Besides, passing processing off to the client makes the entire application more robust. There is only one server, but there is an unlimited amount of procsessing distributed among the clients.
And an unlimited amount of dodgyness. It doesn't make the application more robust at all but it might give a better user experience.
Any validation the client does MUST also be performed at the server end because (1) How do you know the client DID validate it (2) correctly for some ill specified and overly cached version of "correctness"
Too poor to buy Toni Bakers book on Z80 machine code I taught myself from other peoples assembly listings and the nmemonics at the back of the ZX81 manual.
I had a ram pack which didn't work unless I removed a zener diode then it didn't work on my next zx81 unless I put it back.
I then rewrote to cool tools which gave read,data and restore to ZX81 basic and one which played sound out of the TV speaker. I also wrote one which decoded morse code tapped out on the keuboard.
Then I moved on to the TRS-80 with two disk drives that school kicked out. They were the days when 5.25 inch floppy disks costs at least £1 each single sided and folk had special tools to "doube-side" them.
Hey - it was night when I wrote the post, I imained it would be late night when the deed was done.
There's a lot of talk about fancy switches, but we don't know if this guy has any managed switches.
When I said "pull the wires till the ping stops" I didn't expect him to end up with a load of wires on the floor, I expected him to plug eachone back in after 2 seconds.
Ethernet can cope with a brief unplug without difficulty.
If *I* was doing it and I had fancy switches I would stull pull wires. How many places have a map of the wiring and mac addresses on switch ports and so forth? And if folk are able to plug in wireless access points where they like, do you think such maps and charts would be up-to-date?
Maybe I'd try it that way for fun, but networks grow and breed in weird ways, hence the wire-pull suggestion: "it will work"
You've never been strip search at a free concert because there were no organiser who were scared that by taking in a 50 cent bottle of water you would no be buying their 5 dollar bottles of water with the cap removed for you.
All hail the free-enterprise competetive concert organisers who respect us so much and aren't just thinking about their ability to part us from our money.
Slashdot's love for transmeta probably springs from the same reason that Linus went to work there:
it was a real cool concept
Along with many others, I was expecting to see a few more uses of code-morphing that x86 instruction execution, so I'm dissapointed there.
Other reasons are Transmeta are not Intel, and like AMD are doing cool stuff and cool prices instead of yesterdays (dull) snacks at yesterdays prices (I would say tomorrowws prices except that prices are going down) that we get from intel.
This guys seems to think success of open source is when hobbyists work for free, and failure is when companies work for free [by paying their staff to do open source instead of something else].
When a company works for free, surely that is the bigger success, a company decides more on the balance sheet than hobbyists who decide based on hobby.
If open source profits companies, then it is success by his own terms!
This guy wants the companies that work on open source for free, to out-source it to his company instead.
But isn't the whole success of open source where companies work for free precisely because it suits them better than the traditional alternative?
He's nuts.
Sam
[Company works for free is means the company wasn't paid to do it, just like hobbyists work for free means the hobbyist wasn't paid to do it. The fact that the company pays the workers is as relevant as the hobbyist eating to feed his body]
"You compare the output of multiple sources with each other and draw your own conclusions based on the information at hand, under such scrutiny bias invariably shows through."
exactly; you yourself are the source that tells whether or not other sources are biased.
"Minimal (imperceptible) bias is exactly what people many people expect of a responsible news outlet (given true zero bias from anyone is unattainable)."
Thats my point, so they keep looking for a news source until they don't perceive the bias.
Perceptable bias is "amateur", but don't mistake imperceptable bias with no bias, or think that because you can't see the bias that the source has integrity.
Can you measure the bias of right-thinking-folk that share your own views? Can you perceive bias you haven't needed language to describe?
I believe it is unhelpful to make the judgement that a source has imperceptable bias, it is difficult to tell if you are judging your perception or the source. The judgement offers no benefit, only risk, and cannot be verified.
Of course obvious bias is "wrong" but by what can we judge non-obvious bias to be better?
Thats because its not true, I do know this, I just typed in the wrong word. If my P900 hadn't broke I could have stopped the car and quickly amended my post.
"it's just another java phone, this time on top of linux. big deal"
I know "big deal", thats what my post was all about, linux-nothing its just a stupid stinkin java-only phone with nothing to recommend it to the discerning hacker.
