This reminds me of a quantum experiment that I reaed about a year or so ago that consisted of measuring the thickness of a human hair with a laser.
The quantum part of the experiment was the fact that the measurement was never actually directly taken, only that the probability that the measurement was going to be taken was extrapolated into the actual measurement.
Sounds like a really expensive way to read teal leaves.
"In contrast, the unconscious mind appears able to ponder over all the information and produce a decision that most people remain satisfied with."
Ya, riiiight.
Acutally all you are doing is giving the subliminal programming messages more time to take effect on your mind. Once the unconscious takeover is complete the "sheep" no longer complain.
I think a form of standardization for online and written communication would be beneficial.
For instance, if you are writing in a gnerally happy and pleasant manner write "have a nice day" at the bottom of the page like a sig.
For those wanting to instigate a flamewar or expressing anger or displeasure at the intended recipient I would think that "I hope you die in a fire" would be appropriate and succinct.
I am not your pocket Bible scholar. From your tone is appears that if and when I did provide references you would argue over them. You are capable of doing research on your own, by the way. Using your brain and the tools at hand to come to your own conclusions about things can be fun and beneficial, though it does require some work and some thought.
Why would you rely upon information provided by someone that you are so obviously inimical to anyways? Even if that information was well thought out, convincing, and based on infallible logic and research you wouldn't would you? Ohhhh. Sorry I forgot where I was posting for a minute.
If you care at all you could try looking up the words in a Hebrew dictionary yourself. This particular case is just that simple. Even a quick google search would reinforce and confirm what I wrote. If you don't want to try that hard there are current translations of the Bible that say just what I said. However, it seems from your attitude that you don't really care, you are just being antagonistic.
I have learned after many years of studying the Bible under scholars of the ancient languages that most people almost never want to do the depth of study necessary to understand what the ancient languages have to say. However, they will argue with you from a position of utter and completely contemptible ignorance until the proverbial cows come home. It doesn't matter if they are Christians or not, they take a lazy, unprepared mental attitude toward what they believe and then fight like Spartans to defend it. To me it doesn't make sense, but hey, it's a free country, right?
You make your comments from a personal perspective. Hosever, if you look at hhe idea of atheism from a historical context of atheistic run states your comment whould look like this:
Atheists will not allow the practice of religion and will kill you if you talk about religion too loud. Atheists will proclaim the atheist faith as the only faith. Atheists will always favor those who are antagonistic to religion and religious people, providing military support to supress those who are religious, regardless of the size of the religious population. An atheist believes that the life of other people has no value because there are no eternal consequences for what you do to them. If you can gain personal advantage throught the subjugation and decimation of other people, so be it. This applies doubly for anyone stupid enough to express personal choice in favor of religion.
The sword cuts both ways. You can shine the sun on yourself and spin like Rove all you want, but it dosent change the fact that the historical record for atheists in power is horrible. It is almost as bad as theistic run states. We just need to give it time though, as atheism as a state requirement is relatively new to the political landscape.
FYI, that whole "thou shall not kill" thing is the most misquoted of any line I have ever read or heard.
The words in Hebrew actually mean "You will not commit murder."
There is a big difference between "kill" and "murder" especially in the context of the Bible.
There are many forms of killing that are allowed in the Bible. For instance, capital punishemnt, when the proper rules of jurisprudence are followed, is not murder. Nor is killing during a military operation.
Self defence is always justifiable as well, in spite of what everyone thinks "turn the other cheek" is about. Another misunderstood Bible passage. Does it ever end?
"I no more chose to be straight than a gay person chose to be gay"
Have you ever tried to see if you could like sex with someone of the same sex? I am serious about this.
You call yourself straight, yet if you haven't experimented with same sex partners you have absolutely no idea what you are missing. You might just like it. Furthermore, you say that you did not choose to be straight yet you live in a predominantly heterosexual community. Chances are that you didn't choose it, but you most likely learned it before you had a chance to choose. Thus, you have not had the experience and information to make a choice.
Even then, I still have a problem with the word "choose" in this context especially if you have not experienced homosexual sex at least a few times. How can you choose between two things like this without thorough experimentation? It is akin to saying "I enjoy skiing down the western side of the mountain the best" when you haven't even tried the 3 slopes on the other sides.
If you are like most people I know, you don't choose to be heterosexual, you just follow the pack. Staying in the herd prevents choice. You just mimic the people around you and say that it is what you really really want deep inside. Yet you never really know. You are too scared to admit that you have had homosexual thoughts and feelings. You repress that side of your sexual expression and repeat the mantra, "I'm straight, I'm straight, I'm straight" and then hope the dreams don't bother you too much when you wake up.
Don't worry though, the same goes for most gay people too.
Most sexual behavior is learned in my opinion. Where else would fetishism, BDSM, etc. come from and propagate from? People don't just spontaneously jump into gimp suits and latex to express themselves sexually. They see it first, and then they respond to it. If the experience is good they will probably repeat it.
I have many gay friends. Most of them report experiences with same sex partners at a young age as a seminal (no pun intended you perverts) factor in their "choice" for gay expression of their sexuality. Sure it's anecdotal, but I know ALOT of gay people!
Sexual response is a fantastic conditioning device. The reward centers are hardwired into the brain. If you experience gratifying same-sex sexual activities before your society has a chance to brainwash you into self torture about it you will most likely respond positively to that same stimulus in later life, social stigma or not. In this way many people learn to be homosexual. It works the same way for heterosexuals as well.
The sexually enlightened person will realize that sexuality is what you make of it. You can choose, but only if you have the information and experience to compare. As my friend of more than 15 years (who currently prefers sexual expression in homosexual format) says about gender and sexuality: "It's all ice-cream, just different flavors."
In the position I occupy at my job my requirements and duties that I perform encompass the same job done by people with the benefits and title of manager in other divisions of my company. In addition we have to do things far above and beyond what our counterparts in other divisions do. Unfortunately, because of our small team size and budget constraints we are considered rank and file employees. No manager benefits, no manager pay, and no perks like managers get.
One of the mandatory company policies for people who do the job that we do is extensive training. Through a combination of other job experience, on the job training (fending for ourselves actually), and blind luck we have a team that can perform at an adequate level when compared to the other divisons. However, none of us have had any of the training that the other teams have had. Considering the lip service and culture importance our company puts on training this is irregular and even hypocritical.
