I don't think "completely belies" is fair. In essence, it says "well, the backdoor that we spent 24 hours terrifying the world with isn't there. But we found another problem while we were looking for it". C'mon people... The misinformation running around has gone too far.
Just for the record (because I'm really anal retentive about this kind of stuff), Jesus does not hate fags. Although some great fools have claimed he does, they are just enjoying their folly.
Of course, Jesus (i.e. God) does disapprove of homesexual behaviour, but there is a big difference between that and "hating fags".
I don't really think this program (which I had never heard of before) is nearly so significant as the fact that it was ported using WineLib. We now have at least two serious products ported to Linux this way -- one is a fluke, two is a trend.
Reality check guys: for the forseeable future, Windows will be the dominant platform. If WineLib is really getting good enough for vendors to port their software using it, then our chances of getting a load of the thousands of good Windows applications ported are greatly improved.
In fact, I could see the Windows API becoming a "commodity platform". That is, with the advent of Wine, we could be a approaching the point where Windows API programs will run in a lot of different places. Further, I can see Linux becoming a significant place to run Windows programs in the near future if Wine gets good enough.
I really think that anything that commoditizes the Win32 API is probably a good thing for the industry, even if we would all prefer native ports. The problem of Microsoft "extending" Win32 periodically would be greatly mitigated if this were the case.
I just thought it might be interesting to note that I posted this article more than 24 hours ago. And it was "accepted" within minutes. Anyone care to take a bet that Rob delayed this article 24 hours to get first shot at the servers?
I thought about not saying anything, but "information wants to be free!"
(For the record, I don't see anything wrong with Rob doing that -- I just find it amusing.)
My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong? If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," [1] you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.
James 2:1-9 (NIV)
I wonder what Reed's response to that would be? I guess he would p[robably try to narrow the context.
Geesh... And I guess you've gone out of your way to seek out a comprehensive knowledge of theodicy (the branch of theology that deals with precisely this question)?
Oh. oops. Didn't think so.
I'm sure you've also studies the twenty-odd "proofs" for the existence of God and found them all lacking?
No? Oops.
You sound like someone who rejects God not out of disbelief, but out of stubborn willfulness. Possibly you should study a bit and then come back and talk.
Bear in mind what these things mean. From the "TCSSEC" FAQ:
18. What are the requirements for a D/C1/C2/B1/B2/B3/A1 system?
The Interpreted Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (ITCSEC) available in postscript at contains the definitive set of requirements for each TCSEC class. In Summary:
Class D: Minimal Protection
Class D is reserved for those systems that have been evaluated but that fail to meet the requirements for a higher evaluation class.
Class C1: Discretionary Security Protection
The Trusted Computing Base (TCB) of a class C1 system nominally satisfies the discretionary security requirements by providing separation of users and data. It incorporates some form of credible controls capable of enforcing access limitations on an individual basis, i.e., ostensibly suitable for allowing users to be able to protect project or private information and to keep other users from accidentally reading or destroying their data. The class C1 environment is expected to be one of cooperating users processing data at the same level of sensitivity.
Class C2: Controlled Access Protection
Systems in this class enforce a more finely grained discretionary access control than C1 systems, making users individually accountable for their actions through login procedures, auditing of security-relevant events, and resource isolation.
Class B1: Labeled Security Protection
Class B1 systems require all the features required for class C2. In addition, an informal statement of the security policy model, data labeling (e.g., secret or proprietary), and mandatory access control over named subjects and objects must be present. The capability must exist for accurately labeling exported information.
Class B2: Structured Protection
In class B2 systems, the TCB is based on a clearly defined and documented formal security policy model that requires the discretionary and mandatory access control enforcement found in class B1 systems be extended to all subjects and objects in the automated data processing system. In addition, covert channels are addressed. The TCB must be carefully structured into protection-critical and non- protection-critical elements. The TCB interface is well-defined and the TCB design and implementation enable it to be subjected to more thorough testing and more complete review. Authentication mechanisms are strengthened, trusted facility management is provided in the form of support for system administrator and operator functions, and stringent configuration management controls are imposed. The system is relatively resistant to penetration.
