What are you looking for? A press conference? Or perhaps just a Web page full of backlash and contempt?
Why not a press conference? The people who should be denounced (IMO) have no problem getting them.
Such denunciations would be rather ignorant and embarrassing, in themselves. Christians are to rebuke each other in love through Christ; public displays of showmanship are not part of the routine.
Who said anything about showmanship? The point wouldn't be showmanship, the point would be to illustrate that not everyone shares those extreme views.
If you're interested in serious, Christian criticism of unBiblical and dishonest practices within the Body, I suggest you check out http://www.equip.org, which is the Web site of the Christian Research Institute. Its president, Hank Hanegraaff, has devoted his life to the defense of orthodoxy and the exposure of false teachings.
From his description of his current book, The FACE That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution:
"Evolution is much more than a theory about man's origins. It is a comprehensive world view that determines how you live your life."
Why would I give someone any credit when he has no problem basing entire books on such straw men?
In particular, he is quick to point out false prophets, to whom you allude (false prophecy was punishable by death at the time of the early church).
Is that an illustration of the "rebuke each other in love through Christ" which you previously mentioned?
Christianity is not founded upon superiority, but upon humility.
Humility? The humility that we are not only the center of the universe, but that we were created in the image of god, that were imbued with the power to rule over everything else, that we are the group of beings that the all-powerful deity cares about enough to create a heaven for? How is that humility when compared to that of myself, an atheist, that we are not only inhabitants of a backwater world in a backwater solar system in an arm of one galaxy among BILLIONS and BILLIONS, and not only most likely not the only form of life, but probably not even close to the only important or intelligent form of life? Being not created by god, but decended from other animals?
As for ignorance, none can claim to be guiltless. All I can say is that it is the responsibility of every Christian to be wise and full of knowledge; many do not care, and it shames the Body.
Do you actually believe that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old?
However, I will point out that the poster in no way provoked the attack. He never challenged your rights, and he never proposed the strawmen you appear to be attacking. He certainly never "died and made [himself] the ultimate moral authority". Yikes, it's on the basis of Christ's moral authority alone that we Christians claim our salvation!
He never challenged anyones rights? I guess except for parents who want their children to see South Park, you're correct. Well, that and anyone else who doesn't hold to his christian morals.
When are certain christians going to get it through their heads that telling everyone ELSE what they should and shouldn't be doing is both what is causing the current backlash against them (and don't EVEN start this talk of being oppressed. How many jobs has it been made obvious that you've been turned down for because you let it slip that you're a christian? Try being an atheist sometime.) and, more importantly, completely contrary to the principles on which this nation is founded upon, freedom to choose your religion, implying the freedom to decide your own morals rather than having them dictated to you by someone else.
I know many good christian people, who I respect and admire. One in specific who I work with is, IMHO, a wonderful example of a christian. But for every good christian I know, I also know one pushy, overbearing, judgemental hypocrite. Whenever anyone mentions that, the "good christians" (which apparently are the only kind, oddly enough nobody thinks that they're the pushy type) whine about how not everyone is like that, yet never once have I heard a large christian organization, church, or group in the mainstream denounce people like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, the kooks who breed contempt of christianity by intolerant speech and predictions of natural disasters for those who don't obey the moral code they themselves do. (Wasn't florida supposed to suffer just such a thing last year? I heard the prediction but never a retraction. Hmmm.)
I don't hate christians, I'm perfectly willing to give anyone a chance. I do dislike superior attitudes, especially based on what I believe to be ignorance.
No the point is that SMS is installed and authorized by the System adminstrators who have all legal rights to do so whereas the BO2K is not an administration tool and is installed without authorization.
Wow. Thats some crystal ball you have there.
What keeps SMS from being installed covertly? And what keeps anyone from using BO2K as you claim SMS is intended to be used for? I can think of several benefits, the primary one being that while SMS is commercial, closed source software, BO2K is free and open! Modify it the way you want, use it the way you want.
