"Religion, most often, merely attempts to maintain traditional beliefs and values"
I find that religion is the constant struggle to subjugate people into a methodology that makes them controllable by a religious authority on Earth. In this goal there is usually the perversion and misuse of certain texts considered religious by most. However, the inconsistency between the text and the application by religious leaders leads us to the realization that the traditional beliefs described in the book at hand are NOT being upheld. In place are another series of "traditional" values, beliefs and conventions that supplant those discribed in the text. In fact, usually these texts in question describe the same subversive situation within their covers and show it happening repeatedly throughout the narritive. There are also warnings to those who engage in this subversion to stop what they are doing and additional warnings to those who have been hoodwinked.
"Those who are "trying to find truth" usually get kicked out of the club"
Quite a discerning and insightful statment if you look at it through the framework of what I have just said. Quite true from my experience as well. Even those who are seeking to discern truth within the religious texts in question are shunned by the majority of the religious community if they reveal something at odds with the entrenched power structures' edicts.
,i>"Because you are polluting the air that I breathe, because it's people with your attitude who are impacting the climate I have to live in, and so forth"
Until you get completely off the electricty grid, never go anywhere in a car, and stop using consumer goods of any kind, take your smart assed high and might eco bullshit and stuff it. You, my arrogant and self righteous friend, are just as guilty as the rest of us.
YOU are polluting as well. Not as much maybe, but then again maybe you do in ways that are not as visible as an SUV.
If you have a car you are polluting as well. If you use electricity (obvious that your computer does at least) you are polluting the air and screwing the climate. If you use mass transit you are consuming resources that lead to pollution. If you buy food from a grocery store the packaging and transportation of that food causes pollution too. If you have anything made out of plastic, paper, or metal that you did not craft by your own hand in the back yard, then you are contributing to pollution and climate change.
Screaming down someone who wants to drive a SUV while you and the rest of the world continue to pollute is just plain moronic. You are creating a scapegoat to attack that makes you feel better about yourself, but that has little impact on anything else, least of all pollution.
Get used to it folks. If you like this consumer based society we have built with the cars and computers and electric lights and rapid transit and grocery stores and pharmacies all the rest of the shit we are all used to then you are going to be a polluting, environment destroying climate changer, just like the SUV driver.
Since I don't see people falling off of the electric grid in droves and shunning this modern lifestyle you had better buy some shorts and a few Hawiian shirts. It's gonna get alot hotter around here.
Not at that time. The Jews wanted Him to be the conqueror, the Lion, that was prophesied, but He came as the Lamb of God first which was also prophesied. As the Lion he will come and wage war against all the enemies of God the Jews and then rule the Earth with "a rod of Iron." The rod of iron signifies power and the ability to use it to crush His enemies and criminality.
In addition, there was no reason for Jesus to encourage warfare at the time of His first corporeal visit to Earth because there was already a war coming. One that would cause the Diaspora and that had been prophesied years before by Isaiah. There was work that needed to be done before that time arrived and war was not in the mission plans.
As the Lamb of God he came to secure the path of salvation for all mankind, a much harder and more important job.
The Jews desired that he wage the war He promised so much that they even cut out the parts of their national anthem that referred to his sacrifice when thay sang it to Him as He came in to Jerusalem. in essence they were trying to force him to destroy their enemies right then, in complete denial of the more important work of paying the price for all the sins of mankind.
It is interesting to note that the salvation of mankind was the strategic victory of God over Satan in the angelic warfare described in the Bible. So even that act of grace and mercy was part of a mission that is described in military terms. The original languages are pretty interesting in that they reveal usage of many military terms to describe spiritual phenomena.
Consider this: God, as he describes Himself and His character in the Bible cannot participate in, foster, or endure sinful or immoral behavior. Jesus does actually wage war, and, in some cases described in the New Testament prophesy about the Millennium (the time after the Lion has conquered the Earth), uses the death penalty for crimes.
One point to note. We can consider God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus interchangeable on the subject of their character. The reason I state this is that they are said to possess the same characteristics with regard to their holiness, integrity, righteousness, etc.
And, in that vein we also see that God ordered the complete destruction of entire tribes/races of people in the Old Testament through warfare. Applying hte same principles as before we would have to assume that, in the definition of sin and immorality given in the Bible, these actions were not sinful or immoral.
Therefore, we can assume that all implementations of war and capital punishment are not prohibited by the Bible, and that they are not sinful or immoral if done correctly.
It follows logically that there would need to be rules of jurisprudence that need to be followed before a fair and just conviction results in a sentence of death. And there are. In fact, our rules about hearsay come from the original Hebrew laws and customs. They are descried in detail in the Bible.
Similarly, the Bible describes that a warrior in battle should compose himself in a certain manner, having a certain mental attitude of professionalism, and obeying his authority system without fear of eternal repercussions.
In conclusion I will state that the Bible does not consider war to be an option of first choice. It acknowledges it as a repercussion of the failed and ineffectual policies of Satan, the current ruler of Earth. God however makes provision for mankind to endure it without punishment for killing during war as long as he follows certain principles. War can be immoral if waged for the wrong reasons.
The position of the Bible is clear. Saying "no" to a fact is silly. You may not like the answers, but then again I think you misunderstand them. The main reason that I think this is because you go on to talk about something entirely different.
The Bible is also clear on the subject that you go on to talk about, namely religious control of the state. For one nation it was mandated. The Jews had a special status in this. For others it is forbidden.
The Bible is completely transparent on this subject as well. In fact, the framers of the Constitution recognized the Bible's stance on this matter and wrote it into the Constitution to make sure that there was no religious control of the government and to make sure that the Government could not be used to abridge the freedom that people need to make up their own minds.
Government is described in the Bible as an institution designed primarily to provide a framework of freedom for people living under it. Interfering with the free will of the individual by legislating a specific morality/religion is completely wrong by Biblical standards. Christian activism in the political realm is also called evil and sinful in the Bible.
Furthermore, the "rule" that you quote as "You shall not kill" is definitely not written that way. What it says is "You shall not commit murder." Look up the words in a Torah and Hebrew dictionary. Killing and murder have different meanings in Hebrew and in the Bible as well. , not to mention English.
Killing is allowed,and in some cases, mandated as the proper response to certain situations that are described in the same chapter of the Bible that your so called "you shall not kill" command is located. You may think that the Bible is internally inconsistent because of your misunderstanding, however I can tell you that if you study the original languages you might discover that the stance of the Bible on killing, murder, warfare, and capital punishment is the same throughout.