Class B3: Security Domains
The class B3 TCB must satisfy the reference monitor requirements that it mediate all accesses of subjects to objects, be tamperproof, and be small enough to be subjected to analysis and tests. To this end, the TCB is structured to exclude code not essential to security policy enforcement, with significant system engineering during TCB design and implementation directed toward minimizing its complexity. A security administrator is supported, audit mechanisms are expanded to signal security-relevant events, and system recovery procedures are required. The system is highly resistant to penetration.
Class A1: Verified Design
Systems in class A1 are functionally equivalent to those in class B3 in that no additional architectural features or policy requirements are added. The distinguishing feature of systems in this class is the analysis derived from formal design specification and verification techniques and the resulting high degree of assurance that the TCB is correctly implemented. This assurance is developmental in nature, starting with a formal model of the security policy and a formal top-level specification (FTLS) of the design. An FTLS is a top level specification of the system written in a formal mathematical language to allow theorems (showing the coorespondence of the system specification to its formal requirements) to be hypothesized and formally proven. In keeping with the extensive design and development analysis of the TCB required of systems in class A1, more stringent configuration management is required and procedures are established for securely distributing the system to sites. A system security administrator is supported.
Why didn't they use GTK or QT? Because the one you've seen is Wordperfect 8! It was originally ported to various UNIXes, not just Linux, and the port was done before anything but Motif was standard.
Corel Office 2000 uses the exact same binary as the windows version (in fact, it runs under Wine -- Corel have set forth some decent smelling reasons they do it this way). I believe that their proprietary version of wine is setup to support a KDE look & feel, but I also think this can be turned off.
I wonder how long it's going to be before the increasing cluelessness of the moderators destroy's slashdot? This post should never have gotten a +5.
it's called wxwindows. It will support just about any gui library. Don't know if it's been ported to Qt, but it does run on GTK, Motif, Mac, and Windows.
He specifically says "or put the source code on a web site". That is, he acknowledges specifically that the source code need not actually be bundled, just available.
I looked a couple of weeks ago, and was unable to find anyone who had done a secure linux distro. Why would I rather have Linux?
Faster. OpenBSD is slow on my boxes.
Better hardware support.
SMP
Better commercial app support.
Generally, easier install.
There are a couple of pages out there that describe products, but no downloadable distros. This sounds to me like a great market for someone to "do a mandrake" in.
The problem is that usually, when scientists start talking about "rationality" in a religious context, what they really mean is "scepticism". That is, they want to bring scientific scepticism to the study of religion. If the purpose of religion is to construct a cosmology, there is nothing wrong with this! I am firmly convinced that God can withstand a little scrutiny.
However, there's a problem with this. It pains me to say it, but only a small fraction of the population seem to be able to think rationally on a consistent basis. (If this were not the case, then professional wrestling would be a dead sport.) Even of those who can think rationally, a large percentage don't.
And you know what? They're right. You see, to the true scientist, everything expresses itself in terms of probability. As a scientist, I can conceive of some non-zero chance that, when I drop a ruler, it will float up to the ceiling. And I might be concerned with that possibility, because my purpose is to understand how it works. Understanding is a goal of its own, and needs no application to be worthwhile.
However, in day to day life, we must make assumptions on inadequate data on a continual basis. If we applied scientific scepticism on a continual basis, we would never get out of bed. Visualize having to enquire, on seeing a red light, as to whether that light was really red? So, the good and useful scientific scepticism that gives us great technology when applied to "simple problems" gives way to harmful, radical scepticism when applied to mundane problems.
The thing is that the class of problems I label "mundane" are often much more complex than those currently dealt with by science. So, we solve them on an intuitive, emotional level, and on the whole do pretty well with it.
Which leads me to my beliefs. As any Slashdot comment reader who doesn't just skip over-written, wordy comments probably knows by now, I am a Christian. Further, I fall into the more conservative range of Christian belief. I am a traditionalist and an evanglical.
Constantly on/., people ask me to "prove there's a God" (or prove that Yahweh is God, or Jesus, or whatever). I cannot offer any proof that they will accept. Why? All my proofs rest on my own experience. Many readers apply radical, pseudo-scientific scepticism to religion, and so it is assumed that the least explanation for my belief is that I am either a liar or deluded. When my experiences of God are discounted, I have no evidence to argue from that can stand under the light of radical scepticism.