How Moto can get so close and blow it is depressing, perhaps related to the "all on one chipset" and "don't want hackers messing with the GPRS/GSM stack" which is a nice problem but the solution bores me; Moto's solution is a very un-interesting phone from my point of view.
Nokias new touted web pad seems to blow it in a similar way by for once actually NOT being a phone as well. Gah!
I want a linux phone where the GPRS bit looks like a voice modem, and yes it will have to be another processor. Thats what I want. And flying cars. And hover boots and anti-grav arenas. An yeast-in-a-vat. Actually no, meat tastes better and its kinder to share sentient life with proteins instead of keeping it all cooped up in a tank all its life.
Don't think you will be able to get a BASH prompt on this phone. It's a closed phone; customization will be in Java; and yeah there may be a Java ogg player but thats little advantage over most other devices.
Linux is "interesting" here, but not "friendly".
Also, note that the phone is upgradable to 10MB -ooohh! Woww!!! 10MB!!; I wonder why they bother to release such a device, some of their early models had 96MB which is something but low for a multimedia device.
[Re: Nathan Eldon Tanner, you are correct, but non-Levite Jews were also denied the priesthood but were not second class; however I undersand your point and the bad feeling often caused and am glad it is no longer the case]
I agree a personal relationship with God is required and should be developed. Anything less is to miss the point entirely. Being saved is not the same as talking about being saved; but where religion becomes culture I suppose it becomes easy to be "mainstream" and miss the point and not notice.
I'm convinced we will meet many old friends in heaven and stop surprised "are YOU here too?" I look forward to it.
I don't expect my validations to hold more weight with you than your own validations, but its good that you can see that this is what it comes down to, and its nice for me to realise I'm not looking for anyone elses approval of the current state of my learning process.
As far as your theoretical group of friends, some of them may be lying and one of the liars may even be a mormon. Its had to know what experiences a person has had.
As far as an unfair God damming people, you are right it is damn offensive (pardon) and such a god deserves no respect or worship; which leads to the idea that his "devotees" and "worshippers" may not fully know him, if they think this is what god is like.
In my experience, belief in god often comes down to description of god.
On your point of extreme mormon doctrines and comparitive religion, I have never come across a book that accurately represented mormon belief that was not published by a mormon, and have come to respective conclusions about catholics etc.
[I was very happy when I came across a Catholic Priests life story where his mentor-priest said (roughly) "Look, nobody in their right mind believes for a minute that unbaptised babies will go to hell, but we can't explain it"]
You might find a copy of Spencer J Palmers "Comparitive Religion" (compares mormonism to other religions) interesting. I think it forms part of the BYU religion curriculum.
As for doctrine, I recall in the UK about 20 years ago a mormons might get excited about "sensational doctrine" which often was just gossip, and not checked against doctrinal sources. Mormons believe they can become gods about as much as the bible teaches, which is actually pretty definite. Blacks have never been second class citizens for mormons, and never "second class mormons" any more than non-Levite jews were second class jews. Mormons have not distanced themselves from polygamy as a doctrine, but do not practice it. (BTW did you know the first wife had to give permission to subsequent marriages?)
As for control and shunning, I think it is not a good way to behave and it is contrary to mormon doctrine. I have heard this claim regarding various religions and have no reason do doubt it; however attending a mormon ward council would show how difficult it is to get anyone to do anything at all; but certainly any form of control or compulsion is wrong, and severely condemmned in mormon scripture: http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/121/41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; (See also v36,37)
So where this happens it is just a case of human failing, maybe even by church leaders, and very regrettable. I have to say that the reference I cited is one of the most often taught doctrines in priesthood meetings, you remind me why this needs to be the case.
I'm not even supposed to say "do it because I'm your dad and I say so" and I need reminding about that; thanks!
I think some of what you observe may stem from the effects of religion on culture in areas of high religious density, we have a mildly expressive phrase among friends that goes "Utah mormons..."; but in their defense actual Utah mormons I have met have been very caring and sensitive.
Finally can I congratulate us both for having participated in the most reasonable religious converasation that I believe has ever taken place on slashdot. I respect you as a sane reasoning human and would not be sorry if we met.
Interestingly those in the "stories" you refer to did not take their belief merely because they read other "stories" but because of their own experiences with God, which, strangely is a strong force in the lives of many in the less extreme religions.