Therefore, you might want to reconsider what you think you know about the Bible with regard to this subject. Your position on religion and state control is supported by the Bible itself, while your ideas of what the Bible says about "killing" diverge a bit, the Bible being more complex than you give it credit for.
I think that you just invented energy laundering. Just a few more steps to make it untraceable and you can sell it to the enviro-mafia for a huge profit!
If you consider "half-ass" someone who studies the Bible from the original languages and also studies systematic theology, then yes, I am a "half-ass" Christian.
If not then you might want to consider that the internet is not the end-all be-all of truth and enlightenment when it comes to thousands of years old texts that were originally written in a number of ancient languages. Furthermore, you might consider that the English might just be a little bit difficult to parse correctly without some background in the original languages, and that it might just be a bit easy to take out of context, especially when it is full of transliterations instead of translations.
As for the link you made, the person writing it has 2 problems:
1: He does not understand what he is talking about because he does not understand what he is reading.
He takes english words and uses them to support his untenable position, not using the original scriptures and their translation. He uses scriptures that deal with entirely differnt subject matter to refute a position that they do not talk about.
How can one tell you ask? The original languages use certain words for certain subjects that convey more meaning (and more specific meaning) than the words translated into English. It is pretty simple when you use the same standards that Bible scholars used all over the world for centuries. I guess that is too much trouble for some people though.
2: He has an agenda that is based on false doctrine.
To put it bluntly, he thinks that conception is the age of accountability. Unfortunately for him and his moronic opinion, the Bible states that the fetus does not recieve an eternal soul until the moment of BIRTH. In other words, this person thinks that a ball of biological tissue, without the ONE thing that makes a human a human and seperates him from all of other creations, is accountable to God and that God will throw it in to hell without giving it a chance to know Christ.
In other words, this guy, like you, has no idea about what the Bible says on this subject. You seem content to look at one side of the picture as long as it is agreeable to you. However, I can say from personal experience that the truth of what the Bible states is not always agreeable.
Those who study the Bible intensely will constantly find things to disagree with. If they choose to support their own position with mistranslations and taking things out of context, well that just reveals what they value more...themselves and their own opinion.
Those who meet with doctrine that is undeniable and adjust themselves to it out of faith and understanding are the people that I commend and respect.
Unfortunately for the person who is antagonistic to the Bible and Christians the price of entry into the knowledge of the Bible is quite high. Learning Greek , Hebrew, and Aramaic is not too short of a goal. However, it is infinitely easier to take potshots at something that you do not understand intimately than to learn it yourself. Especially when that price of entry is probably more than 300 hours of learning to get the basics down.
Because of this most people who try to attack the Bible and impugn the character of the God described therein sound like blithering idiots because they have no idea what they are attacking. The weak points that they try to seek out and expose are nothing more than the collection of misunderstandings of the uninformed. Fortunately for these people they have the majority of vocal/public pastors and their rank and file church members to help them with their collection.
As for you stating that children should be killed to keep them from being "corrupted," this is just plain silly. There are many interlocking doctrinal subjects that refute this idea, not the least of which is that murder is sinful.
Stating this makes me wonder just how ingenuous you are being in your comments. You are either a high operating moron, have absolutely no idea about what is in the Bible, or are deliberately trying to provoke people out of a mental attitude of maliciousness and possibly even hatred.
I am taking door number three. Maybe you really want to talk about why you hate Christians so much?
Actually what is more accurate is to say that the spiritual death that was the result of eating the fruit caused the ultimate physical death.
God literally said if you eat of the fruit "dying you shall die." This referred to the spiritual side of mankind that would be killed by the volition of man who disobeyed God. The resultant physical death is as natural as the water flowing out when you the plug out of a bathtub full of water.
In other words, God warned Adam and Esha about cause and effect related to an irrevocable course of action. Kind of like, "if you touch the red hot glowing coals over there in the fire you will get burned."
There was a penalty assessed for the transgression, but it had nothing to do with death. Read it yourself if you don't believe me.
"Unborn children burn screaming in hell for all eternity..."
This statement shows that you know absolutely nothing on the subject of hamartiology and Cristology. The Bible is clear on this. The age of accountability must be reached before someone has the possibility of going to hell.
The really funny part is that this is a trick answer! It completely refutes your point, however it is not the point in question. The real point in question is this: When does a human body get a soul?
Is it created by people? Can humans create life? Do we create the soul through procreation?
The Bible is clear on this subject as well. The answer is something I find quite humorous (and a bit sad) when I watch all the pseudo-Christians trying to legislate morality and use the systems of the world to control people in direct contradiction to the writings of the Bible.
Of course you probably would not be interested in the answer. You already made up your mind about this subject without reading the Bible in the first place.
I understand what you are saying. However I think that for a Christian to expect that the public school system to avoid discussing, and yes even promoting, a secular (albiet possibly mythical) explanation for the origin of life is unreasonable.
As a Bible doctrine teaches that Satan is the ruler of the world we live in. He controls the world through systems that seek to prevent or circumvent human dependence and understanding of God. The school system's fostering of these ideas is, therefore, expected.
Sure, it is a double standard. Most people do not see it that way though. and it is to be expected by Christians. What does the Bible say on matters like this?
Try this on for size. God is omniscient and made provision before the world was created for every person in the world that ever lived or will live to have access to the knowledge that leads to salvation.
Trying to fight the sysytem of the world is not what we, as Christians, are supposed to do.
Not that anyone with half a brain needs to hear this, but...
WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN DOING SINCE THE LATE 70'S???
Ok, so it has been over 30 years since these extremists that they are just now denouncing started their campaign of trageted hate crimes.
I guess when people you are closely related to are comitting racially and religiously motivated hate crimes you need to be patient about these things and really really go super-duper-flooper slow in deciding whether or not we think it is a good thing to seek out and kill babies and pregnant mothers and railway commuters or whether or not it is ok to let the infidel pigs continue to soil the world with their presence./BitterSarcasm
Seriously, can you honestly believe the sincerity level is there when it has taken this long for them to say anything of the kind.
This is notwithstanding the dubious language of the document.
For those that understand the Bible it is unnecessary to speak out about someone shooting an abortion doctor or someone killing a gay person. It is so obviously wrong to someone who understands the Bible in the most rudimentary way that it is patronizing to talk about it at length.
However, since there are many young Christians who are uninformed it is sometimes necessary to point this out.
As for war, again this knowledge is so basic to someone who understands the Bible that it is unnecessary to go over it repeatedly in church. However, since you do not know the Bible's stance on war I will go over it with you.