That's okay: I still believe. Why? Because I find belief in God to be functional. It's Pascal's wager: whether there is a God or not, I am able to see great and consistent results from believing in him and choosing to follow him that I did not see when I was caught up in other faiths. (I progressed from atheist to agnostic to Hinduism to Taoism to Christianity between the age of about 12 and 23 or so -- as I learned more, my beliefs changed, and so did my life).
Don't get me wrong: I believe based on reasonable evidence (5 ancient witnesses for starters) that Jehovah is God and that Jesus is his son who rose from the dead in the literal sense. What I'm rejecting is the assumption that I (or anyone) should have to subject this to some involved process of proof based in the Greek philosphical tradition.
And that is where this book would appear to miss: I have not yet see the Greek philosophical tradition offer any help for how to live. And that's the problem I want religion to solve.
Footnote: Contrary to my usual tradition, I'm not going to respond to replies to this post. Apologetics make me tired, and I've already fought two big flame wars in the last week. I just don't have the energy or the time to write another 20,000 words this week.
Well... Let me say up front that I have never seen a statistical analysis of frequency of prayer response across faiths. Have you? Do you have a reference?
In fact, I suspect such an analysis would be entirely invalid, even if everything I say is true. Why? Because God is not a circus clown: He's not going to answer prayer to satisfy your scientific curiosity. Or at least he doesn't have to. It seems like you still haven't got a handle on the fact that God is fundamentally different in quantity and quality. It's the fallacy of the Greeks all over again -- they couldn't imagine a God any different from what they knew.
Look... There are 5 different first-century accounts that report Christ dying, then being raised from the dead. Each is obviously from a different person. Matthew dates to around 60AD according to recent carbon-14 dating done on fragments of it. Mark is also believed to be in the 60's, with Luke in the 70's and John in the 70-80's. Paul wrote as early as 45 in some of his letters by some estimates. I'll leave out Josephus since many try to claim it's a forgery (without evidence).
And there is no record of anyone questioning the basic historical fact of the resurrection prior to the third century -- despite the fact that there are numerous public records of Christians as early as 66.
But all these are just excuses. My basic evidence is my experience.
Tell me something: Why do you accept that man has landed on the moon? Did you see it? Or just the video-tapes? They can fake ANYTHING on video-tape nowadays. Why not try applying your sceptic philosophy towards that question and see what you come up with? Once you're done with that, please prove the earth is round. And, while you're at it, I'd like you to prove that Newton was not invented to glorify England by Queen Mary I -- And prove that Leibniz shouldn't get full credit for the laws of motion instead of a foot-note.
You seem to think I'm making an argument for Christianity or the existence of God. I'm not. I'm simply trying to correct some of the gross slanders that are commonly directed against Christians and people of faith.
and you still haven't answered the question. What distinguishes your Christian experience from similar ones involving different religions? You do agree that people have experiences of other religions, and that these people must be in some way deluded or mistaken, right? We do agree that the majority of religious believers are deluded, right? What makes you different?
What makes me different is this: I am not trying to correct my life under my own power. My salvation is a gift from God. And Judeo-Islamo-Christian is the only religious system and world view that deals acceptably with the undeniable fact of human fallability.
I happen to think that Christianity offers the best and most complete structure of the JIC faiths. And I happen to think that the New Testament is "true". So, I am a Christian. I happen to think that Christianity -- in it's original form, as revealed in the Bible -- is a better approximation of the truth found in God than any other faith.
This is not to say that Hinduism or Shinto or Bahai or Buddhism or even Judaism or Islam are correct. I think they are all missing various parts of the picture -- and in some cases have missed the picture altogether. But its not a boolean thing: Christians are not right about everything, and everyone else is wrong about everything. So, Muslims are right to believe in Allah (who is, in their view, the same as Jehovah) but are incorrect to reject the New Testament and it's message of grace. Buddhists are right to emphasize self-realization through moral behaviour, but are wrong to think that people can do it under their own power and they are wrong (in the Mahayanan) to reject God as God. Hindus are correct to worship God, but are incorrect about his nature.
