Not pedantic- just come from a science/math background where decimate is used to refer to removing 1/10th.
I've honestly never heard it used with such a vague meaning. I did do a quick glance on wiktionary to prove I'm not crazy before posting (although looking closer- I do see it has the more vague meaning at the bottom).
I don't think decimate means what the submitter thinks it means. (or it doesn't mean what I think it means).
I was always under the impression it meant to take "one tenth" based on the practice of the Roman's killing one in ten men of a legion that showed undue cowardice.
It sounds like the gambler took more than one tenth of their income based on the article.
I make reference to "God" figuratively. Just as "Lady Liberty" is used to represent the US and Britannica represents Britain. When speaking historically I will use the term "AD" instead of "CCE" frequently (no one says "year of our lord" anymore- but that is what AD means- and Christians and non-Christians alike still often use the term AD). I celebrate Christmas; has no religious meaning to me- but I still call it Christmas- not yuletide, not saturnalia, not winter solstice nor midwinter festival. I call it Christmas.
None of these things implies I follow Christianity. Living in a judeo-christian world, those of us who are not, still use expressions of Christian origin.
I may refer to something being out in "left-field" or refer to someone "striking out". I couldn't care less about baseball. I don't watch it. I don't play it. I may call something as having gone hay-wire; yet I've never baled hay or had to deal with hay-wire Yet- the words just like "thank God" have entered my vocabulary- and yes, ironically, I do say thank God from time to time. I may tell someone to go to Hell- even though I don't believe such a place exists.
Have you never heard a non-believer say something like "I pray that doesn't happen" - or something similar. How many people (religious or not) say "I pray that..." and actually do make that prayer? They are probably in the minority. It is a case of relgious terminology making its way into our language and having a hollow meaning (from a religious standpoint).
We have enough evidence from their personal correspondance as to where their beliefs likely lay. Yet just as I will thank God that the idiot behind me on the interstate didn't ram me; I'm sure they used their terminology and phrasology to match that of their contemporaries.
They were also probably wise enough as politicians not to make their doubts on religion too public knowledge. When I go for an interview here in the bible belt I don't advertise my agnosticism.
Washington (who didn't attend church and never took mass, and requested no religious overtunes at his funeral) might have said "praise the almighty" or whatever it was- but that has no more significant for me saying "thank God that idiot didn't run into my car during my commute".
I am not in favour of legislation that prevents you or anyone else worshiping however you choose (assuming it does not take public funds, legislation, and does not impede on the rights of others).
At the time of founding- most people were very religious- but the liberal-intectuals in the US as a whole were less so. We have quite a lot of evidence for it. I don't think they were as a whole anti-christian, not at, all, just not what modern day Christians would recognise as Christian.
The only one of the group who was very anti-Christian was Adams. That doesn't change the fact though that, as a whole, they had no intentions for the government to be run as a theocracy- or have any religious influence.
Many Sci-Fi shows operate on that premise- but there are many more that don't. Star Trek, especially later series- most aliens were more primitive than humanity.
Don't forget the Doctor has a time machine (hard to forget that plot twist) he could go to the past of a planet that is pre-human technology.
Aliens don't have to speak "English" the tardis automatically translates everything. They go to countries other than England- recently they were in Germany. It's DW's way of explaining why everyone can talk to each other- maybe a bit silly , but necessary for the plot.
Ummm... how many girls would honestly find Matt Smith attractive? He's fun- and plays the role well- but he wasn't chosen for the part based on being good looking- it was because he really does act the part well.
I'm far from an expert on the bible or religion so I can't say what it means.
There could very well be another Goliath- or Elhanan could be an alternate name for David even. There are many rational explanations I am sure. I will leave that for those that are bible experts to say. I would suspect it was just a mistake from two people telling different accounts of the same story generations later. Whether the bible is true or not- we have enough eveidence that most of it was not written by contemparies of the people about whom most of the stories are told.