War, in and of itself, is not evil. Without the ability to make war no nation would exist for long, and the populace would be the chattel of other nations. The system of authority in a nation is also discussed in the Bible with respect to military service. A Christian fighting for his country can kill the enemy without fear of eternal repercussions or Earthly punnishment.
"that killers go to hell?
This is a basic misunderstanding of the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that doing sinful things will get you thrown into the proverbial lake of fire. In fact, what it says specifically is that those who believe in Christ have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. Then, when they are judged, the righteousness of Christ is the basis on which they are judged. Unbelievers are judged on the basis of their good deeds during their time on Earth, not their sins. If their good deeds come to the level of perfect God then they are allowed into heaven. You see, according to the Bible, Christ died on the cross as a substitute for ALL of mankind. Not just the saved. His sacrifice paid the debt owed for all sinful human behavior contained withint the human epoch. Therefore, sins do not earn one entrance into the lake of fire, but not measuring up to the perfection of God does.
As for doing evil in God's name, this has been, is , and will continue to occur. The Bible puts this down under the subject of Religion. Religion is also described as a creation of Satan. Religion is the attempt by mankind to make himself acceptable to God through actions, words, and deeds. If you think about it, you might be able to see how people think that helping God is their role and that if they are working in the name of God that they are allowed to so things that they normally would not do (killing abortion doctors, blowing up busses, etc). Considering the problems that this attitide can create, it is no wonder that the Bible also defines religion as a creation of Satan.
Christianity is a bit differnt though. The spiritual relationship that Christianity describes is one where mankind is completely powerless through actions, words, and deeds to make himself acceptable to God. In the Christianity described in the Bible, God does all the work necessary for mankind to achieve eternal salvation. All mankind has to do is recognize what God has done to receive the benefits. This recognition is called faith, though some prefer to call it a non-meritorious system of perception. The interchange required to achieve salvation as described in the Bible, if understood, helps improve the humility of the believer and eliminates circumstances where someone feels that they have to go out and do certian deeds to get into heaven.
As for tacit and passive approval, I would bet my last dollar that there are some churches that do approve of the abortion doctors getting killed or gays being murdered or that preach peace at all costs and allow "contientious objectors."
However, this does not mean that the Bible itself is silent on matters like this. As I stated before it is quite specific about this subject matter. However, people, as you so rightly point out, do evil in the name of God continually.
"Admittedly, the old testament specifically forbids killing
This statement shows one thing. Namely that you do not have the basic knowledge to speak about the Bible on this subject.
I am sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is quite simply true. The commandment that you are referring to says that MURDER, not killing is wrong. Grab a Hebrew Bible and a Hebrew dictionary sometime. Find the passage, match the letters, and read what it says specifically.
Killing in warfare is not wrong according to the Bible. Killing as punnishment for certain crimes (murder, rape, some others) is acceptable.
There is actually a firmly defined ethos for the taking of life in the Bible. Unfortunately hearing or reading one (mistranslated or misunderstood) line of one passage in one chapter is not gonna cut it. If you really want to understand it you might want to read a bit deeper.
As for Jesus, the fulfilling of the law brought many changes. However, even He told his Disciples to carry swords for protection from bandits and such.
"than a widespread public schooling in Christianity or other major religion
I have studied the Bible intensely from the original languages. The things I have read and understand to be the truth of the Bible diverge from mainstream Christianity on many fronts, including some that would seem blasphemous to some Christians. I view some other Christians in the same light because of their actions.
In a school system run by the state, educational cirriculum is determined by comittee or by fiat. Neither of these roads will lead to something that will satisfy my "psychological need for religion" or the standards that I require when teaching my children about the Bible. Most churches do not even come close as they do not teach from the original languages. How could a secular school even come close?
If you want to teach your child about religion that is fine. Just do not teach my child about religion in school. That is my job as a parent, not anyone else's and especially not the states.
As for secular explanations for the origin of life: who cares. People who want to know more, who seek knowledge at its roots, will learn and come to their own conclusions, secular or religious. That is part of the wonder and magesty of free will.
If you are a Christian (unclear from your post but I think you might be) then you must realize that accoring to the Bible the world is controlled by Satan. Of course the Bible will be ridiculed. You also need to read the part about predestination, the Grace of God, and his provision for all mankind in the realm of the Gospel.
If you think, as a Christian, that by changing what a school teaches you will help God, you are mistaken. God dosen't need your help.
That is my biggest problem with Christian activists. They do no understand what the Bible, which they supposedly hold in such high regard, says at the most basic level. They hold themselves, and what THEY think is good, in higher regard than what the Bible says. Hipocrisy in action. It is nothing new though. The Bible tells a little story, about three quarters of the way through, about a guy named Jesus who was executed at the request of the religious activists of his time.
Matters of faith definitely do not need to be taught in science class.
I am a Christian with specific beliefs about the Bible based on study of the scriptures from the original languages as found in the oldest/most accurate possible manuscripts.
The things I believe and have read in the Bible are not accurately represented by the ID/creationist crowd.
I venture to say that just about every Christian denomination has a slightly different take on the whole Creationist idea. Even within each denomination there is variance.
Allowing someone in the public school system to teach my childern about non-secular matters is ludicrous. I have a church to learn all about God, from people who actually believe what they are teaching and have a reason to investigate it and understand it.
I could not hold these "Christians" that would allow the public school system to teach their childern a bastardized and generic form of their theology in lower regard. They would sacrifice the truth of what they believe (the variances in creationism's proponents beliefs) in order to have some sort of political advantage. In my opinion they are taking their faith and using it as a blunt instrument to beat the "unbelievers" with all the while neglecting the spiritual education of their own children.
Creationism and ID do have a place in the classroom, but it is in philosophy class. If Christian activists want to make a difference maybe they could use their considerable political clout (which they seem all too eager to use and abuse) to get philosophy classes introduced in earlier class levels. As it is most people have to wait until college to be able to take it as an elective.
Considering the benefits of the critical thinking skills developed when studying philosophy I would think that any self respecting Christian would love this to be available to their children.
Then again a self repsecting Christian stays out of politics, teaches their children about theology themselves, and realizes that privacy is important in spiritual matters.
"Get rid of Bush. Get rid of the Republicans. Get rid of the Democrats. Find some politicians that don't have their tongues 2 metres up big business' arse. And for all our sakes, get rid of that devastating foreign policy. You are the champions of democracy. Show the world how it's done."
BINGO! We have a winner!