To say that nobody will use BO2K for legitimate things is silly. To say that nobody has ever used SMS for nefarious purposes is equally silly. To claim that you know exactly who, when, and how an admin will use a piece of software is just downright foolhardy. I can definately see small companies on tight budgets who need remote Windoze administration capability taking advantage of a free program like BO2K.
A question for you. You say that "BO2K is not an administration tool". Can you tell me precisely what aspect of its design precludes its use as an administration tool?
I am a member of a Church that has a history of TWO THOUSAND YEARS. In that time many things have been done by and in the name of that Church. Those that were done BY THE CHURCH should be judged in the context of the time when they were done.
So, morality really is relative to social context and societal norms, then? Essentially what you're saying is that there is no objective good or evil. While thats true, its usually the opposite of what you christians preach.
Although these links will soon point to something different, I urge/. readers to listen to R.C. Sproul's excellent dicussion of this yesterday and today. I think even the most agnostic and atheistic among you will realize that Sproul has taken your position into account - he expresses very clearly why Chrisitanity is true - and why it must be true.
I doubt a christian can take an agnostic atheists point of view into account, because they simply refuse to understand it. At least MY point of view is thus: Is there more objective evidence for the existance of god than their is for the existance of, say, invisible pink unicorns? Can any christian provide me with empirical data supporting the existance of god? And if so, then which god? Which version of which god? And which version of which holy book? In terms of the bible, I have seen none that would stand up to the most elementary scientific scrutiny.
If you want to educate yourself about the atheist/agnostic point of view, you should really pick up some Carl Sagan, at least for the scientific perspective. Especially "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark". He does a great job to introducing people to scientific skepticism and rational thinking and sometimes forces blind eyes open. I'd also suggest his chapter called "The Great Demotions" in _Pale Blue Dot_.
I have no problem with Christianity or Christians in general, but the ones who either are personally pushy (I had one just 2 days ago come up to me and several friends in Wendy's, butt in our conversation, and try to tell us about the l0rd), or who are nazi-ish (like Falwell or anyone who tries to legislate their own morality) really give the rest of you guys a bad name. You use the "Great Commission" as an excuse to bug the hell (ba-dum-cha) out of people, but really, do you think there is anyone in america who has no idea what Christianity is? And is it really fair to bug the people who know what it is and have rejected it?
I'm afraid that "we're doing it for the children" has become a catch-all reason for trying to take away rights.
Wake up and smell the excrement, friend. Its ALWAYS merely been an excuse to take away our rights. Rather, its been a way to frame an issue in a way that your opponents cannot disagree with and still manage to keep a following.
Do you really think "DARE" was/is to prevent kids from using drugs? Even though it doesn't work? No. The point of DARE was to make all the baby boomers out there consider drugs to be such a threat to their children, that even the government is stepping in!
Columbine is another good example. The republicans have used the premade "protect the children" issue to further their anti-rights agenda, namely freedom of speech (potentially offensive speech and media regulation) and freedom of/from religion (ten commandments in the schools, prayer, etc.), while the democrats have used it to further their anti-rights agenda, namely gun control.
The reason it works is because if its properly done, anyone who opposes the measures ends up looking like they oppose the well-being and saftey of children.
Perhaps sooner or later the public will catch on to this, but I really don't have much confidence in the masses.
Ben Franklin's quote really does apply here, its too bad more people don't heed it. To paraphrase that quote, anyone who would forfeit liberty for saftey deserve neither liberty nor saftey.
I get highly skeptical whenever anyone starts talking about the neccesity of forfeiting a right to "protect children". You would do well to do so, too.
>I'm off topic again, but "On the turning away" >isn't really pink floyd, since it is from the >post Waters period...
Well, neither is Waters, because he's from the post Barrett period. Barrett made Floyd, Waters used Floyd to whine, and Gilmour used Floyd to make money. But, if you ask me, TDB was much better than post "Wall" Waters albums.
But, if you ask me, I'll probably just tell you to go get a copy of the Syd Barrett box set and be done with it.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you looking for? A press conference? Or perhaps just a Web page full of backlash and contempt?