Really though, the problem is not that two people are listed as killing Goliath- it's that the KJV decided the original Hebrew text needed to be correcting. The KJV assumes the original Hebrew text is incorrect. How can a translation of something that is incorrect be assumed to be correct? How can they be sure that there isn't other incorrect statements they didn't miss if the Hebrew version is incorrect. Do they not find it odd that the only way to get the true word of God is in English? Perhaps God is from Liverpool and doesn't speak any other language.
As for statistically do most fundamentalists use the KJV? I can't say I know this as a fact. I do live in the middle of the bible belt with many fundamentalists; from my personal experience, yes, they've been KJV fans. I won't make the fallacy to believe that my experience is the norm; however the general belief is that KJV is the bible of choice for fundamentalists. I don't have stats to back that with though.
I didn't go into details- because it is just one of many. It is one of the more common things people mention about how the KJV is not true to the original translations. If you look in a non KJV you will see something like this:
(2 Sam. 21:19)- "And there was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam."
Source: The bible.
Non KJV bibles list two people as having killed Goliath. KJV's authors didn't like that contradiction so they arbitrarily changed the words to say this instead:
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam
Source: KJV
No old texts of the bible or any other source indicate the words "brother of"- that is a pure fabrication of the KJV.
There are many changes like this- where the authors of the KJV didn't like what the original source said- so they changed it.
That's what makes fundamentalists using the "KJV" as "God's Word Verbatim" so rediculous.
The US has never been "a Christian nation". Which men "of faith" wrote in our freedoms?
Jefferson who rewrote the bible taking out the "superstitious nonsense". Perhaps Quincy Adams who we have letters that he wrote mocking Christianity and talking of it disdainfully. Perhaps George Washington who refused any religious solace on his deathbed and expressed that he didn't want a Christian burial service.
Perhaps Benjamin Franklin- who we also have written evidence that he did not believe in a God still currently active in watching humanity.
Perhaps we're talking about the senate under the second president who unanimously signed the Treaty of Tripoli after it was read out (that included the words probably not verbatim "The United States Of America is and never has been a Christian nation").
The vast majority of those that "wrote-those freedoms" would be offended if you called them Christian.
The fact is- everyone should be allowed to worship however they darn please. But don't try fooling people or rewriting history to make it seem like it is a "recent-innovation" that this is a non-Christian country. Even Abraham Lincoln, the president responsible for preserving the union many years after the founding fathers wrote an essay exposing the evil of religion, specifically Christianity.
We are a secular nation. We should be a secular nation. Let people worship whatever god they want- but keep it out of politics and government. Remember the religious have the most to lose. If government and religion are not seperate- that means Obama is executive head of religion. You must recognise him as the authority in religion.
Is that what you want? It works both ways- even when a leftie non religious man is in power- he is still the head of religion in you dystopian view of the United States where religion and government are one.
Yet the ironic thing is- even after over a century of people laughing at Lamarck- recent discoveries of epigenetics prove he wasn't entirely crazy- there is a small degree of lamarckian inheritance going on...
Your life experiences won't alter the genes your children inherit- but it could alter how those genes are expressed and which ones are activated or not.
It's not a law because it is not measurable, can not give results with certainty for a certain dataset. That is why it is called a thoery not a law.
If we could measure a population of a certain time and say there will be exactly "x" new species- it would be a law. (we can kind of do this-counting non-fatal mutations but not with any predetermined accuracy)
When government can legislate due to religious emphasis- government becomes the religious authority.
You know what we'd have right now if government and religion were not seperate.
We'd have Pope Obama of America. Far right loonies often forget that if they had their way- Obama would get to dictate religion to them right now.
Combining religion and government all of a sudden must sound a lot less pleasing to them. If you want government to be able to pass laws on religion- you must accept the fact that that makes Obama the executive head of the American church.
If you call a Fremen a "Sand Person" you're going to get your bottom returned to you on a plate. After all the water has been removed from it of course.
Unless you're talking about the wimpy descendants of the Fremen during the tyrant's reign.