Unfortunately the people of the USA are too busy listening to the ridiculous rhetoric of the political parties and reacting with their finely honed third-grade emotional responses to the political tricks of the parties that they can't see that it is almost too late to avert the coming disaster. I refer to a disaster from within mind you, not from outside.
Even if there is a radical change in the foreign policy there is still that outstanding balance of "2 million adults and 2 million innocent childern" that have to be killed before Al Queda will leave us alone. And any attempt to defend ourselves will just add to the count.
Personally I think that the USA is riding the ragged edge of destruction, just like all the old decadent empires we read about. The softness and softheadedness of our people is evident mentally, politically, and militarily. Because of this we will keep falling down the political parties slippery slope of destruction, acquiescing to the least ridiculous (yet still completely senseless) of their proposals while the ideas with sense, motivated by constructive ideas, rather than businesses and the 1% special interest groups, get swept under the rug.
And give the government license to hold people indefinitely? NO WAY!
Look at what they are doing now. Imagine what would happen if they didn't have the pesky 6th ammendment to deal with.
It is bad enough what they do in cases where they feel threatened (this one/Mitnick) and apparently don't know what to do about it. They are currently stretching the boundaries (maybe breaking depending on your opinion) of the law. Revising it could lead to Really Bad Things.
I feel that there is only a certain amount of time that can elapse before the media picks this story up and starts to prance it about. Hopefully they will shed some public light on it and that spotlight will encourage discussion and maybe a solution by greater and more magnanimous minds than mine.
Most likely what will happen is that it will be used as a bludgeon to attack the current administration, eroding confidence in the fight against terrorism and generating dissent. Once the public fervor has been whipped up sufficiently he will get dropped in the wastebin of used political tools and left to rot, most likely. No one will be the better for it and an opportunity to resolve a serious Constitutional dilema will go by the wayside.
I completely agree with you ideas here. The questions you pose need to be asked and asked LOUDLY.
Unfortunately, there are a couple of mitigating circumstances that definitely do not excuse this behavior under the constitution's frame of law, but which might be "necessary" to the government.
Consider:
1) Revealing all the evidence necessary for a conviction could also reveal the existence and identity of individuals that are currently involved in covert investigations of terrorists.
2) Not only the individuals, but the methods and tactics of these investigators might have to be revealed due to full disclosure and public record laws.
3) If the defense attorney is privy to these details, so is the accused, and by proxy so are the terrorists they supposedly work with. This is tantamount to free intelligence that they could gain through almost no other means. Information of this nature, if disclosed through spying, could get someone convicted of treason. What a shame it would be to do this through attempting tounish a terrorist.
4) Holding a secret trail to prevent disclosure of sensitive information is implausible. First because it violates our judicial system at a fundamental level. Second because it is not reasonable to expect the information to be contained and kept secret with the sheer numbers of psople needed to conduct a trial Third, because the person you want to keep the information from, namely the terrorist himself (the accused) and his attorney, will be present throughout.
5) If you hold a public trial and you attempt to release only limited infomation in order to keep the secrets you need to keep you may not be able to ensure a conviction. Double jeapordy then applies.
I am of the opinion that the government is holding him in order to let some of the information that they have on him "cool" a bit and become dated. This way they can release the damning evidence and maybe pull the people that need to testify out of the field first.
The only problem with that is that if someone is acting as a covert investigator they will be a permanent target for terrorists, retaliators, and sympathizers once their identity is revealed through testifying.
I hope this case is resolved quickly and that the motives of the government are of the highest caliber. It is always a shame when, in an attempt to fight and prevent diabolical acts, the supposed instrument of justice inflicts evil of its own kind. There always seem to be innocents that get caught in that web along with the guilty. Hopefully this is not the case and we will see sufficient evidence to justify this guy's incarceration and ultimate penalty.
"Cisco, for its own reasons, didn't intend to distribute a fix before long (next year!). Too major a flaw? Publicity? Too much work already? Internal politics?"
The two most important words, and the reason for not putting this info out there?
STOCK PRICE.
Greedy damn bastards don't give a rat's ass about their customers. The share holders are the people that the company is providing the customer service and security enchancements to. They have completely forgotten who keeps them in business.
It used to be that companies made decisions to keep their customers happy and to make sure that they had a competetive edge to stay in the customer's financial field of view. These days companies make decisions that screw their customers to inflate stockholder's portfolios and then sue anyone who contradicts the marketing department's ultra-spin.
It really is quite simple. He accidentally harvested his own email address and, in a fit of rage and frustration at the massive amount of spam he had to deal with, beat himself to death his own keyboard.
Replying to an AC! What would my preacher think? Har har har!
Anyways, I prefaced the second half of my post with "As an aside" meaning that it had little or no connection to the post above it. So I did not ignore the parent, you see. I was speaking about something else entirely, without reference to the above poster, at all, in this case, as it was an aside you see, and not a direct rebuttal or reference to the above poster.
I am not stating anywhere that Christianity is without dogma. All I am pointing out is that NOWHERE in the Bible is blind acceptance mandated or encouraged. Quite the contrary actually, as the really awkward questions have the greatest teaching value.
Your last sentence sums up nicely what I was trying to express with the second half of my post. Thank you. I was not pointing out that people should necessarily believe, only that denying the possibility of the existence of God is rooted in faith and is not "scientific" at all.
In other words, shut up, sit down and stop asking awkward questions
Actually, the "religion" that I subscribe to is Christianity and it says nothing of the sort. In fact, those who question and think for themselves are held in high regard by the central figures of the Bible.
Unfortunately the truth interferes with your finely constructed straw man so please disregard this post.
As an aside, my favorite thing to watch is someone with a "scientific" mindset who does not believe in God point to something and say "LOOK, NO GOD!"
For all those who "know" that God does not exist, please show me the test that you have divised that tests for the presence of divinity and the results of your tests from all points in the universe.
Anyone without said test who completely denies the possible existence of God is falling prey to the exact same human weakness that creates the much maligned zealot.
"Religion starts from the standpoint that some things cannot be explained"
Actually, most religions start from the standpoint that unobservable phenomena control and are the reason for the observable phenomena in the universe.
As for explanations, most religions are ALL ABOUT explanation. They are just about describing the unobservable forces that result in the observable. They are about revealing the underpinnings of the universe and how it works, just from an intangible superstructure point of view, if you will.