On Slashdot, I am not trying to make converts (although I would welcome any that come). I am engaging in an apologetic aimed to correct false accusations leveled at Christians within the Slashdot community.
I just noticed this line in your post:
Besides being equally applicable to all religions, the problem with your argument is that it leads right to the atheological arguments from evil and disbelief. Why has god failed so many others? And if god always answers prayers, why would anyone ever stop being a Christian? And why are there so many non-Christians? The evidence you cite, were it to exist, WOULD be available to all. Unless god only answers your prayers and not others'?
My exact point is that he may, or may not answer prayers. Possibly I spoke casually earlier: when I pray, I don't say "God, I want $100,000". I ask him, as a personality, to attend to a need. He attends to it in his way, in his wisdom. It is his choice -- He's a father, not a cosmic vending machine! You are trying to shove God in a box, and he won't fit, so you claim he doesn't exist. As some people have put it, every prayer is answered, but sometimes the answer is "no". Even Christ had to lean on God's wisdom rather than his own... Luke 22:42.
I'm rambling now. But the point is that you are trying to shove me and God into a box -- and so you can't understand either one.
Oh no... I never claimed to accept Christianity on a scientific basis! Please document this claim if you want to pursue it.
I may have said (I've posted loads of posts on this thread) that I have rational evidence that seems sufficient to me to accept Christianity. However, that does not make my basis "scientific": it makes it rational. Scientific depends on reproducibility -- which is why the scientific method doesn't seem to have done very well when it comes to the "human sciences". (Or do you really think drugging 10% of elementary school students is a step forward? Another argument for another day)
The thing is that people and personalities are generally not entirely reliable. People can react differently to different stimuli, depending on many things which are not immediately apparent. It's called free will. And I happen to think (not believe) that this is the way in which humans are most like God: he has free will, which means that he may respond to exactly the same stimuli in different ways according to principles that are not immediately apparent.
Repeat after me: Amphigory is not a deist, and God is not a computer you can program.
However, let me respond to you this way: if you pray for something... for help when things seem hopeless, for a glimmer of light at the end of tunnel. And you can always see a way in which that prayer was answered, would you believe in God?
If you were on the verge of suicide from the despair of your life, if you were making $4.35 an hour, and hadn't been on a date in 5 years... And you came, in a flash of realization, after years of exploring eastern mysticism, including being a Hindu monk for 2 years, to realize that "Jesus is the answer"... and, after making a decision to abandon your friends, abandon your idea systems to start over, swallow your pride and join the Christians you had mocked in following this Jesus... And, after all this, watched your life in a matter of less than a year be transformed (Married to a wonderful woman, working as a Senior UNIX geek, out of the parents house)... In short: healed. Would you then believe in God?
There 'ya go. I believe in God because he has never failed me... What led me to first believe? I believe that I was first led to believe by direct divine intervention. You have no idea how much I used to hate Christians -- for me to accept Jesus was a miracle on its own. Which asks more questions than it asks: but that's okay, I'm not trying to solve the universe -- if I were, I'd use math and science.
I'm sure I'll catch a load of garbage for this: but when someone is unable to say something without resulting to "shock words" (which no longer shock anyone anyway) my instant gut reaction is to stop listening to them. Not because they are "evil" -- just because they are usually an indicator of low intelligence and an unsupported (or unsupportable) position.
When these people are able to come back with some reasoned position instead of a bunch of vulgar slogans which they use to vandalize public porperty, they can come talk to me.
Well isn't that convenient! You'll hold Christians reponsible for every flu bug passed on by every Christian since Irenaus, yet repudiate the work of prior rationalists.
It must be nice to have an agenda set in silly putty.
May I refer you to the work of David Hume (probably the best recognized rationalist philosopher) wherein he uses a very similar example regarding an Indian Prince who does not believe in Snow (having never seen it)?
Oh come. You've rejected 5 definitions that don't support your assertion in favor of a secondary one that does. Let's do the whole entry:
faith (fth) n. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, an idea, or a thing. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at trust. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. Often Faith. Theology. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. A set of principles or beliefs.
I deny, specifically, that religious conviction requires "faith" in the definition you used. Why? Because that's not wwhat I beleive, or how I cam to believe.