For instance, my belief in Jesus Christ is based on my own experiences in relation to the practice of the religion I study and not on account of "ooh, it must be true because of...".
An interesting thing for you to look into would be the origins of belief and not just the history of belief.
That there were pre-Christ prophecies is interesting but it was a source of faith to pre-Christ people who believed those prophecies because... because of what?
I say that my belief comes through the action of the Holy Ghost in my heart when truth is taught, but this is entirely subjective to my own life; I say that a similar action took place in all ages when truth was taught to those who would receive it.
You may decide this is rather freaky and superfluous, and a complex explaination for a bogus observation*, but if our existance pre-dates the creation and earth life; if we lived in the presence of God before our birth then it is not unusual for God to be able to speak to use through his Spirit convincingly to those who are willing to hear.
[* I'm looking for truth, not explanations.]
I only point this out so that you cn be aware that for many their religious belief is not based on some tenuous chain of reasoning but on the actual day-to-day mechanics of following what they have learned by experience to be good, and trying to learn more, yes, a sort of inner journey, but very real. This will of course sound like complete tosh to those who have no experience with it, and will be described as complete tosh by those who have rejected it (perhaps why they rejected it, who can tell?), but I'm doing it for me, not them, and I find it more real than the Millenium Dome, the UK Tax Credits Fiasco (and this government think they can run a national identity database).
I find it the most satisfying thing in my life. Not because there is a cosy "it will be all-right-for-you" type feeling but because there is a part of me that says "I know" that takes joy and confidence and love in the whole thing. It is jam today and jam tomorrow.
In short, John 7:17, John 17:3, you have to try it to know, and if you don't you won't. And yes, sometimes it takes extreme circumstances before some people try, but others will say "they just clutched at straws"; other peoples faith can never satisfy you or look reasonable to you.
You will certainly find it interesting, it is the process by which faith is developed, and is more real than tenuous reasoning on imcomplete knowledge.
I'm happy to discuss this more, but you may prefer to get some Mormon Missionaries in and ask them just how individuals are supposed to get a certain knowledge of God, and then try it! It's a good experiment.
Interestingly, they won't try and convince you! (Can you believe that in a religion?) They will teach you and encourage you to try what they teach if you want. You will come across things you never imagined could exist, or perhaps you will say you had forgotten a long time ago. If you think it is a trick, why not try and spot the trick?
It will be interesting anyway, and certainly a new experience, I'd say try it.
I'm not intending to get in to a long debate, I thought I would give the other view on Monty's excellent summary, and to show how two explanations of the same scene can fail to even overlap.
Not as "Judaism", Judaism as a sect/religion was based on revelations from God through Moses but based on the same religions and teachings that Moses's ancestors practiced, so if you define Judaism as "a sect that sprang up with Moses" then you are right, but if you define it as a formalisation of existing knowledge for specific people who (read Genesis) had proved unowrthy of higher law and therefore received the Mosaic law, then it does go back to the creation.
I admit my knowledge of prevailing definitions of Judaism may be weak, I perhaps could have chosen a better term to carry my point; however since pre-mosaic sacrifice anticipates the sacrifice of the Messiah, then, from what you say, Christianity precedes Judaism which makes my point just as well. Of course this depends on your definition of Christianity; but if Christ is the Son of God then I feel it can be applied to pre-Christ followers who anticipated and prophesied of Him. If you are interested in such prophesies you might look at http://scriptures.lds.org/tgj/jcprphcs
or more generally, http://scriptures.lds.org/tgj/contents
This is all irrellevant to the original point that it is those-in-power who seek to quash advancement.
I'm sure there is enough for you to read on this if you are interested, but I have made my point.
I expect if we carry this on it will become the inevitable quibbling over terms; it does not really matter if we agree over whether or not the term Christianity can be applied to what I call Christianity, and I won't presume to imbue more than 20 years of culture into you though a few mere slashdot posts.
The first Christians were Jews who recognized Jesus as the Messiah. For tham it was a continutation of their old religion and not an offshoot. I maintain this belief.
Although the term Christianity came from Christ, greek for Messiah, how sure are you that the term was not known before the greek civilization started?
Ancient prophesy foretold the birth of Christ and many events, pre-mosaic animal sacrifice was anticipatory to this. (For further details if you are interested I suggest you consult Jesus the Christ by James E Talmage available from Amazon). In anycase I contest that for Christians who can believe in a literal creation, foretelling the name of the Messiah is childs play.