The fact that you look at religion the way you do makes me think that you have never even given it a bit of thought, much less a critical examination. Before you describe something as universal and overarching of all human history like this it is a good idea to at least have a miniscule understanding of what it is. I am sorry if I sound a bit acidic, but this is really central to all religions and, in my opinion, fundamentally obvious. So obvious in fact that I have to either consider you a moron (which, based on your use of logic and good vocabulary you seem not to be at all!) or I have to consider your opening statement a dubious mischaracterization on the level of a straw man. Hopefully it is the result of a third option that I had not considered.
As for this... "The problem I have with the idea of "intelligent design" is that it breaks several important rules, not the least of which is the KISS principle."
If KISS were an overriding principle that has as much sway over the universe as you arbitrarily assign it then all the matter in the universe would have stayed in whatever format it was in before the big bang. Either that or the universe would be a big 'ol sphere of homogenous material. Needles to say, simplicity as a guiding principle would have resulted in a universe without the ability to generate life sustaining worlds, much less life itself. Do not take this as a defense of ID. Defending ID is like defending a square meter of water in the middle of a river at the bottom of a 40 foot ravine: impossible AND pointless. It is more of an examination of the method of attack.
And last but not least..."There is no process that could have created a creator"
Almost all religions postulate that the prime motivators in creation of the universe exist without having been created. As for the irreducible complexity idea, you have to remember that religions describe events, phenomena, and creatures that exist OUTSIDE of nature, existing before its creation. Therefore the things that you observe IN nature are derivative of these creatures and forces, but they do not describe the realm or the inhabitants of the unobservable universe. It is natural as an inhabitant of this universe to use what you see in nature to critically evaluate what you read (or do not read but assume is said) in a religious text. However, this leads to a situation where, when you try to reciprocate by reading the text and applying it to the universe, the only guiding principle is personal preference for belief, or faith if you will.
Some choose to believe, and some do not. Some try to use the universe at hand to describe why God/religion is undeniable. A fruitless task if you ask me, for the reasons I described earlier. Some try to debunk the faithful in the same way with similar results. The two ideas are rather like the magazines that you read while waiting for the doctor to come and tell you if you are going to live or not. They have no relevance to the really important issues, but they pass the time until you can find out for sure.
You profess your faith in your post. You consistently use the observable phenomena of nature to critique what you see as religion. Your reliance on what you see is evident from your writing. You appeal to probability, simplicity, elegance, logic, etc. as the prime factors in the creation of the universe. These things exist in the religious person's mind as well, however, they are relegated, ul
Slashdot Mirror
"Religion, most often, merely attempts to maintain traditional beliefs and values"
I find that religion is the constant struggle to subjugate people into a methodology that makes them controllable by a religious authority on Earth. In this goal there is usually the perversion and misuse of certain texts considered religious by most. However, the inconsistency between the text and the application by religious leaders leads us to the realization that the traditional beliefs described in the book at hand are NOT being upheld. In place are another series of "traditional" values, beliefs and conventions that supplant those discribed in the text. In fact, usually these texts in question describe the same subversive situation within their covers and show it happening repeatedly throughout the narritive. There are also warnings to those who engage in this subversion to stop what they are doing and additional warnings to those who have been hoodwinked.
"Those who are "trying to find truth" usually get kicked out of the club"
Quite a discerning and insightful statment if you look at it through the framework of what I have just said. Quite true from my experience as well. Even those who are seeking to discern truth within the religious texts in question are shunned by the majority of the religious community if they reveal something at odds with the entrenched power structures' edicts.
,i>"Because you are polluting the air that I breathe, because it's people with your attitude who are impacting the climate I have to live in, and so forth"
Until you get completely off the electricty grid, never go anywhere in a car, and stop using consumer goods of any kind, take your smart assed high and might eco bullshit and stuff it. You, my arrogant and self righteous friend, are just as guilty as the rest of us.
YOU are polluting as well. Not as much maybe, but then again maybe you do in ways that are not as visible as an SUV.
If you have a car you are polluting as well. If you use electricity (obvious that your computer does at least) you are polluting the air and screwing the climate. If you use mass transit you are consuming resources that lead to pollution. If you buy food from a grocery store the packaging and transportation of that food causes pollution too. If you have anything made out of plastic, paper, or metal that you did not craft by your own hand in the back yard, then you are contributing to pollution and climate change.
Screaming down someone who wants to drive a SUV while you and the rest of the world continue to pollute is just plain moronic. You are creating a scapegoat to attack that makes you feel better about yourself, but that has little impact on anything else, least of all pollution.
Get used to it folks. If you like this consumer based society we have built with the cars and computers and electric lights and rapid transit and grocery stores and pharmacies all the rest of the shit we are all used to then you are going to be a polluting, environment destroying climate changer, just like the SUV driver.
Since I don't see people falling off of the electric grid in droves and shunning this modern lifestyle you had better buy some shorts and a few Hawiian shirts. It's gonna get alot hotter around here.
DARN!
You took the brains right out of my mouth!
Signed,
Mr. Powerpoint watcher guy
Not at that time. The Jews wanted Him to be the conqueror, the Lion, that was prophesied, but He came as the Lamb of God first which was also prophesied. As the Lion he will come and wage war against all the enemies of God the Jews and then rule the Earth with "a rod of Iron." The rod of iron signifies power and the ability to use it to crush His enemies and criminality.
In addition, there was no reason for Jesus to encourage warfare at the time of His first corporeal visit to Earth because there was already a war coming. One that would cause the Diaspora and that had been prophesied years before by Isaiah. There was work that needed to be done before that time arrived and war was not in the mission plans.
As the Lamb of God he came to secure the path of salvation for all mankind, a much harder and more important job.
The Jews desired that he wage the war He promised so much that they even cut out the parts of their national anthem that referred to his sacrifice when thay sang it to Him as He came in to Jerusalem. in essence they were trying to force him to destroy their enemies right then, in complete denial of the more important work of paying the price for all the sins of mankind.
It is interesting to note that the salvation of mankind was the strategic victory of God over Satan in the angelic warfare described in the Bible. So even that act of grace and mercy was part of a mission that is described in military terms. The original languages are pretty interesting in that they reveal usage of many military terms to describe spiritual phenomena.
Consider this: God, as he describes Himself and His character in the Bible cannot participate in, foster, or endure sinful or immoral behavior. Jesus does actually wage war, and, in some cases described in the New Testament prophesy about the Millennium (the time after the Lion has conquered the Earth), uses the death penalty for crimes.
One point to note. We can consider God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus interchangeable on the subject of their character. The reason I state this is that they are said to possess the same characteristics with regard to their holiness, integrity, righteousness, etc.