Recently we had a meeting with our team leader and his boss, the division head. The division head lamented our performance in certain areas, while praising us in others. Immediately our team leader (who has not been properly trained yet either!) chimed in that we had not had the same training that the other teams have had and that it might improve our performance if we had it.
The division leader said something to the effect of "well you shouldn't use that as an excuse, nor should you say it too loudly. The company just might decide to replace all of you with people who have had the training."
Pragmatic as it seems to think this way I was taken aback and still feel upset about it. It just dosenn't taste right for some reason to me.
My recommendation is to be careful. If step 4 is this...
4) replace our whiny untrained employee with someone who has been properly trained and will work for less money.
Then step 5 withh look like this:
5a) PROFIT!!! (for the comapny!)
5b) UNEMPLOYMENT LINE!!!!!! (For you!)
Before this little meeting I thought I worked for decent people who had my and the companies best interestes in mind. Now I fully understand that they see me as a component in a larger machine; replacable, disposable, and not the leat bit worthy of investing any maintenace in.
I hope your company is better off as far as having respect for people who have made them tons of money like our team has. Please take the words to heart, they may be thinking just like my company is.
"But don't, for a moment, think that any country allows the ultimate ideal in freedoms"
"Millions upon millions of people on this planet prefer the style of freedoms and restrictions granted by their government over Americas"
Many people do leave their countries. They overwhelmingly come to the US. They even come from countries that take pride in their ability to snub the US form of government and the people who live here. In addition they find many of their countrymen already here and doing quite well. The irony is almost unbearable for some.
The reason that they come here is the fact that we provide the best mix of economic, political, social, and religious freedom. Sure there are countries that have great freedom, however many of them have social or economic costs that are unbearable. Many nations that compare themselves with the US ignore the fact that they have a nearly homogenous culture and racial background, while the US has the most heterogenous mix in any country on the Earth. This makes for a soft landing when emigrating from another country, as you will most likely have a whole community of your birth-nation peers for support.
Yes millions and millions of people prefer their particular brand of opression, however about 1 million people recieve permanent resident staus in the US annually, and another 500K are estimated to arrive illegally. There is your other millions and millions, the ones that prefer the US form of opression over theuir own. And these are just the ones that can get away or that can afford to move. Add this to the concept that "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed" and you might see that the US would be even more heavily populated by emigrants were it not for this human propensity.
It is not that every country sucks but America, just that if you are going to leave the country of your birth, there is no place quite like America where you can go and find the same mix of personal freedom, ease of integration, social support, economic advancement, religious liberty, and political influence and stability.
I notice this quite a bit when watching sporting events on TV with friends and family.
What I mean by that is that any call that goes against the team that they are rooting for is almost universally in dispute by them or even completely refuted. Many times I can see where the referees have made the right call and it looks obvious to me. However, those around me still proclaim that it is a "bad" call, etc. even in the face of slow-mo replay with HDTV clarity.
I think the difference is that I just don't give a damn about sports in most cases, even if it is my home team. If you couple that with an over developed sense of fairness and respect for rules it makes for some interesting post game analysis when talking to devoted home team fans.
This is just sports though. I am sure that there are numerous other areas of life where I am susceptible to the same type of discriminatory viewpoint.
If the increase in CO2 from current energy technologies causes an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans we might NEED to harvest energy from them at a tremendous rate to keep ourselves safe from huge storms, climate change, and rising waters.
I can see a government subsidy (ala American agriculture) for wind and ocean current farmers to "harvest" more energy than they need and then find a way to harmlessly dissipate it, just to try to keep up.
Of course this is just a flight of fancy. The energies we are talking about would probably require ever inch of coastland, undersea temperature gradient, and landmass to be covered with energy producing technology.
It could be done, i'm sure, but at the cost it would be cheaper to just let people die.
"Google" and "AJAX" are examples but for impact try things that may be not as recent but are much more important and recognizable. Maybe "DNA" or "LASER." Or how about "T-Cells" or "microprocessor." Or even better "transport layer" or "hyperthreading."
Language adapts to discribe concepts and new things. In fact, in many cases, technical skills (like the practic eof medicine, technology, engineering) are just the build up of categories of knowledge under the headings of jargon words. By this I mean that you spend hours and hours learning the meaning of a subject that can be summed up in one word. That way, when you say that word to someone with your same level of undestanding, neither of you have to go back and repeat the tens or hundreds of hours of subject material. This allows communication about great volumes of information with speed and efficiency.
The word "blogosphere" is just a simpler version of the same "jargonification" that develops in technical subjects.
Considering the high magnetic fields we create for scientific research into plasma containment and the fact that no gravitational anomolies have been detected from these it scares me a bit to think about the magnetic field that they would need to generate to supposedly make this thing work.
I can see it now...
One of the engineers mistakenly wears a belt with a ferrous buckle during a test. The belt destroys the engine, flying at it at near C speed, but the scientists realize that the engineer was sliced so fast and so cleanly that his abdomen and torso just cold-weld back together. After a week and a half of intense psychotherapy and drug treatment the engineer is back at work, however he will only wear clothes made from trash bags and duct tape. This then becomes THE party prank to pull on the new recruits.
Many of the socialites in the surrounding suburbs of the testing center are exposed to ridicule and mockery when those with imitation flatware are suddenly relieved of it. The testing lab becomes a large contributor to steel recycling mills in the area, thus subsidizing the experiments.
After numerous complaints the lab is moved to the moon. As the experiemntal engines are about to become flight worthy someone knocks a dial during a pre-flight test, sending the engines into full power mode. The dinosaur extinction event pales in comparison to the moon smacking into the Earth repeatedly, like a super bouncy ball attached to a ping-pong paddle with a rubber band. The remainng earth-moon-blob-thingy then accelerates tangentially to its former orbit, soon reaching near light speed. The Plutonians wave slowly as we exit the solar system destination: the heart of some pulsar at the edge of the universe.
Damn, I'm glad this idea is just as far fetched as my insane scenarios.
"Switching off the magnetic field would result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension."...leaving the rest of the ship in some unknown dimension, racing around at super light speed, just biding its time until it smacks, with and insanely large amount of kinetic energy, into what passes for an other-dimensional planetoid.