To me, Faith is a certainty in something ultimately unproveable sufficient to provoke action. Especially in a Christian context, you cannot separate faith from action. I should also observe that everything is unproveable in the ultimate sense, so everything requires faith.
The question, even with your definition, is where one should put faith. You would appear to put faith in rationalism, and in the American Heritage dictionary. I put faith in my experience of interaction with an admittedly invisible entity I call God. God has never failed me -- he has changed my life and my character 180 degrees. I can see the results of his hand - in myself and in Christians I know.
Others, on the other hand, put faith in "Reason". They suppose that they can think their way out of anything, because of this rather nebulous quality of rationality they claim to possess. Like God, it is invisible and ineffable.
I put faith in God because I have seen Him work for the problems I care about. You put your faith elsewhere because it seems to fix the problems you care about. I honestly think that you are mistaken: but time will tell.
Actually, no they aren't. I believe in Christianity because the best evidence I have available suggests to me that it is true. Now, granted some of this evidence isn't objectively observable. but that does not mean it's not there.
The problem with rationalism (as defined, for example, by David Hume) is that you can only accept that which is part of your "ordinary experience". You run a profound risk of being placed in the position of the hick, who, upon being offered the chance to ride an elephant, said "there ain't no sich animal".
Minds are like parachutes -- they function best when open. But it's amazing how many people who quote that saying in fact have very closed minds vis a vis certain subjects such as religion.
Slashdot Mirror
--
--
Of course, Jesus (i.e. God) does disapprove of homesexual behaviour, but there is a big difference between that and "hating fags".
--
Reality check guys: for the forseeable future, Windows will be the dominant platform. If WineLib is really getting good enough for vendors to port their software using it, then our chances of getting a load of the thousands of good Windows applications ported are greatly improved.
In fact, I could see the Windows API becoming a "commodity platform". That is, with the advent of Wine, we could be a approaching the point where Windows API programs will run in a lot of different places. Further, I can see Linux becoming a significant place to run Windows programs in the near future if Wine gets good enough.
I really think that anything that commoditizes the Win32 API is probably a good thing for the industry, even if we would all prefer native ports. The problem of Microsoft "extending" Win32 periodically would be greatly mitigated if this were the case.
--
I thought about not saying anything, but "information wants to be free!"
(For the record, I don't see anything wrong with Rob doing that -- I just find it amusing.)
--
I wonder what Reed's response to that would be? I guess he would p[robably try to narrow the context.
--
Oh. oops. Didn't think so.
I'm sure you've also studies the twenty-odd "proofs" for the existence of God and found them all lacking?
No? Oops.
You sound like someone who rejects God not out of disbelief, but out of stubborn willfulness. Possibly you should study a bit and then come back and talk.
--
--
The Christian right even nauseates me, and I'm a Christian! Or maybe it nauseates me especially because I'm a Christian.
*sigh*
--
Corel Office 2000 uses the exact same binary as the windows version (in fact, it runs under Wine -- Corel have set forth some decent smelling reasons they do it this way). I believe that their proprietary version of wine is setup to support a KDE look & feel, but I also think this can be turned off.
I wonder how long it's going to be before the increasing cluelessness of the moderators destroy's slashdot? This post should never have gotten a +5.
--
--
Why is this flame bait at +4?
--
- Faster. OpenBSD is slow on my boxes.
- Better hardware support.
- SMP
- Better commercial app support.
- Generally, easier install.
There are a couple of pages out there that describe products, but no downloadable distros. This sounds to me like a great market for someone to "do a mandrake" in.--
--
--
However, there's a problem with this. It pains me to say it, but only a small fraction of the population seem to be able to think rationally on a consistent basis. (If this were not the case, then professional wrestling would be a dead sport.) Even of those who can think rationally, a large percentage don't.
And you know what? They're right. You see, to the true scientist, everything expresses itself in terms of probability. As a scientist, I can conceive of some non-zero chance that, when I drop a ruler, it will float up to the ceiling. And I might be concerned with that possibility, because my purpose is to understand how it works. Understanding is a goal of its own, and needs no application to be worthwhile.