And, in that vein we also see that God ordered the complete destruction of entire tribes/races of people in the Old Testament through warfare. Applying hte same principles as before we would have to assume that, in the definition of sin and immorality given in the Bible, these actions were not sinful or immoral.
Therefore, we can assume that all implementations of war and capital punishment are not prohibited by the Bible, and that they are not sinful or immoral if done correctly.
It follows logically that there would need to be rules of jurisprudence that need to be followed before a fair and just conviction results in a sentence of death. And there are. In fact, our rules about hearsay come from the original Hebrew laws and customs. They are descried in detail in the Bible.
Similarly, the Bible describes that a warrior in battle should compose himself in a certain manner, having a certain mental attitude of professionalism, and obeying his authority system without fear of eternal repercussions.
In conclusion I will state that the Bible does not consider war to be an option of first choice. It acknowledges it as a repercussion of the failed and ineffectual policies of Satan, the current ruler of Earth. God however makes provision for mankind to endure it without punishment for killing during war as long as he follows certain principles. War can be immoral if waged for the wrong reasons.
Your, "no" makes no sense.
,and in some cases, mandated as the proper response to certain situations that are described in the same chapter of the Bible that your so called "you shall not kill" command is located. You may think that the Bible is internally inconsistent because of your misunderstanding, however I can tell you that if you study the original languages you might discover that the stance of the Bible on killing, murder, warfare, and capital punishment is the same throughout.
The position of the Bible is clear. Saying "no" to a fact is silly. You may not like the answers, but then again I think you misunderstand them. The main reason that I think this is because you go on to talk about something entirely different.
The Bible is also clear on the subject that you go on to talk about, namely religious control of the state. For one nation it was mandated. The Jews had a special status in this. For others it is forbidden.
The Bible is completely transparent on this subject as well. In fact, the framers of the Constitution recognized the Bible's stance on this matter and wrote it into the Constitution to make sure that there was no religious control of the government and to make sure that the Government could not be used to abridge the freedom that people need to make up their own minds.
Government is described in the Bible as an institution designed primarily to provide a framework of freedom for people living under it. Interfering with the free will of the individual by legislating a specific morality/religion is completely wrong by Biblical standards. Christian activism in the political realm is also called evil and sinful in the Bible.
Furthermore, the "rule" that you quote as "You shall not kill" is definitely not written that way. What it says is "You shall not commit murder." Look up the words in a Torah and Hebrew dictionary. Killing and murder have different meanings in Hebrew and in the Bible as well. , not to mention English.
Killing is allowed
Therefore, you might want to reconsider what you think you know about the Bible with regard to this subject. Your position on religion and state control is supported by the Bible itself, while your ideas of what the Bible says about "killing" diverge a bit, the Bible being more complex than you give it credit for.
Hmmm...
...." "4) Profit!"
"I'm sure that my karma will suffer for this..."
"I for one welcome our new _______ overlords..."
"3)
"Microsoft sucks"
And now...
"Well well, we can tell who's a right winger"
Note to self...Add this to the karma whoring repertoire.
Great!
I think that you just invented energy laundering. Just a few more steps to make it untraceable and you can sell it to the enviro-mafia for a huge profit!
If you consider "half-ass" someone who studies the Bible from the original languages and also studies systematic theology, then yes, I am a "half-ass" Christian.
If not then you might want to consider that the internet is not the end-all be-all of truth and enlightenment when it comes to thousands of years old texts that were originally written in a number of ancient languages. Furthermore, you might consider that the English might just be a little bit difficult to parse correctly without some background in the original languages, and that it might just be a bit easy to take out of context, especially when it is full of transliterations instead of translations.
As for the link you made, the person writing it has 2 problems:
1: He does not understand what he is talking about because he does not understand what he is reading.
He takes english words and uses them to support his untenable position, not using the original scriptures and their translation. He uses scriptures that deal with entirely differnt subject matter to refute a position that they do not talk about.
How can one tell you ask? The original languages use certain words for certain subjects that convey more meaning (and more specific meaning) than the words translated into English. It is pretty simple when you use the same standards that Bible scholars used all over the world for centuries. I guess that is too much trouble for some people though.
2: He has an agenda that is based on false doctrine.
To put it bluntly, he thinks that conception is the age of accountability. Unfortunately for him and his moronic opinion, the Bible states that the fetus does not recieve an eternal soul until the moment of BIRTH. In other words, this person thinks that a ball of biological tissue, without the ONE thing that makes a human a human and seperates him from all of other creations, is accountable to God and that God will throw it in to hell without giving it a chance to know Christ.
In other words, this guy, like you, has no idea about what the Bible says on this subject. You seem content to look at one side of the picture as long as it is agreeable to you. However, I can say from personal experience that the truth of what the Bible states is not always agreeable.
Those who study the Bible intensely will constantly find things to disagree with. If they choose to support their own position with mistranslations and taking things out of context, well that just reveals what they value more...themselves and their own opinion.
Those who meet with doctrine that is undeniable and adjust themselves to it out of faith and understanding are the people that I commend and respect.
Unfortunately for the person who is antagonistic to the Bible and Christians the price of entry into the knowledge of the Bible is quite high. Learning Greek , Hebrew, and Aramaic is not too short of a goal. However, it is infinitely easier to take potshots at something that you do not understand intimately than to learn it yourself. Especially when that price of entry is probably more than 300 hours of learning to get the basics down.
Because of this most people who try to attack the Bible and impugn the character of the God described therein sound like blithering idiots because they have no idea what they are attacking. The weak points that they try to seek out and expose are nothing more than the collection of misunderstandings of the uninformed. Fortunately for these people they have the majority of vocal/public pastors and their rank and file church members to help them with their collection.
As for you stating that children should be killed to keep them from being "corrupted," this is just plain silly. There are many interlocking doctrinal subjects that refute this idea, not the least of which is that murder is sinful.
Stating this makes me wonder just how ingenuous you are being in your comments. You are either a high operating moron, have absolutely no idea about what is in the Bible, or are deliberately trying to provoke people out of a mental attitude of maliciousness and possibly even hatred.
I am taking door number three. Maybe you really want to talk about why you hate Christians so much?
Actually what is more accurate is to say that the spiritual death that was the result of eating the fruit caused the ultimate physical death.
God literally said if you eat of the fruit "dying you shall die." This referred to the spiritual side of mankind that would be killed by the volition of man who disobeyed God. The resultant physical death is as natural as the water flowing out when you the plug out of a bathtub full of water.