Why not a press conference? The people who should be denounced (IMO) have no problem getting them.
Such denunciations would be rather ignorant and embarrassing, in themselves. Christians are to rebuke each other in love through Christ; public displays of showmanship are not part of the routine.
Who said anything about showmanship? The point wouldn't be showmanship, the point would be to illustrate that not everyone shares those extreme views.
If you're interested in serious, Christian criticism of unBiblical and dishonest practices within the Body, I suggest you check out http://www.equip.org, which is the Web site of the Christian Research Institute. Its president, Hank Hanegraaff, has devoted his life to the defense of orthodoxy and the exposure of false teachings.
From his description of his current book, The FACE That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution:
"Evolution is much more than a theory about man's origins. It is a comprehensive world view that determines how you live your life."
Why would I give someone any credit when he has no problem basing entire books on such straw men?
In particular, he is quick to point out false prophets, to whom you allude (false prophecy was punishable by death at the time of the early church).
Is that an illustration of the "rebuke each other in love through Christ" which you previously mentioned?
Christianity is not founded upon superiority, but upon humility.
Humility? The humility that we are not only the center of the universe, but that we were created in the image of god, that were imbued with the power to rule over everything else, that we are the group of beings that the all-powerful deity cares about enough to create a heaven for? How is that humility when compared to that of myself, an atheist, that we are not only inhabitants of a backwater world in a backwater solar system in an arm of one galaxy among BILLIONS and BILLIONS, and not only most likely not the only form of life, but probably not even close to the only important or intelligent form of life? Being not created by god, but decended from other animals?
As for ignorance, none can claim to be guiltless. All I can say is that it is the responsibility of every Christian to be wise and full of knowledge; many do not care, and it shames the Body.
Do you actually believe that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old?
However, I will point out that the poster in no way provoked the attack. He never challenged your rights, and he never proposed the strawmen you appear to be attacking. He certainly never "died and made [himself] the ultimate moral authority". Yikes, it's on the basis of Christ's moral authority alone that we Christians claim our salvation!
He never challenged anyones rights? I guess except for parents who want their children to see South Park, you're correct. Well, that and anyone else who doesn't hold to his christian morals.
When are certain christians going to get it through their heads that telling everyone ELSE what they should and shouldn't be doing is both what is causing the current backlash against them (and don't EVEN start this talk of being oppressed. How many jobs has it been made obvious that you've been turned down for because you let it slip that you're a christian? Try being an atheist sometime.) and, more importantly, completely contrary to the principles on which this nation is founded upon, freedom to choose your religion, implying the freedom to decide your own morals rather than having them dictated to you by someone else.
I know many good christian people, who I respect and admire. One in specific who I work with is, IMHO, a wonderful example of a christian. But for every good christian I know, I also know one pushy, overbearing, judgemental hypocrite. Whenever anyone mentions that, the "good christians" (which apparently are the only kind, oddly enough nobody thinks that they're the pushy type) whine about how not everyone is like that, yet never once have I heard a large christian organization, church, or group in the mainstream denounce people like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, the kooks who breed contempt of christianity by intolerant speech and predictions of natural disasters for those who don't obey the moral code they themselves do. (Wasn't florida supposed to suffer just such a thing last year? I heard the prediction but never a retraction. Hmmm.)
I don't hate christians, I'm perfectly willing to give anyone a chance. I do dislike superior attitudes, especially based on what I believe to be ignorance.
No the point is that SMS is installed and authorized by the System adminstrators who have all legal rights to do so whereas the BO2K is not an administration tool and is installed without authorization.
Wow. Thats some crystal ball you have there.
What keeps SMS from being installed covertly? And what keeps anyone from using BO2K as you claim SMS is intended to be used for? I can think of several benefits, the primary one being that while SMS is commercial, closed source software, BO2K is free and open! Modify it the way you want, use it the way you want.