"the white race is probably the worst and has the most shameful past.."
I see this opinion alot and it never fails to amuse me. I don't care if you are white, black, brown, or something in between. If you look at your ancestry you will find the same type of activities that you condemn the "white man" for.
Some of the worst atrocities imaginable were comitted by people of other races. Ever heard of the "Rape of NanKing"? About the same number of people were killed in Nanking as were killed by both the nuclear weapons that the US used in WW2. However dosen't even mention the atrocities (rape, dismemberment, torture, etc.) visited on those people before they were killed.
To this day there are places on earth where women are treated as property. They are mutilated as a social convention and controlled like livestock. However, none of these places are controlled by "white" people.
Slavery? It has been practiced all over the world at different times. It is still being practiced today as a matter of fact, just not in any "white" countries.
If you objectively look at history you will find that every race of people acts just like every other race of people at some time or another. No race is pure; no people are free from the stains of their previous generations iniquity.
However, rascist categorization, as you have done, is an expression of the same motivations that encouraged the most horrendous past examples of persecution. The fact that you cannot see it is the greatest irony.
Enjoy your self hate, misplaced as it may be. Just realize that you, as a white man, are alone in this mental fallacy. The other peoples of this world will gladly indulge you in this opinion, all the while plotting atrocities against you, the evil of which you think are only worthy of your own race.
Maybe you will feel they are as justified as they do the next time something attrocious happens to "white people."
"That said, they both made important - critical, even - contributions to world history."
I think FDR has gotten off light in view of the fact that he surrendered millions (if not billions considering subsequent generations) of people to a life of communist slavery at the Yalta conference.
Yes, it was a critical contribution to history, leading to such things as nuclear proliferation, the cold war, and communist agenda advancement on a global scale. Not to mention Stalin's (and his sucessors' and imitators') abysmal human rights violations.
Critical, yes. Decent or respectable, not at all. Abhorrent and inexcusable, definitely.
Man I feel sory for you ishmalius. I think you may have pissed off somebody with mod points or something.
To think, a sarcastic comment that backhands lawyers gets modded as a troll. What is the world coming to?
THE IRONY!
I will tell you a little story to make you feel better.
I sold BMW automobiles at one time. I was negotiating with a criminal defense lawyer over a rather expensive 7 series. He requested a small favor in order to consumate the transaction, amounting to aroud $100. I assured him that we would take care of that. He looks at me, turns a bit surly and implies that I am lying to him about this. I reassure him. He then says the most astounding thing I have ever heard from a customer:
"Why should I believe you? You car salesmen don't have the best reputation, you know!"
This guy makes a living getting rapists, murders, and drug dealers back on the street and he had the audacity to impugn my character. I had to explain the pot and the kettle's coloring to him. The poor guy was serious! He couldnt figure out why I was chortling uncontrollably.
Anyways, it was funny at the time. My condolences on your harsh treatment from the mods and for your karma. Who knew we had so many lawyer lovers on/.?
The Biblical idea that males were the head of the household, and also that only males were to be priests, was established in the Old Testament. It is explicitly implied in Genesis and is amplified with the Levitical priesthood and the responsibility of Abraham for his family. Just to remind you, Old Testament means books like Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. These books range in dates but you can consider that many of them were written around 500BC. Oral traditions are reported to begin around 2000BC by some historians as well.
HERE IS THE CRUCIAL PART: The passages you see in the New Testament that talk about women not being priests and men being the spiritual and authoritative head of household merely echo these sentiments that were first stated a couple of thousand years before.
To be fair, the Roman kingdom was probably started around 700BC; however if you study that era it was patriarchal in the extreme and wouldn't help your argument. The Roman Empire, generally stated to begin in 27BC, is more what you were referring to. It was definitely hundreds of years after the writing of the Old Testament and again, thousands of years after the inception of oral traditions and events that compose the Torah.
Your definition of Christianity as a "splinter religion" may be correct in your view, however the fact remains that other than the rituals of the Jews, the content of the beliefs of modern Christians are inclusive of Jewish beliefs. This means that things like the nature of who and what God is, the beginning of life, the historical figures, and, yes, even the authoritative structure and positions of males and females written about in the Old Testament are directly inherited by the Christian faith. We revere these teachings of the Old Testament in the same way we revere the red letters in the New. Therefore it stands to reason that if in the Old Testament there was a prohibition against women pastors for doctrinal reasons it will continue into the New Testament unless there is a dispensational reason for change.
It's almost as if you believe that Christianity is an independent entity and has no reference to the Old Testament. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact the very point of contention we are discussing is proof of the fact that Christian doctrine is consistent with Old Testament doctrine.
"Women are expected to honor and obey their husbands in all things, but it's a one way street"
So the passage where it says for men to love their wives as Christ loved the church is actually a misprint in every Bible on Earth? Seriously though, if you consistently take things out of context you can make the Bible say anything you want it to. Even things that is specifically does not say.
"If women are so great, why do they have to be subject to the will of men?"
The authority structure was established in the garden. Adam was given dominance in a mirroring of the authority structure in heaven. According to the Bible God the Father has the same characteristics, essence, and character as the other members of the trinity. You could have asked why Christ or the Holy Spirit subjects himself to the will of the Father when he is just as powerful as the Father.
"Also, let's not forget that Original Sin entered the human race through woman."
Romans 5:12: "Sin entered the world through Adam." If you cannot even understand this simple thing how can you feel competent enough to comment on the more complex things in the Bible? Eve was deceived. Adam sinned through volition. The Immaculate Conception was designed to make sure that the sin present in all MEN was not present in Christ. Paul wrote Romans by the way.
"Sexual promiscuity is banned because it is a tool of other religions"
Sexual promiscuity didn't start in Rome. In the Old Testament it was condemned as well. Interestingly enough the book Snow Crash refers these much more ancient practices an
"Right, but if you kill yourself, you're going to hell, right?"
Wrong. All sins were paid for by Christ on the Cross. Those who believe in Christ go to heaven regardless of thir method of death, self imposed or otherwise. Remember in your other post where you lamented how Christians just had to believe and they went to heaven? It still applied to Christians. As for everyone else, it dosent matter how much you sin. Your entrance into the lake of fire is determined at the judgement seat of Christ (Rev 20 if you want to look it up). Your good deeds are measured and compared to the good character of God. If you measure up you can get into heaven. Sin is not an issue, again, because Christ suffered and died for all mankind, not just those who believe.