In other words, God warned Adam and Esha about cause and effect related to an irrevocable course of action. Kind of like, "if you touch the red hot glowing coals over there in the fire you will get burned."
There was a penalty assessed for the transgression, but it had nothing to do with death. Read it yourself if you don't believe me.
"Unborn children burn screaming in hell for all eternity..."
This statement shows that you know absolutely nothing on the subject of hamartiology and Cristology. The Bible is clear on this. The age of accountability must be reached before someone has the possibility of going to hell.
The really funny part is that this is a trick answer! It completely refutes your point, however it is not the point in question. The real point in question is this: When does a human body get a soul?
Is it created by people? Can humans create life? Do we create the soul through procreation?
The Bible is clear on this subject as well. The answer is something I find quite humorous (and a bit sad) when I watch all the pseudo-Christians trying to legislate morality and use the systems of the world to control people in direct contradiction to the writings of the Bible.
Of course you probably would not be interested in the answer. You already made up your mind about this subject without reading the Bible in the first place.
I understand what you are saying. However I think that for a Christian to expect that the public school system to avoid discussing, and yes even promoting, a secular (albiet possibly mythical) explanation for the origin of life is unreasonable.
As a Bible doctrine teaches that Satan is the ruler of the world we live in. He controls the world through systems that seek to prevent or circumvent human dependence and understanding of God. The school system's fostering of these ideas is, therefore, expected.
Sure, it is a double standard. Most people do not see it that way though. and it is to be expected by Christians. What does the Bible say on matters like this?
Try this on for size. God is omniscient and made provision before the world was created for every person in the world that ever lived or will live to have access to the knowledge that leads to salvation.
Trying to fight the sysytem of the world is not what we, as Christians, are supposed to do.
Not that anyone with half a brain needs to hear this, but...
/BitterSarcasm
WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN DOING SINCE THE LATE 70'S???
Ok, so it has been over 30 years since these extremists that they are just now denouncing started their campaign of trageted hate crimes.
I guess when people you are closely related to are comitting racially and religiously motivated hate crimes you need to be patient about these things and really really go super-duper-flooper slow in deciding whether or not we think it is a good thing to seek out and kill babies and pregnant mothers and railway commuters or whether or not it is ok to let the infidel pigs continue to soil the world with their presence.
Seriously, can you honestly believe the sincerity level is there when it has taken this long for them to say anything of the kind.
This is notwithstanding the dubious language of the document.
For those that understand the Bible it is unnecessary to speak out about someone shooting an abortion doctor or someone killing a gay person. It is so obviously wrong to someone who understands the Bible in the most rudimentary way that it is patronizing to talk about it at length.
However, since there are many young Christians who are uninformed it is sometimes necessary to point this out.
As for war, again this knowledge is so basic to someone who understands the Bible that it is unnecessary to go over it repeatedly in church. However, since you do not know the Bible's stance on war I will go over it with you.
War, in and of itself, is not evil. Without the ability to make war no nation would exist for long, and the populace would be the chattel of other nations. The system of authority in a nation is also discussed in the Bible with respect to military service. A Christian fighting for his country can kill the enemy without fear of eternal repercussions or Earthly punnishment.
"that killers go to hell?
This is a basic misunderstanding of the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that doing sinful things will get you thrown into the proverbial lake of fire. In fact, what it says specifically is that those who believe in Christ have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. Then, when they are judged, the righteousness of Christ is the basis on which they are judged. Unbelievers are judged on the basis of their good deeds during their time on Earth, not their sins. If their good deeds come to the level of perfect God then they are allowed into heaven. You see, according to the Bible, Christ died on the cross as a substitute for ALL of mankind. Not just the saved. His sacrifice paid the debt owed for all sinful human behavior contained withint the human epoch. Therefore, sins do not earn one entrance into the lake of fire, but not measuring up to the perfection of God does.
As for doing evil in God's name, this has been, is , and will continue to occur. The Bible puts this down under the subject of Religion. Religion is also described as a creation of Satan. Religion is the attempt by mankind to make himself acceptable to God through actions, words, and deeds. If you think about it, you might be able to see how people think that helping God is their role and that if they are working in the name of God that they are allowed to so things that they normally would not do (killing abortion doctors, blowing up busses, etc). Considering the problems that this attitide can create, it is no wonder that the Bible also defines religion as a creation of Satan.
Christianity is a bit differnt though. The spiritual relationship that Christianity describes is one where mankind is completely powerless through actions, words, and deeds to make himself acceptable to God. In the Christianity described in the Bible, God does all the work necessary for mankind to achieve eternal salvation. All mankind has to do is recognize what God has done to receive the benefits. This recognition is called faith, though some prefer to call it a non-meritorious system of perception. The interchange required to achieve salvation as described in the Bible, if understood, helps improve the humility of the believer and eliminates circumstances where someone feels that they have to go out and do certian deeds to get into heaven.
As for tacit and passive approval, I would bet my last dollar that there are some churches that do approve of the abortion doctors getting killed or gays being murdered or that preach peace at all costs and allow "contientious objectors."
However, this does not mean that the Bible itself is silent on matters like this. As I stated before it is quite specific about this subject matter. However, people, as you so rightly point out, do evil in the name of God continually.
"Admittedly, the old testament specifically forbids killing
This statement shows one thing. Namely that you do not have the basic knowledge to speak about the Bible on this subject.
I am sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is quite simply true. The commandment that you are referring to says that MURDER, not killing is wrong. Grab a Hebrew Bible and a Hebrew dictionary sometime. Find the passage, match the letters, and read what it says specifically.
Killing in warfare is not wrong according to the Bible. Killing as punnishment for certain crimes (murder, rape, some others) is acceptable.
There is actually a firmly defined ethos for the taking of life in the Bible. Unfortunately hearing or reading one (mistranslated or misunderstood) line of one passage in one chapter is not gonna cut it. If you really want to understand it you might want to read a bit deeper.
As for Jesus, the fulfilling of the law brought many changes. However, even He told his Disciples to carry swords for protection from bandits and such.
"than a widespread public schooling in Christianity or other major religion
I have studied the Bible intensely from the original languages. The things I have read and understand to be the truth of the Bible diverge from mainstream Christianity on many fronts, including some that would seem blasphemous to some Christians. I view some other Christians in the same light because of their actions.
In a school system run by the state, educational cirriculum is determined by comittee or by fiat. Neither of these roads will lead to something that will satisfy my "psychological need for religion" or the standards that I require when teaching my children about the Bible. Most churches do not even come close as they do not teach from the original languages. How could a secular school even come close?