However, in day to day life, we must make assumptions on inadequate data on a continual basis. If we applied scientific scepticism on a continual basis, we would never get out of bed. Visualize having to enquire, on seeing a red light, as to whether that light was really red? So, the good and useful scientific scepticism that gives us great technology when applied to "simple problems" gives way to harmful, radical scepticism when applied to mundane problems.
The thing is that the class of problems I label "mundane" are often much more complex than those currently dealt with by science. So, we solve them on an intuitive, emotional level, and on the whole do pretty well with it.
Which leads me to my beliefs. As any Slashdot comment reader who doesn't just skip over-written, wordy comments probably knows by now, I am a Christian. Further, I fall into the more conservative range of Christian belief. I am a traditionalist and an evanglical.
Constantly on /., people ask me to "prove there's a God" (or prove that Yahweh is God, or Jesus, or whatever). I cannot offer any proof that they will accept. Why? All my proofs rest on my own experience. Many readers apply radical, pseudo-scientific scepticism to religion, and so it is assumed that the least explanation for my belief is that I am either a liar or deluded. When my experiences of God are discounted, I have no evidence to argue from that can stand under the light of radical scepticism.
That's okay: I still believe. Why? Because I find belief in God to be functional. It's Pascal's wager: whether there is a God or not, I am able to see great and consistent results from believing in him and choosing to follow him that I did not see when I was caught up in other faiths. (I progressed from atheist to agnostic to Hinduism to Taoism to Christianity between the age of about 12 and 23 or so -- as I learned more, my beliefs changed, and so did my life).
Don't get me wrong: I believe based on reasonable evidence (5 ancient witnesses for starters) that Jehovah is God and that Jesus is his son who rose from the dead in the literal sense. What I'm rejecting is the assumption that I (or anyone) should have to subject this to some involved process of proof based in the Greek philosphical tradition.
And that is where this book would appear to miss: I have not yet see the Greek philosophical tradition offer any help for how to live. And that's the problem I want religion to solve.
Footnote: Contrary to my usual tradition, I'm not going to respond to replies to this post. Apologetics make me tired, and I've already fought two big flame wars in the last week. I just don't have the energy or the time to write another 20,000 words this week.
In fact, I suspect such an analysis would be entirely invalid, even if everything I say is true. Why? Because God is not a circus clown: He's not going to answer prayer to satisfy your scientific curiosity. Or at least he doesn't have to. It seems like you still haven't got a handle on the fact that God is fundamentally different in quantity and quality. It's the fallacy of the Greeks all over again -- they couldn't imagine a God any different from what they knew.
Look... There are 5 different first-century accounts that report Christ dying, then being raised from the dead. Each is obviously from a different person. Matthew dates to around 60AD according to recent carbon-14 dating done on fragments of it. Mark is also believed to be in the 60's, with Luke in the 70's and John in the 70-80's. Paul wrote as early as 45 in some of his letters by some estimates. I'll leave out Josephus since many try to claim it's a forgery (without evidence).
And there is no record of anyone questioning the basic historical fact of the resurrection prior to the third century -- despite the fact that there are numerous public records of Christians as early as 66.
But all these are just excuses. My basic evidence is my experience.
Tell me something: Why do you accept that man has landed on the moon? Did you see it? Or just the video-tapes? They can fake ANYTHING on video-tape nowadays. Why not try applying your sceptic philosophy towards that question and see what you come up with? Once you're done with that, please prove the earth is round. And, while you're at it, I'd like you to prove that Newton was not invented to glorify England by Queen Mary I -- And prove that Leibniz shouldn't get full credit for the laws of motion instead of a foot-note.
I doubt you can prove any of those.
--
I happen to think that Christianity offers the best and most complete structure of the JIC faiths. And I happen to think that the New Testament is "true". So, I am a Christian. I happen to think that Christianity -- in it's original form, as revealed in the Bible -- is a better approximation of the truth found in God than any other faith.
This is not to say that Hinduism or Shinto or Bahai or Buddhism or even Judaism or Islam are correct. I think they are all missing various parts of the picture -- and in some cases have missed the picture altogether. But its not a boolean thing: Christians are not right about everything, and everyone else is wrong about everything. So, Muslims are right to believe in Allah (who is, in their view, the same as Jehovah) but are incorrect to reject the New Testament and it's message of grace. Buddhists are right to emphasize self-realization through moral behaviour, but are wrong to think that people can do it under their own power and they are wrong (in the Mahayanan) to reject God as God. Hindus are correct to worship God, but are incorrect about his nature.