"But, if you do something wrong here on earth, god will still forgive you so there is much less motivation than in an orthoprax religion to do good"
Your statement here would be true if we omitted about three quarters of the Bible. Unfortunately for your ill considered viewpoint, most of the Bible is the testament of people who chose to do the wrong things and had to pay the price for it during their lifetimes and sometimes even longer as their children inherited some of the backlash. The idea of forgiveness is definitely there, but I cant see how you miss the massive amount of content that concerns judgement and punishment for sin on Earth. The idea of Karma is not so far from the Christian idea.
What is discribed in the Bible is that when we engage in sinful or evil actions or modes of motivation and thought we engender punishment. This punishment can be for good or ill. It is like when we are chastised by our parents in childhood; God can attempt to correct us in the same way. What the Bible then says is that your attitude toward God and the sinful behavior will determine the outcome of the punishment. It can be punishment for cursing, in the case of the sinner who continues int eh wrong mode of behavior. It can also be punishment for blessing and correction for the believer who admits their mistake and repents (literal definition: change your mind) of that sin and returns to the correct mode of action.
Either way, your idea of the Christian believer getting off scott free for anything they want to do is at least simplistic and verges on being an intentional mischaracterization. In the case of the latter I would assume that you are either carrying a grudge or you are trying to convince yourself. Either way it makes you look kind of foolish when the evidence contrary to your opinion occupies the majority of the pages of the Bible.
"...shit instead of spending that money to improve people's lives"
1: its their money, they can shove it up their asses in fistfulls if they want and they shouldn't face condemnation from you, as you didn't contribute any. As long as the congregation gets to determine what they spent their money on that is fine.
2: Teaching the word of God is, in the minds of Christians, the best way to help them help themselves. If they have a large place to teach from that people want to go to all the better.
3: You have no idea what Churches spend their money on. My father is handicapped, bedridden even, and on a ventilator 24-7. One of these so called "big fancy" churches has paid his electrical bill every month for a year. "Not a big deal you'd say", I'm sure. But, because of all the ventilation, ac bills, air purifiers, etc. his electric bill is $700/month. Of course you don't see that. All you see is a big building and you mock and ridicule it. What I see is people who have that big guilding because they have the blessing of God himself because they DO contribute to the health of society in ways that go beyond even the money that you would so love to see spent in a "better" fashon.
"and it's the reason you treat people well whether it has a bearing on whether you go to heaven or not. "
As you mentioned before, Christians go to heaven because they believe in Christ and nothing else. This statement contradicts what you stated in your ealier post. Not trying ot be mean, just pointing out an inconsistency in your evalution of Christians motivation and behavior.
"before the bible was WRITTEN -- women were often the heads of Roman households"
The point is that when the Old testament was written there were no Romans yet and the idea as males as heads of the household and as priests was established then. The New testament merely echoes the sentiments when it writes about making men the head of the church and the household. Your stating that they had to change things is ridiculous when the Biblical doctrine on this subject was written hundreds of years before Rome existed.
"It wasn't until Christianity gained currency as a religion that they decided they didn't want women to be the head of a household"
Historically and factually incorrect. This is like saying that it wasn until Christians gained currency as a religion that they didnt want their congregation killing people for money. Again, the doctrine of male head of household, priesthood, even primogenicy was established by the Old Testament before Rome even existed. You cannot use a modern change in social structure to say that the past dosen't exist. It dosen't even make non-logical sense.
Furthermore, claiming that the reason for this is sexism merely proclaims your complete and utter misunderstanding of the Bible. Women are consistently declared to be better then men in almost every aspect in the Bible. They are revered for their characteristics. The idea of the greater individual being submitting themselves and serving a lesser being (for the right reasons mind you) is Biblical as well. For example, Christ washed people's feet. This does not mitigate the fact that there is a heierarchy that was established by divine fiat. It also does not mean that it was done for sexist reasons. You have to go a bit deeper than your unfounded accusation of sexism to get the real answer.
"from which some hypocrites can shout condemnation at others."
I wont argue that many people who classify themselves as Christians fall quite short of the ideal. I will also not argue that some will condemn others for what they see as evil, wrong, or contradictory to their best interests. I wont justify their actions either. The Bible is clear on how a Christian should act and the mental attitudes and motivations they should posess. That individials do not live up to perfection is expected. The Bible discribes two types of degeneracy. There is immoral degeneracy, the one that everyone identifies easily. This is drug use, sexual promiscuity, anti-establishment activity, etc. Then there is moral degeneracy. This is the one you likely encounter that turns you off to Christians in general. Some people become assured of their holiness and become self-righteous and legalistic. These are the people that unbelievers look at and say to themselves "if THAT is what it is to be a Christian I don't want any part of it!" The fact still remains that what the Bible says about how to interact with people is violated continually by people that call themselves Christians. You may call them hypocrites for doing this, however by condemning for not being perfect you hold yourself up to ridicule from others if you are not perfect yourself.
"You don't actually have to do anything, or live a certain way, to reach "god's kingdom"
This is a central part of the character of God as discribed in the Bible. Man cannot, under the power of the flesh, attain purity of character on par with God. God, in his purity, cannot associate with mankind. Therefore it was incumbent upon God, as the greater and capible party, to devise a way for makind to posess the attributes of God that would allow Him to have fellowship with Man. The mechanism that allowed this was Christ's substitutionary punishment and death on the Cross that atoned for the entirety of the sin debt of all mankind for all time. If the price was paid by Christ what else is necessary? The one thing required is faith in Christ; belief based on the merit of Christ Himself, not the rational or empirical gesticulations of the
Slashdot Mirror
"But it is much closer--about 440 million light-years away--...Most GRBs are billions of light-years away..." ...BUT ITS GETTING ALOT CLOSER!
This reminds me of a quantum experiment that I reaed about a year or so ago that consisted of measuring the thickness of a human hair with a laser.
The quantum part of the experiment was the fact that the measurement was never actually directly taken, only that the probability that the measurement was going to be taken was extrapolated into the actual measurement.
