even make front page on the newspaper here. No Bill Clinton crying out against the dangers of guns (or even the dangers of anti-christian rhetoric), no senate bills passed, nothing.
If that had happened in a non-christian setting, it would have been widely decried. As it is, the attitude seems to be that "It's dangerous to be a wacko".
I think my example was in point -- and responded to what he/was/ saying. Namely, he was claiming that the church should reign in "our" wackos. The counter-point is that they are NOT our wackos, and there is no way we can reign them in, anymore than the French socialist party can reign in neo-nazis.
Slashdot Mirror
If nobody is shocked by them in 1999 (and I'll agree with you on that) then why use them? Most of them are exceedingly vague, and even if nodody is shocked, few will use them around their grandmothers.
I note, with wry amusement, that only on posts of a religious nature do I get moderated both up and down. I just think it's interesting: why would posts of a religious nature be so disputed when other posts are not?
My conclusion: a large percentage have an axe to grind.
Geesh. What is it with me and homophones lately. Ugg. "Are writes".
Shoulda hit that preview button.
Geesh. What is it with me and homophones lately. Ugg. "Are writes".
Shoulda hit that preview button.
Oh. Don't get me wrong -- I fully recognize that sometimes are writes are written in dry sand on a windy day.
I just think its a hell of a lot better to have enumerated, hard to modify rights than to have the kind of wishy-washy mishmash that the British have. My impression is that Parliament could turn GB into a totalitarian state tomorrow and that nobody could do anything to stop them legally.
I think that is the peculiar genius of the american constituion: checks and balances, combined with two layers of law (i.e. statutory law and constiutional law). One is easy to change, and so we can adapt. The constitution is very difficult to change -- it is the bedrock of our society.
What scares me is the courts: they have grown more and more liberal. If they go south, then we may as well kiss the constitution goodbye.
Just another example where the canadians seem to be exceptionally sensible. Know of anyone who needs an experienced UNIX geek there?
That's what I love about the British -- on average, they are much better spoken and written than those of us on the western side of the Atlantic. They also have a gift for poetic understatement that is probably one of the funniest things on the planet.
/., a lot of people criticize the US. And that's a good thing: there are many areas where the US deserves to be criticized. But let's not forget that in some areas at least we are far ahead of the competition.
But I wouldn't want to live there. In the US, I could challenge such a bill on a number of constitutional grounds. I could claim that it violated due process, unreasonable search and ceisure, freedom of speech, and unnenumerated rights such as privacy. It wouldn't last six months (much like the late CDA did not). However, my understanding is that in Britain their are no such consitutional protections -- don't I remember hearing that they don't even have a formal consitution?
On
You are ascribing to me sentiments I did not express. As for being a language elitist: better than being illiterate. I like language. I like to use it properly and gramatically. It makes me happy and in any rational value system is better than saying "fuck fuck fuck" all day long.
Oh yeah... You still haven't come up with a situation where the use of the seven deadly words accomplishes anything but demnonstrating a low IQ and a desire to shock people.
I'm still waiting for the person to come forward with a worthwhile reasone why he needs a domain that is one of the seven words.
There is none. Those words are just shock-words used by people with low vocabularies.
geesh. The ideas that come up around here.
I wish I could be sure this is a hoax. Sadly, it looks to me like just the kind of silliness that many Christians waste their time on. I'm not going to get into the (really divisive) issues behind this. I feel an incredible sadness for this topic having come up in this forum in this way.
Instead, I would like to talk about what Christianity really is. Maybe its off-topic, maybe not. In any case, I will post it and the moderators can do their thing. I will not come back to reply to this thread to comment further -- I have no interest in doing so. If you have questions, email me. Flames will go silently to
At its most basic level, Christianity is the outgrowth of Judaism. Judaism, based in the Old Testament, has a very clear and radically monotheistic understanding of God. The God of the Old Testament has rigourous moral standards: the Ten Commandments are chief of these. However, all these moral standards can be summed up in his demand that we "Love God with all our hearts" (Deuteronomy something). Throughout the Old Testament, God continues to reveal himself to the Israelites, and we learn a few things about him:
As the Old Testament progresses, a tradition develops that a Messiah will come, who will take the form of a "suffering servant". See Isaiah 53.