To say that nobody will use BO2K for legitimate things is silly. To say that nobody has ever used SMS for nefarious purposes is equally silly. To claim that you know exactly who, when, and how an admin will use a piece of software is just downright foolhardy. I can definately see small companies on tight budgets who need remote Windoze administration capability taking advantage of a free program like BO2K.
A question for you. You say that "BO2K is not an administration tool". Can you tell me precisely what aspect of its design precludes its use as an administration tool?
I am a member of a Church that has a history of TWO THOUSAND YEARS. In that time many things have been done by and in the name of that Church. Those that were done BY THE CHURCH should be judged in the context of the time when they were done.
So, morality really is relative to social context and societal norms, then? Essentially what you're saying is that there is no objective good or evil. While thats true, its usually the opposite of what you christians preach.
Although these links will soon point to something different, I urge /. readers to listen to R.C. Sproul's excellent dicussion of this yesterday and today. I think even the most agnostic and atheistic among you will realize that Sproul has taken your position into account - he expresses very clearly why Chrisitanity is true - and why it must be true.
I doubt a christian can take an agnostic atheists point of view into account, because they simply refuse to understand it. At least MY point of view is thus: Is there more objective evidence for the existance of god than their is for the existance of, say, invisible pink unicorns? Can any christian provide me with empirical data supporting the existance of god? And if so, then which god? Which version of which god? And which version of which holy book? In terms of the bible, I have seen none that would stand up to the most elementary scientific scrutiny.
If you want to educate yourself about the atheist/agnostic point of view, you should really pick up some Carl Sagan, at least for the scientific perspective. Especially "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark". He does a great job to introducing people to scientific skepticism and rational thinking and sometimes forces blind eyes open. I'd also suggest his chapter called "The Great Demotions" in _Pale Blue Dot_.
I have no problem with Christianity or Christians in general, but the ones who either are personally pushy (I had one just 2 days ago come up to me and several friends in Wendy's, butt in our conversation, and try to tell us about the l0rd), or who are nazi-ish (like Falwell or anyone who tries to legislate their own morality) really give the rest of you guys a bad name. You use the "Great Commission" as an excuse to bug the hell (ba-dum-cha) out of people, but really, do you think there is anyone in america who has no idea what Christianity is? And is it really fair to bug the people who know what it is and have rejected it?
I'm afraid that "we're doing it for the children" has become a catch-all reason for trying to take away rights.
Wake up and smell the excrement, friend. Its ALWAYS merely been an excuse to take away our rights. Rather, its been a way to frame an issue in a way that your opponents cannot disagree with and still manage to keep a following.
Do you really think "DARE" was/is to prevent kids from using drugs? Even though it doesn't work? No. The point of DARE was to make all the baby boomers out there consider drugs to be such a threat to their children, that even the government is stepping in!
Columbine is another good example. The republicans have used the premade "protect the children" issue to further their anti-rights agenda, namely freedom of speech (potentially offensive speech and media regulation) and freedom of/from religion (ten commandments in the schools, prayer, etc.), while the democrats have used it to further their anti-rights agenda, namely gun control.
The reason it works is because if its properly done, anyone who opposes the measures ends up looking like they oppose the well-being and saftey of children.
Perhaps sooner or later the public will catch on to this, but I really don't have much confidence in the masses.
Ben Franklin's quote really does apply here, its too bad more people don't heed it. To paraphrase that quote, anyone who would forfeit liberty for saftey deserve neither liberty nor saftey.
I get highly skeptical whenever anyone starts talking about the neccesity of forfeiting a right to "protect children". You would do well to do so, too.
>I'm off topic again, but "On the turning away" >isn't really pink floyd, since it is from the >post Waters period...
Well, neither is Waters, because he's from the post Barrett period. Barrett made Floyd, Waters used Floyd to whine, and Gilmour used Floyd to make money. But, if you ask me, TDB was much better than post "Wall" Waters albums.
But, if you ask me, I'll probably just tell you to go get a copy of the Syd Barrett box set and be done with it.