Sounds like a really expensive way to read teal leaves.
"In contrast, the unconscious mind appears able to ponder over all the information and produce a decision that most people remain satisfied with."
Ya, riiiight.
Acutally all you are doing is giving the subliminal programming messages more time to take effect on your mind. Once the unconscious takeover is complete the "sheep" no longer complain.
Totally agree.
However, this reeks of the same sort of hipocrisy as someone who calls the cops when their stash of weed is stolen.
Hey Operaghost: Did you know that you have a gaggle of epistemologically misaligned mods that also happen to hate you following you around?
I just thought you should know.
I feel for you bro.
I think a form of standardization for online and written communication would be beneficial.
For instance, if you are writing in a gnerally happy and pleasant manner write "have a nice day" at the bottom of the page like a sig.
For those wanting to instigate a flamewar or expressing anger or displeasure at the intended recipient I would think that "I hope you die in a fire" would be appropriate and succinct.
I am not your pocket Bible scholar. From your tone is appears that if and when I did provide references you would argue over them. You are capable of doing research on your own, by the way. Using your brain and the tools at hand to come to your own conclusions about things can be fun and beneficial, though it does require some work and some thought.
Why would you rely upon information provided by someone that you are so obviously inimical to anyways? Even if that information was well thought out, convincing, and based on infallible logic and research you wouldn't would you? Ohhhh. Sorry I forgot where I was posting for a minute.
If you care at all you could try looking up the words in a Hebrew dictionary yourself. This particular case is just that simple. Even a quick google search would reinforce and confirm what I wrote. If you don't want to try that hard there are current translations of the Bible that say just what I said. However, it seems from your attitude that you don't really care, you are just being antagonistic.
I have learned after many years of studying the Bible under scholars of the ancient languages that most people almost never want to do the depth of study necessary to understand what the ancient languages have to say. However, they will argue with you from a position of utter and completely contemptible ignorance until the proverbial cows come home. It doesn't matter if they are Christians or not, they take a lazy, unprepared mental attitude toward what they believe and then fight like Spartans to defend it. To me it doesn't make sense, but hey, it's a free country, right?
You make your comments from a personal perspective. Hosever, if you look at hhe idea of atheism from a historical context of atheistic run states your comment whould look like this:
Atheists will not allow the practice of religion and will kill you if you talk about religion too loud. Atheists will proclaim the atheist faith as the only faith. Atheists will always favor those who are antagonistic to religion and religious people, providing military support to supress those who are religious, regardless of the size of the religious population. An atheist believes that the life of other people has no value because there are no eternal consequences for what you do to them. If you can gain personal advantage throught the subjugation and decimation of other people, so be it. This applies doubly for anyone stupid enough to express personal choice in favor of religion.
The sword cuts both ways. You can shine the sun on yourself and spin like Rove all you want, but it dosent change the fact that the historical record for atheists in power is horrible. It is almost as bad as theistic run states. We just need to give it time though, as atheism as a state requirement is relatively new to the political landscape.
FYI, that whole "thou shall not kill" thing is the most misquoted of any line I have ever read or heard.
The words in Hebrew actually mean "You will not commit murder."
There is a big difference between "kill" and "murder" especially in the context of the Bible.
There are many forms of killing that are allowed in the Bible. For instance, capital punishemnt, when the proper rules of jurisprudence are followed, is not murder. Nor is killing during a military operation.
Self defence is always justifiable as well, in spite of what everyone thinks "turn the other cheek" is about. Another misunderstood Bible passage. Does it ever end?
"You do not Choose your sexual preference"
"I no more chose to be straight than a gay person chose to be gay"
Have you ever tried to see if you could like sex with someone of the same sex? I am serious about this.
You call yourself straight, yet if you haven't experimented with same sex partners you have absolutely no idea what you are missing. You might just like it. Furthermore, you say that you did not choose to be straight yet you live in a predominantly heterosexual community. Chances are that you didn't choose it, but you most likely learned it before you had a chance to choose. Thus, you have not had the experience and information to make a choice.
Even then, I still have a problem with the word "choose" in this context especially if you have not experienced homosexual sex at least a few times. How can you choose between two things like this without thorough experimentation? It is akin to saying "I enjoy skiing down the western side of the mountain the best" when you haven't even tried the 3 slopes on the other sides.
If you are like most people I know, you don't choose to be heterosexual, you just follow the pack. Staying in the herd prevents choice. You just mimic the people around you and say that it is what you really really want deep inside. Yet you never really know. You are too scared to admit that you have had homosexual thoughts and feelings. You repress that side of your sexual expression and repeat the mantra, "I'm straight, I'm straight, I'm straight" and then hope the dreams don't bother you too much when you wake up.
Don't worry though, the same goes for most gay people too.
Most sexual behavior is learned in my opinion. Where else would fetishism, BDSM, etc. come from and propagate from? People don't just spontaneously jump into gimp suits and latex to express themselves sexually. They see it first, and then they respond to it. If the experience is good they will probably repeat it.
I have many gay friends. Most of them report experiences with same sex partners at a young age as a seminal (no pun intended you perverts) factor in their "choice" for gay expression of their sexuality. Sure it's anecdotal, but I know ALOT of gay people!
Sexual response is a fantastic conditioning device. The reward centers are hardwired into the brain. If you experience gratifying same-sex sexual activities before your society has a chance to brainwash you into self torture about it you will most likely respond positively to that same stimulus in later life, social stigma or not. In this way many people learn to be homosexual. It works the same way for heterosexuals as well.
The sexually enlightened person will realize that sexuality is what you make of it. You can choose, but only if you have the information and experience to compare. As my friend of more than 15 years (who currently prefers sexual expression in homosexual format) says about gender and sexuality: "It's all ice-cream, just different flavors."
To which I add: "And who doesn't like ice-cream?"
This was recently brought up to me at my office.
In the position I occupy at my job my requirements and duties that I perform encompass the same job done by people with the benefits and title of manager in other divisions of my company. In addition we have to do things far above and beyond what our counterparts in other divisions do. Unfortunately, because of our small team size and budget constraints we are considered rank and file employees. No manager benefits, no manager pay, and no perks like managers get.