I, and all other Christians, believe that this suffering servant was Jesus Christ. In a way that is clearly mysterious, Jesus was God taken human form (John 1). He lived a very distinctive life -- throughout his life, he upheld very high moral standards. And hung around with Drunks, Prostitutes, Tax Collectors and anyone else who loved him. These people loved him because, although he was a righteous Jew, he loved them. He refused the social standards of his time that called for him to separate himself from those who were not Righteous jews as he was. See the woman at the well in John 4 for a good picture of this.
Jesus was killed for challenging the religious authorities of his day. If you will, he was executed for telling Jim Baker how wrong "prosperity theology" really was. On the third day, Jesus rose from the grave and appeared to hundreds of witnesses on many occasions. Despite substantial opposition to the Christian movement from the earliest days (Read Acts sometime) no one seriously questioned the Resurrection until the third century AD -- and then, as now, they criticized on the shaky assumption that such a thing
The Bible teaches that Jesus' execution and resurrection bought us a unique privilege: that of being forgiven all our sins, past, present, and future and having our sinful natures (that thing which leads us to Sin) replaced with the power of Jesus. This incarnation of Jesus in us gives us the ability not to Sin. Before Jesus, we did not have even the ability not to Sin. Now, we can avoid sin although it is still hard. How this works is a mystery. When I die and meet Jesus, I plan to ask for an explanation in simple pictures and diagrams.
Why do I believe this? Because just over 4 years ago, before accepting Christ. I was a broken man. I had explored every world religious system, and had discovered that I (like all of you: don't get self-righteous on me) could not be truly "enlightened" of my own accord. I was extremely active in Eastern religions for years -- I did all the meditation, all the reading, all the study. And yet I was empty and failed being suicidal only by shear stubborness.
And then, through a series of encounters with some wonderful Christians, I accepted that I could not do it myself and asked Jesus Christ to come into my life. Immediately after this, I went home, shook my head, and muttered something to the effect of "Pat, this had to take the cake. You have now become a Bible thumper. Maybe if you don't do anything about it you'll get out of it". That's right: I didn't start going to church. I didn't even buy a Bible. I started trying to spend more time in my then current philosophy du jour (Taoism) because obviously I had flipped my lid. Incidentally, I started the definitive Taoism page on the net in like 1994. It's still out there somewhere under different management. I'm not making this up and you can verify it if you so choose.
But God had me and wasn't letting me go. First, he started straightening out my life. Then, slowly, over a period of months, he overcame my intellectual resistance to Christianity -- largely through the works of C.S. Lewis. Finally, about 4 or 5 months after accepting Christ, I reached a turning point and went to the local Christian Book Store and bought a Bible. Walking into that store was the hardest thing I ever did -- I was afraid that someone would see me and KNOW that I was a bible-thumper.
Once I got a Bible, I started reading the New Testament and have never looked back. As hokey as this sounds, I LOVE JESUS! And I know that he loves me. How? Because He, when I was still a sinner and hated him, died on a cross to save me from my sin. You don't have to believe this, but that doesn't keep it from being true.
Since that time, my life has been nothing but uphill. I enjoyed blessings in every area of my life. I have gone from being almost literally impoverished (making $4.35/hr) to a six figure income. I have gone from being lonely and horny, trying to find love wherever I could (as a classic nerd), to a beautiful wife and a wonderful 2 year old son who is smart as hell and meaner than a rattlesnake. I have gone from a fear of society -- a certainty that I was entirely alone born in my stereo-typical geek childhood including physical and sexual abuse -- to enjoying the wonderful blessings of a church family that loves me no matter how often I screw up. I have even watched God extend salvation into my family, slowly overcoming their intellectualism and unfaith and rebuilding my family to something it never could be before.
In short, I have see how just allowing Jesus into my life has totally changed it, and I would not change back for anything. Many of you are fond of Galileo as an example to frame your anti-Christian sentiments. At the end of his trial, there is a legend that he said, under his breath, "It still moves!". Well, despite your derision, despite your pseudo-intellectual bullschnit, despite all your arguments, I say that Jesus
Yes. There is, morally, no difference between activities undertaken in real life and in "cyber-space" (sic).