On Slashdot, I am not trying to make converts (although I would welcome any that come). I am engaging in an apologetic aimed to correct false accusations leveled at Christians within the Slashdot community.
I just noticed this line in your post:
My exact point is that he may, or may not answer prayers. Possibly I spoke casually earlier: when I pray, I don't say "God, I want $100,000". I ask him, as a personality, to attend to a need. He attends to it in his way, in his wisdom. It is his choice -- He's a father, not a cosmic vending machine! You are trying to shove God in a box, and he won't fit, so you claim he doesn't exist. As some people have put it, every prayer is answered, but sometimes the answer is "no". Even Christ had to lean on God's wisdom rather than his ownI'm rambling now. But the point is that you are trying to shove me and God into a box -- and so you can't understand either one.
--
I may have said (I've posted loads of posts on this thread) that I have rational evidence that seems sufficient to me to accept Christianity. However, that does not make my basis "scientific": it makes it rational. Scientific depends on reproducibility -- which is why the scientific method doesn't seem to have done very well when it comes to the "human sciences". (Or do you really think drugging 10% of elementary school students is a step forward? Another argument for another day)
The thing is that people and personalities are generally not entirely reliable. People can react differently to different stimuli, depending on many things which are not immediately apparent. It's called free will. And I happen to think (not believe) that this is the way in which humans are most like God: he has free will, which means that he may respond to exactly the same stimuli in different ways according to principles that are not immediately apparent.
Repeat after me: Amphigory is not a deist, and God is not a computer you can program.
However, let me respond to you this way: if you pray for something... for help when things seem hopeless, for a glimmer of light at the end of tunnel. And you can always see a way in which that prayer was answered, would you believe in God?
If you were on the verge of suicide from the despair of your life, if you were making $4.35 an hour, and hadn't been on a date in 5 years... And you came, in a flash of realization, after years of exploring eastern mysticism, including being a Hindu monk for 2 years, to realize that "Jesus is the answer"... and, after making a decision to abandon your friends, abandon your idea systems to start over, swallow your pride and join the Christians you had mocked in following this Jesus... And, after all this, watched your life in a matter of less than a year be transformed (Married to a wonderful woman, working as a Senior UNIX geek, out of the parents house)... In short: healed. Would you then believe in God?
There 'ya go. I believe in God because he has never failed me... What led me to first believe? I believe that I was first led to believe by direct divine intervention. You have no idea how much I used to hate Christians -- for me to accept Jesus was a miracle on its own. Which asks more questions than it asks: but that's okay, I'm not trying to solve the universe -- if I were, I'd use math and science.
--
When these people are able to come back with some reasoned position instead of a bunch of vulgar slogans which they use to vandalize public porperty, they can come talk to me.
--
--
It must be nice to have an agenda set in silly putty.
--
--
To me, Faith is a certainty in something ultimately unproveable sufficient to provoke action. Especially in a Christian context, you cannot separate faith from action. I should also observe that everything is unproveable in the ultimate sense, so everything requires faith.
The question, even with your definition, is where one should put faith. You would appear to put faith in rationalism, and in the American Heritage dictionary. I put faith in my experience of interaction with an admittedly invisible entity I call God. God has never failed me -- he has changed my life and my character 180 degrees. I can see the results of his hand - in myself and in Christians I know.
Others, on the other hand, put faith in "Reason". They suppose that they can think their way out of anything, because of this rather nebulous quality of rationality they claim to possess. Like God, it is invisible and ineffable.
I put faith in God because I have seen Him work for the problems I care about. You put your faith elsewhere because it seems to fix the problems you care about. I honestly think that you are mistaken: but time will tell.
--
The problem with rationalism (as defined, for example, by David Hume) is that you can only accept that which is part of your "ordinary experience". You run a profound risk of being placed in the position of the hick, who, upon being offered the chance to ride an elephant, said "there ain't no sich animal".
Minds are like parachutes -- they function best when open. But it's amazing how many people who quote that saying in fact have very closed minds vis a vis certain subjects such as religion.
--