Probably... although- I suspect Microsoft's competitors can't do the same thing.
Apple or Google would have a difficult time telling their company that money can't be spent on wintel machines. Apple probably could- but it would hurt their bottom line significantly.
I didn't. I upgraded after Service Patch 1. There were still major issues. Vista never worked right for me- it took Windows 7 before things starting working again- before my computer stopped freezing, etc.
Yet, you have to protect the people living in these states. I'm in South Carolina. If South Carolina seceeded- I'd hate to see what kind of government we would end up with.
The Federal government balances things out and protects me from the idiocy that is State government. The federal government protects me. South Carolina would not. I suspect the same is true for Texas, Tennassee, Georgia, etc- there is a large percent of the population who are not idiot bible-thumpers. There are people in those states who are not racist, religious bigots, etc.
We not wish to be subject to the theocrats in our states - just because the other states don't like the majority in our states that ARE theocrats.
Federalism balances out the extremes and helps protect the middle.
on the absurd idea that the bible is literal in on all counts, infallible on all counts (usually specifically the KJV translation),
What makes it especially absurd is that KJV version differs the most from all the ancient sources used to translate from.
Fundamentalists like it better because the KJV altered the original text to avoid certain contradictions (like the fact that the source texts mention contradicting sources about who killed Goliath- KJV conveniently "corrects" what the source says to make it sound better - when mankind has to "correct" the source how can it be infallible?).
What if the 3D printer created another 3D Printer which created another 3D printer...
You think Tribbles are bad? Imagine tribbles that consume HP ink everytime they reproduced. The economy would collapse. Iraq would be invading US to get access to a black liquid, ink.
Slashdot Mirror
Not pedantic- just come from a science/math background where decimate is used to refer to removing 1/10th.
I've honestly never heard it used with such a vague meaning. I did do a quick glance on wiktionary to prove I'm not crazy before posting (although looking closer- I do see it has the more vague meaning at the bottom).
I don't think decimate means what the submitter thinks it means. (or it doesn't mean what I think it means).
I was always under the impression it meant to take "one tenth" based on the practice of the Roman's killing one in ten men of a legion that showed undue cowardice.
It sounds like the gambler took more than one tenth of their income based on the article.
I make reference to "God" figuratively. Just as "Lady Liberty" is used to represent the US and Britannica represents Britain. When speaking historically I will use the term "AD" instead of "CCE" frequently (no one says "year of our lord" anymore- but that is what AD means- and Christians and non-Christians alike still often use the term AD). I celebrate Christmas; has no religious meaning to me- but I still call it Christmas- not yuletide, not saturnalia, not winter solstice nor midwinter festival. I call it Christmas.
None of these things implies I follow Christianity. Living in a judeo-christian world, those of us who are not, still use expressions of Christian origin.
I may refer to something being out in "left-field" or refer to someone "striking out". I couldn't care less about baseball. I don't watch it. I don't play it. I may call something as having gone hay-wire; yet I've never baled hay or had to deal with hay-wire Yet- the words just like "thank God" have entered my vocabulary- and yes, ironically, I do say thank God from time to time. I may tell someone to go to Hell- even though I don't believe such a place exists.
Have you never heard a non-believer say something like "I pray that doesn't happen" - or something similar. How many people (religious or not) say "I pray that..." and actually do make that prayer? They are probably in the minority. It is a case of relgious terminology making its way into our language and having a hollow meaning (from a religious standpoint).
We have enough evidence from their personal correspondance as to where their beliefs likely lay. Yet just as I will thank God that the idiot behind me on the interstate didn't ram me; I'm sure they used their terminology and phrasology to match that of their contemporaries.
They were also probably wise enough as politicians not to make their doubts on religion too public knowledge. When I go for an interview here in the bible belt I don't advertise my agnosticism.
Washington (who didn't attend church and never took mass, and requested no religious overtunes at his funeral) might have said "praise the almighty" or whatever it was- but that has no more significant for me saying "thank God that idiot didn't run into my car during my commute".