The reason there is no difference is that Sin is not so much about a set of rules that thou shalt obey, but rather about the state of your heart. Man is not sinful because he sins, but sins because he is sinful.
When you view pornography, online or not, you are acting out of the sinful nature.
Your post typifies something I see constantly. People don't know anything about Christianity and yet presume to criticize it based on the shallow bit they've gleaned from Sunday School teachers at the age of six and Televangelists. This is like trying to become a Linux guru from "Linux for dummies" and Jesse Berst, failing, and deciding to use Windows!
There is a wonderful quote from George MacDonald: "We must ask whether what most non-believers think God is is worth believing in." I think he has a point. Don't assume that your preconceptions are what God is, or what most Christians actually believe.
Why is this relevant to your post? Because your post is dripping with a "thou shalt not" view of Sin, which is distinctively non-Biblical.
IIRC (it's been a while) it's only included in the professional editions and is not installed by default.
OWL is wonderful if you already have code written in it that you want to port. (I occasionally see an app with the giveaway OWL "check" button)
Your point on hubris is well-taken. I'll just be a man and swallow the urge to rationalize it away.
However, I still find it interesting that the up and down moderation effect ONLY happens on posts with religious content. The more explicitly religious the content, the more it happens.
It doesn't seem to me that my posts on religious topics are any less rational than my posts on secular ones. Why don't my posts on secular topics see-saw up and down in the ratings like this?
Heaven forfend that I should speak against pseudo-scientific rationalism! I am forbidden from observing that some moderators seem to have an axe to grind, for fear that it might offend them. You, like many others, have completely missed the point of the moderator comment: namely that the slashdot population is not religious neutral (as they would like to claim) but actively anti-religious.
My opinion, and I managed to say it without trying to insult anyone. Wow, go figure!
I"m sad to say that is a pretty common situation. For twelve long years I was pretty much excluded from the "gifted" activities because I was a "troublemaker". Never mind that my IQ was comfortably in excess of what was required and that I /knew/ more than any of the others in my grade level. I was a "troublemaker".
My offense? When mercilessly harrassed by bullies and other students, I would get angry and start screaming. I wasn't angry at the harrassment, I was crying out at the isolation.
Their response? Isolate me further.
*sigh* The american educational system sucks.
Just a few things that came to mind. I
So you would say that (for example) members of the Orthodox or coptic or other monophysite traditions are protestant? Oh please. There have been splits in the church since no later than 50 AD. They will always be there. But there is no split in the Body of Christ.
We, as Christ-followers (and not all Christians follow Christ. Don't believe me? Look around you and see where non-Christ-Following christians have put us) need to rise above labels and simply love each other.
My background is conservative (but not fundamentalist) evangelical. I go to a church which is vaguely affiliated with the Southern Baptists. I know many Southern Baptists (who shall remain nameless) who I do not expect to see in heaven and many catholics who I am quite sure I
Certainly not by our correct doctrine. In fact, I could make a pretty strong argument that the fullness of correct doctrine is unknowable. That the best we can do is in humility try to find the best doctrine we can while accepting that we might be very wrong.
So, I am 90% certain that the veneration of Mary (and common usage in the RC church has made it worship whatever word-game are played) is a waste of time. But I think that Catholics good intent keeps it from being idolatrous and I think that Catholic who genuinely seek after God will surely find him, veneration of Mary or not. Jesus said "Seek and you shall find". I don't think he was kidding.
Similarly, I think that baptism by dunking is probably not a very important doctrine: but don't tell some of the people at my church I said that!
All doctrine falls flat in the face of God's incredible love for us through Jesus Christ. Nothing else is really worth talking about.
Ultimately, I find that I use paper on a few occasions.
First, for documentation. Bluntly, this is just because it is much easier to have the book to the left of the keyboard, the mouse to the right and the screen in the middle. Maybe if I got two monitors...