One of the mandatory company policies for people who do the job that we do is extensive training. Through a combination of other job experience, on the job training (fending for ourselves actually), and blind luck we have a team that can perform at an adequate level when compared to the other divisons. However, none of us have had any of the training that the other teams have had. Considering the lip service and culture importance our company puts on training this is irregular and even hypocritical.
Recently we had a meeting with our team leader and his boss, the division head. The division head lamented our performance in certain areas, while praising us in others. Immediately our team leader (who has not been properly trained yet either!) chimed in that we had not had the same training that the other teams have had and that it might improve our performance if we had it.
The division leader said something to the effect of "well you shouldn't use that as an excuse, nor should you say it too loudly. The company just might decide to replace all of you with people who have had the training."
Pragmatic as it seems to think this way I was taken aback and still feel upset about it. It just dosenn't taste right for some reason to me.
My recommendation is to be careful. If step 4 is this...
4) replace our whiny untrained employee with someone who has been properly trained and will work for less money.
Then step 5 withh look like this:
5a) PROFIT!!! (for the comapny!)
5b) UNEMPLOYMENT LINE!!!!!! (For you!)
Before this little meeting I thought I worked for decent people who had my and the companies best interestes in mind. Now I fully understand that they see me as a component in a larger machine; replacable, disposable, and not the leat bit worthy of investing any maintenace in.
I hope your company is better off as far as having respect for people who have made them tons of money like our team has. Please take the words to heart, they may be thinking just like my company is.
"If you don't, vote or leave"
"But don't, for a moment, think that any country allows the ultimate ideal in freedoms"
"Millions upon millions of people on this planet prefer the style of freedoms and restrictions granted by their government over Americas"
Many people do leave their countries. They overwhelmingly come to the US. They even come from countries that take pride in their ability to snub the US form of government and the people who live here. In addition they find many of their countrymen already here and doing quite well. The irony is almost unbearable for some.
The reason that they come here is the fact that we provide the best mix of economic, political, social, and religious freedom. Sure there are countries that have great freedom, however many of them have social or economic costs that are unbearable. Many nations that compare themselves with the US ignore the fact that they have a nearly homogenous culture and racial background, while the US has the most heterogenous mix in any country on the Earth. This makes for a soft landing when emigrating from another country, as you will most likely have a whole community of your birth-nation peers for support.
Yes millions and millions of people prefer their particular brand of opression, however about 1 million people recieve permanent resident staus in the US annually, and another 500K are estimated to arrive illegally. There is your other millions and millions, the ones that prefer the US form of opression over theuir own. And these are just the ones that can get away or that can afford to move. Add this to the concept that "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed" and you might see that the US would be even more heavily populated by emigrants were it not for this human propensity.
It is not that every country sucks but America, just that if you are going to leave the country of your birth, there is no place quite like America where you can go and find the same mix of personal freedom, ease of integration, social support, economic advancement, religious liberty, and political influence and stability.
I notice this quite a bit when watching sporting events on TV with friends and family.
What I mean by that is that any call that goes against the team that they are rooting for is almost universally in dispute by them or even completely refuted. Many times I can see where the referees have made the right call and it looks obvious to me. However, those around me still proclaim that it is a "bad" call, etc. even in the face of slow-mo replay with HDTV clarity.
I think the difference is that I just don't give a damn about sports in most cases, even if it is my home team. If you couple that with an over developed sense of fairness and respect for rules it makes for some interesting post game analysis when talking to devoted home team fans.
This is just sports though. I am sure that there are numerous other areas of life where I am susceptible to the same type of discriminatory viewpoint.
He's not kidding. I've seen the results.
Thus my nick.
If the increase in CO2 from current energy technologies causes an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans we might NEED to harvest energy from them at a tremendous rate to keep ourselves safe from huge storms, climate change, and rising waters.
I can see a government subsidy (ala American agriculture) for wind and ocean current farmers to "harvest" more energy than they need and then find a way to harmlessly dissipate it, just to try to keep up.
Of course this is just a flight of fancy. The energies we are talking about would probably require ever inch of coastland, undersea temperature gradient, and landmass to be covered with energy producing technology.
It could be done, i'm sure, but at the cost it would be cheaper to just let people die.
Seriously.
"Google" and "AJAX" are examples but for impact try things that may be not as recent but are much more important and recognizable. Maybe "DNA" or "LASER." Or how about "T-Cells" or "microprocessor." Or even better "transport layer" or "hyperthreading."
Language adapts to discribe concepts and new things. In fact, in many cases, technical skills (like the practic eof medicine, technology, engineering) are just the build up of categories of knowledge under the headings of jargon words. By this I mean that you spend hours and hours learning the meaning of a subject that can be summed up in one word. That way, when you say that word to someone with your same level of undestanding, neither of you have to go back and repeat the tens or hundreds of hours of subject material. This allows communication about great volumes of information with speed and efficiency.
The word "blogosphere" is just a simpler version of the same "jargonification" that develops in technical subjects.
Considering the high magnetic fields we create for scientific research into plasma containment and the fact that no gravitational anomolies have been detected from these it scares me a bit to think about the magnetic field that they would need to generate to supposedly make this thing work.
I can see it now...
One of the engineers mistakenly wears a belt with a ferrous buckle during a test. The belt destroys the engine, flying at it at near C speed, but the scientists realize that the engineer was sliced so fast and so cleanly that his abdomen and torso just cold-weld back together. After a week and a half of intense psychotherapy and drug treatment the engineer is back at work, however he will only wear clothes made from trash bags and duct tape. This then becomes THE party prank to pull on the new recruits.
Many of the socialites in the surrounding suburbs of the testing center are exposed to ridicule and mockery when those with imitation flatware are suddenly relieved of it. The testing lab becomes a large contributor to steel recycling mills in the area, thus subsidizing the experiments.
After numerous complaints the lab is moved to the moon. As the experiemntal engines are about to become flight worthy someone knocks a dial during a pre-flight test, sending the engines into full power mode. The dinosaur extinction event pales in comparison to the moon smacking into the Earth repeatedly, like a super bouncy ball attached to a ping-pong paddle with a rubber band. The remainng earth-moon-blob-thingy then accelerates tangentially to its former orbit, soon reaching near light speed. The Plutonians wave slowly as we exit the solar system destination: the heart of some pulsar at the edge of the universe.