I am not in favour of legislation that prevents you or anyone else worshiping however you choose (assuming it does not take public funds, legislation, and does not impede on the rights of others).
At the time of founding- most people were very religious- but the liberal-intectuals in the US as a whole were less so. We have quite a lot of evidence for it. I don't think they were as a whole anti-christian, not at, all, just not what modern day Christians would recognise as Christian.
The only one of the group who was very anti-Christian was Adams. That doesn't change the fact though that, as a whole, they had no intentions for the government to be run as a theocracy- or have any religious influence.
Absolutely. Couldn't stand her. I remember the first episode she was in thinking- oh god don't make her a companion.
Then they didn't... and then... they did!
She is one of the most annoying human beings ever.
Many Sci-Fi shows operate on that premise- but there are many more that don't. Star Trek, especially later series- most aliens were more primitive than humanity.
Don't forget the Doctor has a time machine (hard to forget that plot twist) he could go to the past of a planet that is pre-human technology.
Aliens don't have to speak "English" the tardis automatically translates everything. They go to countries other than England- recently they were in Germany. It's DW's way of explaining why everyone can talk to each other- maybe a bit silly , but necessary for the plot.
Ummm... how many girls would honestly find Matt Smith attractive? He's fun- and plays the role well- but he wasn't chosen for the part based on being good looking- it was because he really does act the part well.
I'm far from an expert on the bible or religion so I can't say what it means.
There could very well be another Goliath- or Elhanan could be an alternate name for David even. There are many rational explanations I am sure. I will leave that for those that are bible experts to say. I would suspect it was just a mistake from two people telling different accounts of the same story generations later. Whether the bible is true or not- we have enough eveidence that most of it was not written by contemparies of the people about whom most of the stories are told.
Really though, the problem is not that two people are listed as killing Goliath- it's that the KJV decided the original Hebrew text needed to be correcting. The KJV assumes the original Hebrew text is incorrect. How can a translation of something that is incorrect be assumed to be correct? How can they be sure that there isn't other incorrect statements they didn't miss if the Hebrew version is incorrect.
Do they not find it odd that the only way to get the true word of God is in English? Perhaps God is from Liverpool and doesn't speak any other language.
As for statistically do most fundamentalists use the KJV? I can't say I know this as a fact. I do live in the middle of the bible belt with many fundamentalists; from my personal experience, yes, they've been KJV fans. I won't make the fallacy to believe that my experience is the norm; however the general belief is that KJV is the bible of choice for fundamentalists. I don't have stats to back that with though.
I didn't go into details- because it is just one of many. It is one of the more common things people mention about how the KJV is not true to the original translations. If you look in a non KJV you will see something like this:
(2 Sam. 21:19)- "And there was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam."
Source: The bible.
Non KJV bibles list two people as having killed Goliath. KJV's authors didn't like that contradiction so they arbitrarily changed the words to say this instead:
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam
Source: KJV
No old texts of the bible or any other source indicate the words "brother of"- that is a pure fabrication of the KJV.
There are many changes like this- where the authors of the KJV didn't like what the original source said- so they changed it.
That's what makes fundamentalists using the "KJV" as "God's Word Verbatim" so rediculous.
The US has never been "a Christian nation". Which men "of faith" wrote in our freedoms?
Jefferson who rewrote the bible taking out the "superstitious nonsense". Perhaps Quincy Adams who we have letters that he wrote mocking Christianity and talking of it disdainfully. Perhaps George Washington who refused any religious solace on his deathbed and expressed that he didn't want a Christian burial service.
Perhaps Benjamin Franklin- who we also have written evidence that he did not believe in a God still currently active in watching humanity.
Perhaps we're talking about the senate under the second president who unanimously signed the Treaty of Tripoli after it was read out (that included the words probably not verbatim "The United States Of America is and never has been a Christian nation").
The vast majority of those that "wrote-those freedoms" would be offended if you called them Christian.