All this, however has nothing to do with the original point, but it does show how little we understand eachothers viewpoint and how ill qualified we are to make judgements on them.
Even a quick quip on the "birth of Christianity" may have no basis for millions.
Are you saying the Christiaity only started with the ministry of Jesus Christ? It is actually a fork of Judaism (claims to be the true prong of the fork) and hence claims to date back to Adam and before the creation.
The birth of Christ is accepted by Christians as the arrival of the long promised Messiah.
But the other guy was right, it is those-in-power that cause the trouble and looking at history one has to wonder of those-christians-in-power during the middle ages were actually Christian at all.
These days the anti-religionists and evolutionists are so fervent it is hard not to call it a "religion" but lets not go there today, this topic was visited enough in recent reationist/evolutionist:school-curriculum discussions on slashdot and the register.
I think that we can all work out that you are assigning different meanings to your words, and I think we all understand what you both mean.
I'm with the other guy, a standard does not need to be ratifified by a body independant of its authors to be a standard but it doesn't bother me that you disagree.
if you think the appellation "standard" does not apply, so be it, but the "non-standard"is still published and available.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, passing processing off to the client makes the entire application more robust. There is only one server, but there is an unlimited amount of procsessing distributed among the clients.
And an unlimited amount of dodgyness. It doesn't make the application more robust at all but it might give a better user experience.
Any validation the client does MUST also be performed at the server end because
(1) How do you know the client DID validate it
(2) correctly
for some ill specified and overly cached version of "correctness"
Sam
Heh, I see that you must have been double-siding disks in those days too.
Sam
Too poor to buy Toni Bakers book on Z80 machine code I taught myself from other peoples assembly listings and the nmemonics at the back of the ZX81 manual.
I had a ram pack which didn't work unless I removed a zener diode then it didn't work on my next zx81 unless I put it back.
I then rewrote to cool tools which gave read,data and restore to ZX81 basic and one which played sound out of the TV speaker. I also wrote one which decoded morse code tapped out on the keuboard.
Then I moved on to the TRS-80 with two disk drives that school kicked out.
They were the days when 5.25 inch floppy disks costs at least £1 each single sided and folk had special tools to "doube-side" them.
Sam
StudyING it (it takes time) and they HAVE found it is not secure, just like the millions of eyes are supposed to do.
One of them is bound to notice, eh?
So it works! Sweet!
Sam
Cool distro though ubuntu is, it is very late with security fixes.
Sam
Hmmm... maybe ... Spanish gold - pirate dubloons.
You get the gold value AND the historical value.
3 of those might do the trick!
Or did they mean the 3 monkeys?
Sam
Ah, the shame of windows.
Does it really kill that fast/ I thought it at least gave a few seconds before ripping out all the sockets?
Sam
Hey - it was night when I wrote the post, I imained it would be late night when the deed was done.
There's a lot of talk about fancy switches, but we don't know if this guy has any managed switches.
When I said "pull the wires till the ping stops" I didn't expect him to end up with a load of wires on the floor, I expected him to plug eachone back in after 2 seconds.
Ethernet can cope with a brief unplug without difficulty.
If *I* was doing it and I had fancy switches I would stull pull wires. How many places have a map of the wiring and mac addresses on switch ports and so forth? And if folk are able to plug in wireless access points where they like, do you think such maps and charts would be up-to-date?
Maybe I'd try it that way for fun, but networks grow and breed in weird ways, hence the wire-pull suggestion: "it will work"
Sam
Attach to the access point and ping your router.
Then pull wires till the ping stops. Work up the wires till you find the one the access port is on the end of.
Sam
You've never been strip search at a free concert because there were no organiser who were scared that by taking in a 50 cent bottle of water you would no be buying their 5 dollar bottles of water with the cap removed for you.
All hail the free-enterprise competetive concert organisers who respect us so much and aren't just thinking about their ability to part us from our money.
Sam
No, it's not.
Slashdot's love for transmeta probably springs from the same reason that Linus went to work there:
it was a real cool concept
Along with many others, I was expecting to see a few more uses of code-morphing that x86 instruction execution, so I'm dissapointed there.
Other reasons are Transmeta are not Intel, and like AMD are doing cool stuff and cool prices instead of yesterdays (dull) snacks at yesterdays prices (I would say tomorrowws prices except that prices are going down) that we get from intel.