Damn, I'm glad this idea is just as far fetched as my insane scenarios.
"Switching off the magnetic field would result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension." ...leaving the rest of the ship in some unknown dimension, racing around at super light speed, just biding its time until it smacks, with and insanely large amount of kinetic energy, into what passes for an other-dimensional planetoid.
This makes me think of just one thing...
Ya, I wanna ride on it!
"the white race is probably the worst and has the most shameful past.."
I see this opinion alot and it never fails to amuse me. I don't care if you are white, black, brown, or something in between. If you look at your ancestry you will find the same type of activities that you condemn the "white man" for.
Some of the worst atrocities imaginable were comitted by people of other races. Ever heard of the "Rape of NanKing"? About the same number of people were killed in Nanking as were killed by both the nuclear weapons that the US used in WW2. However dosen't even mention the atrocities (rape, dismemberment, torture, etc.) visited on those people before they were killed.
To this day there are places on earth where women are treated as property. They are mutilated as a social convention and controlled like livestock. However, none of these places are controlled by "white" people.
Slavery? It has been practiced all over the world at different times. It is still being practiced today as a matter of fact, just not in any "white" countries.
If you objectively look at history you will find that every race of people acts just like every other race of people at some time or another. No race is pure; no people are free from the stains of their previous generations iniquity.
However, rascist categorization, as you have done, is an expression of the same motivations that encouraged the most horrendous past examples of persecution. The fact that you cannot see it is the greatest irony.
Enjoy your self hate, misplaced as it may be. Just realize that you, as a white man, are alone in this mental fallacy. The other peoples of this world will gladly indulge you in this opinion, all the while plotting atrocities against you, the evil of which you think are only worthy of your own race.
Maybe you will feel they are as justified as they do the next time something attrocious happens to "white people."
"That said, they both made important - critical, even - contributions to world history."
I think FDR has gotten off light in view of the fact that he surrendered millions (if not billions considering subsequent generations) of people to a life of communist slavery at the Yalta conference.
Yes, it was a critical contribution to history, leading to such things as nuclear proliferation, the cold war, and communist agenda advancement on a global scale. Not to mention Stalin's (and his sucessors' and imitators') abysmal human rights violations.
Critical, yes. Decent or respectable, not at all. Abhorrent and inexcusable, definitely.
Thanks for clearing that up. I always assumed it was "Fut The Wuck."
And before you ask, no, it didn't make any sense to me at the time either.
Man I feel sory for you ishmalius. I think you may have pissed off somebody with mod points or something.
/.?
To think, a sarcastic comment that backhands lawyers gets modded as a troll. What is the world coming to?
THE IRONY!
I will tell you a little story to make you feel better.
I sold BMW automobiles at one time. I was negotiating with a criminal defense lawyer over a rather expensive 7 series. He requested a small favor in order to consumate the transaction, amounting to aroud $100. I assured him that we would take care of that. He looks at me, turns a bit surly and implies that I am lying to him about this. I reassure him. He then says the most astounding thing I have ever heard from a customer:
"Why should I believe you? You car salesmen don't have the best reputation, you know!"
This guy makes a living getting rapists, murders, and drug dealers back on the street and he had the audacity to impugn my character. I had to explain the pot and the kettle's coloring to him. The poor guy was serious! He couldnt figure out why I was chortling uncontrollably.
Anyways, it was funny at the time. My condolences on your harsh treatment from the mods and for your karma. Who knew we had so many lawyer lovers on
Let me break this down for you once again.
The Biblical idea that males were the head of the household, and also that only males were to be priests, was established in the Old Testament. It is explicitly implied in Genesis and is amplified with the Levitical priesthood and the responsibility of Abraham for his family. Just to remind you, Old Testament means books like Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. These books range in dates but you can consider that many of them were written around 500BC. Oral traditions are reported to begin around 2000BC by some historians as well.
HERE IS THE CRUCIAL PART: The passages you see in the New Testament that talk about women not being priests and men being the spiritual and authoritative head of household merely echo these sentiments that were first stated a couple of thousand years before.
To be fair, the Roman kingdom was probably started around 700BC; however if you study that era it was patriarchal in the extreme and wouldn't help your argument. The Roman Empire, generally stated to begin in 27BC, is more what you were referring to. It was definitely hundreds of years after the writing of the Old Testament and again, thousands of years after the inception of oral traditions and events that compose the Torah.
Your definition of Christianity as a "splinter religion" may be correct in your view, however the fact remains that other than the rituals of the Jews, the content of the beliefs of modern Christians are inclusive of Jewish beliefs. This means that things like the nature of who and what God is, the beginning of life, the historical figures, and, yes, even the authoritative structure and positions of males and females written about in the Old Testament are directly inherited by the Christian faith. We revere these teachings of the Old Testament in the same way we revere the red letters in the New. Therefore it stands to reason that if in the Old Testament there was a prohibition against women pastors for doctrinal reasons it will continue into the New Testament unless there is a dispensational reason for change.
It's almost as if you believe that Christianity is an independent entity and has no reference to the Old Testament. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact the very point of contention we are discussing is proof of the fact that Christian doctrine is consistent with Old Testament doctrine.
"Women are expected to honor and obey their husbands in all things, but it's a one way street"
So the passage where it says for men to love their wives as Christ loved the church is actually a misprint in every Bible on Earth? Seriously though, if you consistently take things out of context you can make the Bible say anything you want it to. Even things that is specifically does not say.
"If women are so great, why do they have to be subject to the will of men?"
The authority structure was established in the garden. Adam was given dominance in a mirroring of the authority structure in heaven. According to the Bible God the Father has the same characteristics, essence, and character as the other members of the trinity. You could have asked why Christ or the Holy Spirit subjects himself to the will of the Father when he is just as powerful as the Father.
"Also, let's not forget that Original Sin entered the human race through woman."
Romans 5:12: "Sin entered the world through Adam." If you cannot even understand this simple thing how can you feel competent enough to comment on the more complex things in the Bible? Eve was deceived. Adam sinned through volition. The Immaculate Conception was designed to make sure that the sin present in all MEN was not present in Christ. Paul wrote Romans by the way.
"Sexual promiscuity is banned because it is a tool of other religions"
Sexual promiscuity didn't start in Rome. In the Old Testament it was condemned as well. Interestingly enough the book Snow Crash refers these much more ancient practices an
"Right, but if you kill yourself, you're going to hell, right?"