The fact is- everyone should be allowed to worship however they darn please. But don't try fooling people or rewriting history to make it seem like it is a "recent-innovation" that this is a non-Christian country. Even Abraham Lincoln, the president responsible for preserving the union many years after the founding fathers wrote an essay exposing the evil of religion, specifically Christianity.
We are a secular nation. We should be a secular nation. Let people worship whatever god they want- but keep it out of politics and government. Remember the religious have the most to lose. If government and religion are not seperate- that means Obama is executive head of religion. You must recognise him as the authority in religion.
Is that what you want? It works both ways- even when a leftie non religious man is in power- he is still the head of religion in you dystopian view of the United States where religion and government are one.
I'm sure they are both glad that you are thinking of them.
Yet the ironic thing is- even after over a century of people laughing at Lamarck- recent discoveries of epigenetics prove he wasn't entirely crazy- there is a small degree of lamarckian inheritance going on ...
Your life experiences won't alter the genes your children inherit- but it could alter how those genes are expressed and which ones are activated or not.
It's not a law because it is not measurable, can not give results with certainty for a certain dataset. That is why it is called a thoery not a law.
If we could measure a population of a certain time and say there will be exactly "x" new species- it would be a law. (we can kind of do this-counting non-fatal mutations but not with any predetermined accuracy)
When government can legislate due to religious emphasis- government becomes the religious authority.
You know what we'd have right now if government and religion were not seperate.
We'd have Pope Obama of America. Far right loonies often forget that if they had their way- Obama would get to dictate religion to them right now.
Combining religion and government all of a sudden must sound a lot less pleasing to them. If you want government to be able to pass laws on religion- you must accept the fact that that makes Obama the executive head of the American church.
All hail Pope Obama.
If you call a Fremen a "Sand Person" you're going to get your bottom returned to you on a plate. After all the water has been removed from it of course.
Unless you're talking about the wimpy descendants of the Fremen during the tyrant's reign.
Ugh! Wouldn't want to work for Coca Cola then! :)
Probably... although- I suspect Microsoft's competitors can't do the same thing.
Apple or Google would have a difficult time telling their company that money can't be spent on wintel machines. Apple probably could- but it would hurt their bottom line significantly.
I didn't. I upgraded after Service Patch 1. There were still major issues. Vista never worked right for me- it took Windows 7 before things starting working again- before my computer stopped freezing, etc.
Yet, you have to protect the people living in these states. I'm in South Carolina. If South Carolina seceeded- I'd hate to see what kind of government we would end up with.
The Federal government balances things out and protects me from the idiocy that is State government. The federal government protects me. South Carolina would not. I suspect the same is true for Texas, Tennassee, Georgia, etc- there is a large percent of the population who are not idiot bible-thumpers. There are people in those states who are not racist, religious bigots, etc.
We not wish to be subject to the theocrats in our states - just because the other states don't like the majority in our states that ARE theocrats.
Federalism balances out the extremes and helps protect the middle.
on the absurd idea that the bible is literal in on all counts, infallible on all counts (usually specifically the KJV translation),
What makes it especially absurd is that KJV version differs the most from all the ancient sources used to translate from.
Fundamentalists like it better because the KJV altered the original text to avoid certain contradictions (like the fact that the source texts mention contradicting sources about who killed Goliath- KJV conveniently "corrects" what the source says to make it sound better - when mankind has to "correct" the source how can it be infallible?).
Shhh... he took a semester of school in Tennessee...
So Doctor Fill has the same ability to comprehend humour as Doctor Phil?
Get enough of them- and you could build a house out of home-made lego.
Building a house with lego has to be better than dealing with drywall.
As far as I'm concerned New York Times is an "Ex-Newspaper" they once existed but don't anymore.
Sure, there are rumours they still exist, but I see no evidence of it because I refuse to pay.
What if the 3D printer created another 3D Printer which created another 3D printer...
You think Tribbles are bad? Imagine tribbles that consume HP ink everytime they reproduced. The economy would collapse. Iraq would be invading US to get access to a black liquid, ink.