Sam
You are quite right. In-use means success.
This guys seems to think success of open source is when hobbyists work for free, and failure is when companies work for free [by paying their staff to do open source instead of something else].
When a company works for free, surely that is the bigger success, a company decides more on the balance sheet than hobbyists who decide based on hobby.
If open source profits companies, then it is success by his own terms!
This guy wants the companies that work on open source for free, to out-source it to his company instead.
But isn't the whole success of open source where companies work for free precisely because it suits them better than the traditional alternative?
He's nuts.
Sam
[Company works for free is means the company wasn't paid to do it, just like hobbyists work for free means the hobbyist wasn't paid to do it. The fact that the company pays the workers is as relevant as the hobbyist eating to feed his body]
"You compare the output of multiple sources with each other and draw your own conclusions based on the information at hand, under such scrutiny bias invariably shows through."
exactly; you yourself are the source that tells whether or not other sources are biased.
"Minimal (imperceptible) bias is exactly what people many people expect of a responsible news outlet (given true zero bias from anyone is unattainable)."
Thats my point, so they keep looking for a news source until they don't perceive the bias.
Perceptable bias is "amateur", but don't mistake imperceptable bias with no bias, or think that because you can't see the bias that the source has integrity.
Can you measure the bias of right-thinking-folk that share your own views? Can you perceive bias you haven't needed language to describe?
I believe it is unhelpful to make the judgement that a source has imperceptable bias, it is difficult to tell if you are judging your perception or the source. The judgement offers no benefit, only risk, and cannot be verified.
Of course obvious bias is "wrong" but by what can we judge non-obvious bias to be better?
Sam
And what unbiased source are you going to use to tell you whether or not your sources are unbiased?
eh?
What you are asking for is bias that is too hard for you too see.
If thats all you need, just close your eyes and everything will be ok, eh?
Sam
"why you don't know this is beyond me"
Thats because its not true, I do know this, I just typed in the wrong word. If my P900 hadn't broke I could have stopped the car and quickly amended my post.
"it's just another java phone, this time on top of linux. big deal"
I know "big deal", thats what my post was all about, linux-nothing its just a stupid stinkin java-only phone with nothing to recommend it to the discerning hacker.
How Moto can get so close and blow it is depressing, perhaps related to the "all on one chipset" and "don't want hackers messing with the GPRS/GSM stack" which is a nice problem but the solution bores me; Moto's solution is a very un-interesting phone from my point of view.
Nokias new touted web pad seems to blow it in a similar way by for once actually NOT being a phone as well. Gah!
I want a linux phone where the GPRS bit looks like a voice modem, and yes it will have to be another processor. Thats what I want. And flying cars. And hover boots and anti-grav arenas. An yeast-in-a-vat. Actually no, meat tastes better and its kinder to share sentient life with proteins instead of keeping it all cooped up in a tank all its life.
Sam
I read the article and I swear it said that it could be upgraded to 10MB of transflash memory but I am glad to be corrected.
Thanks
Sam
Cool.
I was a software engineer at Orange, mostly doing MS Smartphone customisations, and swiftly got depressed when I learned it was a closed Java phone.
The 10MB is a poor limit though? However getting a bash prompt is what I want, and maybe installing squeak (scheme) or ficl (forth).
Is thay any way at all any poor sucker is going to get a bash prompt and install stuff on one of your 96MB phones?
Sam
Ogg? More flexible OS?
Don't think you will be able to get a BASH prompt on this phone. It's a closed phone; customization will be in Java; and yeah there may be a Java ogg player but thats little advantage over most other devices.
Linux is "interesting" here, but not "friendly".
Also, note that the phone is upgradable to 10MB -ooohh! Woww!!! 10MB!!; I wonder why they bother to release such a device, some of their early models had 96MB which is something but low for a multimedia device.
Sam
[Re: Nathan Eldon Tanner, you are correct, but non-Levite Jews were also denied the priesthood but were not second class; however I undersand your point and the bad feeling often caused and am glad it is no longer the case]
I agree a personal relationship with God is required and should be developed. Anything less is to miss the point entirely. Being saved is not the same as talking about being saved; but where religion becomes culture I suppose it becomes easy to be "mainstream" and miss the point and not notice.