Second, for things that I want to study (and understand) deeply. For example, when I study religious matters (e.g. the bible) I almost always use paper copies, even though a lot of the materials I use are quite expensive on paper and cheap or free online. For whatever reason, I have a more solid connection to a paper document than to an electronic one.
This really isn't about paper, but I'll throw it out. Another reason I use paper for religious studies is because I find that I am tired of computers at the end of the day. I want at least one area of my life that is not computer oriented.
I guess that's the same reason I play a piano instead of a keyboard.
A couple of people have asked that I expand on how the Amish incorporate new technology. Basically (although this doesn't hold true in all cases) some enterprising young Amish-man decides that he is going to use X piece of technology. At this point, one of two things happen. Either the Elders (or rather bishops) let it slide and it becomes (implicitly) allowed, or they forbid it. In some cases that aren't clearly defined the matter will come to a vote among the membership. In some cases pieces of technology are forbidden before they are even tried -- but typically not.
Someone made the point that he thought the decision should be made by the individuals. I personally tend to agree. But Amish have made a commitment to a lifestyle lived deliberately -- they have agreed as adults to be held to the standards of their community, as defined by the elders of the church. I can't find fault with that -- people have the right to choose freely, and they have the right to forego that right. The only compulsion facing an Amish is that, if once they have joined the church, they defy it or refuse to live by its rules they will be shunned by church members. But they are in no way coerced to join the church. The have the opportunity to make an informed decision: most
Amish children spend a period of years (starting at 16) exploring the larger culture. They own cars, go to the movies, listen to rock and roll, smoke dope, and everything else. Something like 80%, having experienced everything the larger culture has to offer (and everything Amish culture has) join the church in the end.
By the way, something like 10% of all Amish are millionaires.
Most of this information is based on the Lancaster PA Amish. Other groups may differ.
What then should we consider the Inquisition to be? I'd say it qualifies as evil, and certainly was created and sanctioned by the Pope.
Ultimately, I'm not disposed to defend catholicism because I don't think that organized religion as such is good.
I do, however, have to say that arguments based on the "evils" of the Inquisition are typically over-wrought. While I think that the idea of the inquisition (and the ideal of "Christendom/the City of God" behind it) are
Blaming the Pope is just not fair. Moreso, it doesn't really answer the posters point. His point was that, while individual popes might be corrupt, the church as a whole was not. Inquisition was an
I think a lot of the problem is that the stories are radically overblown and that most people today don't seems to be able to garner information other than by soundbites and inuendo. Research has become optional.
Hmmm... The thing is that the stereo-type is not true in either case. Maybe we should stop listening to the media (think Jon Katz with his sharply slanted articles) and concentrate on those religious people we actually know?
I must admit that Christianity in the US is coming out of a dark age right now. The previous generation seemed to have lost all touch with God and the light nearly died. But that doesn't invalidate it. Read the Bible (start with the Gospel according to John if I may suggest) and judge for yourself.
Maybe the majority in any religion will be at least less than ideal for the same reason that most computer programmers are simply time-clock punchers with little understanding of their jobs -- the majority in any area of human endeavour tends to be incompetent.
Of course, in christianity we have to love them anyway, but that's another article.
And what about when christians praying in church are shot?
/was/ saying. Namely, he was claiming that the church should reign in "our" wackos. The counter-point is that they are NOT our wackos, and there is no way we can reign them in, anymore than the French socialist party can reign in neo-nazis.
I must say I am shocked and appalled at the lack of coverage surrounding the shootings of 7 children, praying in church. Take a look. Compare it to the coverage given to (for example) Columbine. A crazy man comes into a church, shoots seven children dead and wounds more including an associate pastor, then kills himself, and it didn't even make front page on the newspaper here. No Bill Clinton crying out against the dangers of guns (or even the dangers of anti-christian rhetoric), no senate bills passed, nothing.
If that had happened in a non-christian setting, it would have been widely decried. As it is, the attitude seems to be that "It's dangerous to be a wacko".
I think my example was in point -- and responded to what he
I wasn't really complaining (believe it or not). I was just observing. I find it interesting as a sociological phenomenon.
Hmmm... As I recall, Adolf Hitler called himself a National Socialist. So, I guess the various socialist parties in Europe are all anti-semitic?