Wrong. All sins were paid for by Christ on the Cross. Those who believe in Christ go to heaven regardless of thir method of death, self imposed or otherwise. Remember in your other post where you lamented how Christians just had to believe and they went to heaven? It still applied to Christians. As for everyone else, it dosent matter how much you sin. Your entrance into the lake of fire is determined at the judgement seat of Christ (Rev 20 if you want to look it up). Your good deeds are measured and compared to the good character of God. If you measure up you can get into heaven. Sin is not an issue, again, because Christ suffered and died for all mankind, not just those who believe.
"But, if you do something wrong here on earth, god will still forgive you so there is much less motivation than in an orthoprax religion to do good"
Your statement here would be true if we omitted about three quarters of the Bible. Unfortunately for your ill considered viewpoint, most of the Bible is the testament of people who chose to do the wrong things and had to pay the price for it during their lifetimes and sometimes even longer as their children inherited some of the backlash. The idea of forgiveness is definitely there, but I cant see how you miss the massive amount of content that concerns judgement and punishment for sin on Earth. The idea of Karma is not so far from the Christian idea.
What is discribed in the Bible is that when we engage in sinful or evil actions or modes of motivation and thought we engender punishment. This punishment can be for good or ill. It is like when we are chastised by our parents in childhood; God can attempt to correct us in the same way. What the Bible then says is that your attitude toward God and the sinful behavior will determine the outcome of the punishment. It can be punishment for cursing, in the case of the sinner who continues int eh wrong mode of behavior. It can also be punishment for blessing and correction for the believer who admits their mistake and repents (literal definition: change your mind) of that sin and returns to the correct mode of action.
Either way, your idea of the Christian believer getting off scott free for anything they want to do is at least simplistic and verges on being an intentional mischaracterization. In the case of the latter I would assume that you are either carrying a grudge or you are trying to convince yourself. Either way it makes you look kind of foolish when the evidence contrary to your opinion occupies the majority of the pages of the Bible.
"...shit instead of spending that money to improve people's lives"
1: its their money, they can shove it up their asses in fistfulls if they want and they shouldn't face condemnation from you, as you didn't contribute any. As long as the congregation gets to determine what they spent their money on that is fine.
2: Teaching the word of God is, in the minds of Christians, the best way to help them help themselves. If they have a large place to teach from that people want to go to all the better.
3: You have no idea what Churches spend their money on. My father is handicapped, bedridden even, and on a ventilator 24-7. One of these so called "big fancy" churches has paid his electrical bill every month for a year. "Not a big deal you'd say", I'm sure. But, because of all the ventilation, ac bills, air purifiers, etc. his electric bill is $700/month. Of course you don't see that. All you see is a big building and you mock and ridicule it. What I see is people who have that big guilding because they have the blessing of God himself because they DO contribute to the health of society in ways that go beyond even the money that you would so love to see spent in a "better" fashon.
"and it's the reason you treat people well whether it has a bearing on whether you go to heaven or not. "
As you mentioned before, Christians go to heaven because they believe in Christ and nothing else. This statement contradicts what you stated in your ealier post. Not trying ot be mean, just pointing out an inconsistency in your evalution of Christians motivation and behavior.
"before the bible was WRITTEN -- women were often the heads of Roman households"
The point is that when the Old testament was written there were no Romans yet and the idea as males as heads of the household and as priests was established then. The New testament merely echoes the sentiments when it writes about making men the head of the church and the household. Your stating that they had to change things is ridiculous when the Biblical doctrine on this subject was written hundreds of years before Rome existed.
"It wasn't until Christianity gained currency as a religion that they decided they didn't want women to be the head of a household"
Historically and factually incorrect. This is like saying that it wasn until Christians gained currency as a religion that they didnt want their congregation killing people for money. Again, the doctrine of male head of household, priesthood, even primogenicy was established by the Old Testament before Rome even existed. You cannot use a modern change in social structure to say that the past dosen't exist. It dosen't even make non-logical sense.
Furthermore, claiming that the reason for this is sexism merely proclaims your complete and utter misunderstanding of the Bible. Women are consistently declared to be better then men in almost every aspect in the Bible. They are revered for their characteristics. The idea of the greater individual being submitting themselves and serving a lesser being (for the right reasons mind you) is Biblical as well. For example, Christ washed people's feet. This does not mitigate the fact that there is a heierarchy that was established by divine fiat. It also does not mean that it was done for sexist reasons. You have to go a bit deeper than your unfounded accusation of sexism to get the real answer.
"from which some hypocrites can shout condemnation at others."
I wont argue that many people who classify themselves as Christians fall quite short of the ideal. I will also not argue that some will condemn others for what they see as evil, wrong, or contradictory to their best interests. I wont justify their actions either. The Bible is clear on how a Christian should act and the mental attitudes and motivations they should posess. That individials do not live up to perfection is expected. The Bible discribes two types of degeneracy. There is immoral degeneracy, the one that everyone identifies easily. This is drug use, sexual promiscuity, anti-establishment activity, etc. Then there is moral degeneracy. This is the one you likely encounter that turns you off to Christians in general. Some people become assured of their holiness and become self-righteous and legalistic. These are the people that unbelievers look at and say to themselves "if THAT is what it is to be a Christian I don't want any part of it!" The fact still remains that what the Bible says about how to interact with people is violated continually by people that call themselves Christians. You may call them hypocrites for doing this, however by condemning for not being perfect you hold yourself up to ridicule from others if you are not perfect yourself.
"You don't actually have to do anything, or live a certain way, to reach "god's kingdom"
This is a central part of the character of God as discribed in the Bible. Man cannot, under the power of the flesh, attain purity of character on par with God. God, in his purity, cannot associate with mankind. Therefore it was incumbent upon God, as the greater and capible party, to devise a way for makind to posess the attributes of God that would allow Him to have fellowship with Man. The mechanism that allowed this was Christ's substitutionary punishment and death on the Cross that atoned for the entirety of the sin debt of all mankind for all time. If the price was paid by Christ what else is necessary? The one thing required is faith in Christ; belief based on the merit of Christ Himself, not the rational or empirical gesticulations of the