I'm convinced we will meet many old friends in heaven and stop surprised "are YOU here too?" I look forward to it.
Cheers!
Sam
I hear all of what you say and don't disagree.
I don't expect my validations to hold more weight with you than your own validations, but its good that you can see that this is what it comes down to, and its nice for me to realise I'm not looking for anyone elses approval of the current state of my learning process.
As far as your theoretical group of friends, some of them may be lying and one of the liars may even be a mormon. Its had to know what experiences a person has had.
As far as an unfair God damming people, you are right it is damn offensive (pardon) and such a god deserves no respect or worship; which leads to the idea that his "devotees" and "worshippers" may not fully know him, if they think this is what god is like.
In my experience, belief in god often comes down to description of god.
On your point of extreme mormon doctrines and comparitive religion, I have never come across a book that accurately represented mormon belief that was not published by a mormon, and have come to respective conclusions about catholics etc.
[I was very happy when I came across a Catholic Priests life story where his mentor-priest said (roughly) "Look, nobody in their right mind believes for a minute that unbaptised babies will go to hell, but we can't explain it"]
You might find a copy of Spencer J Palmers "Comparitive Religion" (compares mormonism to other religions) interesting. I think it forms part of the BYU religion curriculum.
As for doctrine, I recall in the UK about 20 years ago a mormons might get excited about "sensational doctrine" which often was just gossip, and not checked against doctrinal sources. Mormons believe they can become gods about as much as the bible teaches, which is actually pretty definite. Blacks have never been second class citizens for mormons, and never "second class mormons" any more than non-Levite jews were second class jews. Mormons have not distanced themselves from polygamy as a doctrine, but do not practice it. (BTW did you know the first wife had to give permission to subsequent marriages?)
As for control and shunning, I think it is not a good way to behave and it is contrary to mormon doctrine. I have heard this claim regarding various religions and have no reason do doubt it; however attending a mormon ward council would show how difficult it is to get anyone to do anything at all; but certainly any form of control or compulsion is wrong, and severely condemmned in mormon scripture: http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/121/41
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
(See also v36,37)
So where this happens it is just a case of human failing, maybe even by church leaders, and very regrettable. I have to say that the reference I cited is one of the most often taught doctrines in priesthood meetings, you remind me why this needs to be the case.
I'm not even supposed to say "do it because I'm your dad and I say so" and I need reminding about that; thanks!
I think some of what you observe may stem from the effects of religion on culture in areas of high religious density, we have a mildly expressive phrase among friends that goes "Utah mormons..."; but in their defense actual Utah mormons I have met have been very caring and sensitive.
Finally can I congratulate us both for having participated in the most reasonable religious converasation that I believe has ever taken place on slashdot. I respect you as a sane reasoning human and would not be sorry if we met.
Sam
These are all good points.
Interestingly those in the "stories" you refer to did not take their belief merely because they read other "stories" but because of their own experiences with God, which, strangely is a strong force in the lives of many in the less extreme religions.
For instance, my belief in Jesus Christ is based on my own experiences in relation to the practice of the religion I study and not on account of "ooh, it must be true because of...".
An interesting thing for you to look into would be the origins of belief and not just the history of belief.
That there were pre-Christ prophecies is interesting but it was a source of faith to pre-Christ people who believed those prophecies because... because of what?
I say that my belief comes through the action of the Holy Ghost in my heart when truth is taught, but this is entirely subjective to my own life; I say that a similar action took place in all ages when truth was taught to those who would receive it.
You may decide this is rather freaky and superfluous, and a complex explaination for a bogus observation*, but if our existance pre-dates the creation and earth life; if we lived in the presence of God before our birth then it is not unusual for God to be able to speak to use through his Spirit convincingly to those who are willing to hear.
[* I'm looking for truth, not explanations.]
I only point this out so that you cn be aware that for many their religious belief is not based on some tenuous chain of reasoning but on the actual day-to-day mechanics of following what they have learned by experience to be good, and trying to learn more, yes, a sort of inner journey, but very real. This will of course sound like complete tosh to those who have no experience with it, and will be described as complete tosh by those who have rejected it (perhaps why they rejected it, who can tell?), but I'm doing it for me, not them, and I find it more real than the Millenium Dome, the UK Tax Credits Fiasco (and this government think they can run a national identity database).
I find it the most satisfying thing in my life. Not because there is a cosy "it will be all-right-for-you" type feeling but because there is a part of me that says "I know" that takes joy and confidence and love in the whole thing. It is jam today and jam tomorrow.
In short, John 7:17, John 17:3, you have to try it to know, and if you don't you won't. And yes, sometimes it takes extreme circumstances before some people try, but others will say "they just clutched at straws"; other peoples faith can never satisfy you or look reasonable to you.
For a good short discourse on the development of faith as experienced by individuals, read http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32
You will certainly find it interesting, it is the process by which faith is developed, and is more real than tenuous reasoning on imcomplete knowledge.
I'm happy to discuss this more, but you may prefer to get some Mormon Missionaries in and ask them just how individuals are supposed to get a certain knowledge of God, and then try it! It's a good experiment.
Interestingly, they won't try and convince you! (Can you believe that in a religion?) They will teach you and encourage you to try what they teach if you want. You will come across things you never imagined could exist, or perhaps you will say you had forgotten a long time ago. If you think it is a trick, why not try and spot the trick?
It will be interesting anyway, and certainly a new experience, I'd say try it.
I'm not intending to get in to a long debate, I thought I would give the other view on Monty's excellent summary, and to show how two explanations of the same scene can fail to even overlap.
Sam
Not as "Judaism", Judaism as a sect/religion was based on revelations from God through Moses but based on the same religions and teachings that Moses's ancestors practiced, so if you define Judaism as "a sect that sprang up with Moses" then you are right, but if you define it as a formalisation of existing knowledge for specific people who (read Genesis) had proved unowrthy of higher law and therefore received the Mosaic law, then it does go back to the creation.
I admit my knowledge of prevailing definitions of Judaism may be weak, I perhaps could have chosen a better term to carry my point; however since pre-mosaic sacrifice anticipates the sacrifice of the Messiah, then, from what you say, Christianity precedes Judaism which makes my point just as well. Of course this depends on your definition of Christianity; but if Christ is the Son of God then I feel it can be applied to pre-Christ followers who anticipated and prophesied of Him. If you are interested in such prophesies you might look at http://scriptures.lds.org/tgj/jcprphcs
or more generally, http://scriptures.lds.org/tgj/contents
This is all irrellevant to the original point that it is those-in-power who seek to quash advancement.
I'm sure there is enough for you to read on this if you are interested, but I have made my point.
I expect if we carry this on it will become the inevitable quibbling over terms; it does not really matter if we agree over whether or not the term Christianity can be applied to what I call Christianity, and I won't presume to imbue more than 20 years of culture into you though a few mere slashdot posts.
I have enjoyed the conversation though.
Sam
Well I think you are wrong.
The first Christians were Jews who recognized Jesus as the Messiah. For tham it was a continutation of their old religion and not an offshoot. I maintain this belief.
Although the term Christianity came from Christ, greek for Messiah, how sure are you that the term was not known before the greek civilization started?
Ancient prophesy foretold the birth of Christ and many events, pre-mosaic animal sacrifice was anticipatory to this.
(For further details if you are interested I suggest you consult Jesus the Christ by James E Talmage available from Amazon). In anycase I contest that for Christians who can believe in a literal creation, foretelling the name of the Messiah is childs play.
All this, however has nothing to do with the original point, but it does show how little we understand eachothers viewpoint and how ill qualified we are to make judgements on them.
Even a quick quip on the "birth of Christianity" may have no basis for millions.
cheers
Sam
Are you saying the Christiaity only started with the ministry of Jesus Christ? It is actually a fork of Judaism (claims to be the true prong of the fork) and hence claims to date back to Adam and before the creation.
The birth of Christ is accepted by Christians as the arrival of the long promised Messiah.
But the other guy was right, it is those-in-power that cause the trouble and looking at history one has to wonder of those-christians-in-power during the middle ages were actually Christian at all.
These days the anti-religionists and evolutionists are so fervent it is hard not to call it a "religion" but lets not go there today, this topic was visited enough in recent reationist/evolutionist:school-curriculum discussions on slashdot and the register.
Sam
I think that we can all work out that you are assigning different meanings to your words, and I think we all understand what you both mean.
I'm with the other guy, a standard does not need to be ratifified by a body independant of its authors to be a standard but it doesn't bother me that you disagree.
if you think the appellation "standard" does not apply, so be it, but the "non-standard"is still published and available.
Sam