If you want to teach your child about religion that is fine. Just do not teach my child about religion in school. That is my job as a parent, not anyone else's and especially not the states.
As for secular explanations for the origin of life: who cares. People who want to know more, who seek knowledge at its roots, will learn and come to their own conclusions, secular or religious. That is part of the wonder and magesty of free will.
If you are a Christian (unclear from your post but I think you might be) then you must realize that accoring to the Bible the world is controlled by Satan. Of course the Bible will be ridiculed. You also need to read the part about predestination, the Grace of God, and his provision for all mankind in the realm of the Gospel.
If you think, as a Christian, that by changing what a school teaches you will help God, you are mistaken. God dosen't need your help.
That is my biggest problem with Christian activists. They do no understand what the Bible, which they supposedly hold in such high regard, says at the most basic level. They hold themselves, and what THEY think is good, in higher regard than what the Bible says. Hipocrisy in action. It is nothing new though. The Bible tells a little story, about three quarters of the way through, about a guy named Jesus who was executed at the request of the religious activists of his time.
Matters of faith definitely do not need to be taught in science class.
I am a Christian with specific beliefs about the Bible based on study of the scriptures from the original languages as found in the oldest/most accurate possible manuscripts.
The things I believe and have read in the Bible are not accurately represented by the ID/creationist crowd.
I venture to say that just about every Christian denomination has a slightly different take on the whole Creationist idea. Even within each denomination there is variance.
Allowing someone in the public school system to teach my childern about non-secular matters is ludicrous. I have a church to learn all about God, from people who actually believe what they are teaching and have a reason to investigate it and understand it.
I could not hold these "Christians" that would allow the public school system to teach their childern a bastardized and generic form of their theology in lower regard. They would sacrifice the truth of what they believe (the variances in creationism's proponents beliefs) in order to have some sort of political advantage. In my opinion they are taking their faith and using it as a blunt instrument to beat the "unbelievers" with all the while neglecting the spiritual education of their own children.
Creationism and ID do have a place in the classroom, but it is in philosophy class. If Christian activists want to make a difference maybe they could use their considerable political clout (which they seem all too eager to use and abuse) to get philosophy classes introduced in earlier class levels. As it is most people have to wait until college to be able to take it as an elective.
Considering the benefits of the critical thinking skills developed when studying philosophy I would think that any self respecting Christian would love this to be available to their children.
Then again a self repsecting Christian stays out of politics, teaches their children about theology themselves, and realizes that privacy is important in spiritual matters.
"Get rid of Bush. Get rid of the Republicans. Get rid of the Democrats. Find some politicians that don't have their tongues 2 metres up big business' arse. And for all our sakes, get rid of that devastating foreign policy. You are the champions of democracy. Show the world how it's done."
BINGO! We have a winner!
Unfortunately the people of the USA are too busy listening to the ridiculous rhetoric of the political parties and reacting with their finely honed third-grade emotional responses to the political tricks of the parties that they can't see that it is almost too late to avert the coming disaster. I refer to a disaster from within mind you, not from outside.
Even if there is a radical change in the foreign policy there is still that outstanding balance of "2 million adults and 2 million innocent childern" that have to be killed before Al Queda will leave us alone. And any attempt to defend ourselves will just add to the count.
Personally I think that the USA is riding the ragged edge of destruction, just like all the old decadent empires we read about. The softness and softheadedness of our people is evident mentally, politically, and militarily. Because of this we will keep falling down the political parties slippery slope of destruction, acquiescing to the least ridiculous (yet still completely senseless) of their proposals while the ideas with sense, motivated by constructive ideas, rather than businesses and the 1% special interest groups, get swept under the rug.
And give the government license to hold people indefinitely? NO WAY!
Look at what they are doing now. Imagine what would happen if they didn't have the pesky 6th ammendment to deal with.
It is bad enough what they do in cases where they feel threatened (this one/Mitnick) and apparently don't know what to do about it. They are currently stretching the boundaries (maybe breaking depending on your opinion) of the law. Revising it could lead to Really Bad Things.
I feel that there is only a certain amount of time that can elapse before the media picks this story up and starts to prance it about. Hopefully they will shed some public light on it and that spotlight will encourage discussion and maybe a solution by greater and more magnanimous minds than mine.
Most likely what will happen is that it will be used as a bludgeon to attack the current administration, eroding confidence in the fight against terrorism and generating dissent. Once the public fervor has been whipped up sufficiently he will get dropped in the wastebin of used political tools and left to rot, most likely. No one will be the better for it and an opportunity to resolve a serious Constitutional dilema will go by the wayside.
I love this country!
I completely agree with you ideas here. The questions you pose need to be asked and asked LOUDLY.
Unfortunately, there are a couple of mitigating circumstances that definitely do not excuse this behavior under the constitution's frame of law, but which might be "necessary" to the government.
Consider:
1) Revealing all the evidence necessary for a conviction could also reveal the existence and identity of individuals that are currently involved in covert investigations of terrorists.
2) Not only the individuals, but the methods and tactics of these investigators might have to be revealed due to full disclosure and public record laws.
3) If the defense attorney is privy to these details, so is the accused, and by proxy so are the terrorists they supposedly work with. This is tantamount to free intelligence that they could gain through almost no other means. Information of this nature, if disclosed through spying, could get someone convicted of treason. What a shame it would be to do this through attempting tounish a terrorist.
4) Holding a secret trail to prevent disclosure of sensitive information is implausible. First because it violates our judicial system at a fundamental level. Second because it is not reasonable to expect the information to be contained and kept secret with the sheer numbers of psople needed to conduct a trial Third, because the person you want to keep the information from, namely the terrorist himself (the accused) and his attorney, will be present throughout.
5) If you hold a public trial and you attempt to release only limited infomation in order to keep the secrets you need to keep you may not be able to ensure a conviction. Double jeapordy then applies.
I am of the opinion that the government is holding him in order to let some of the information that they have on him "cool" a bit and become dated. This way they can release the damning evidence and maybe pull the people that need to testify out of the field first.
The only problem with that is that if someone is acting as a covert investigator they will be a permanent target for terrorists, retaliators, and sympathizers once their identity is revealed through testifying.
I hope this case is resolved quickly and that the motives of the government are of the highest caliber. It is always a shame when, in an attempt to fight and prevent diabolical acts, the supposed instrument of justice inflicts evil of its own kind. There always seem to be innocents that get caught in that web along with the guilty. Hopefully this is not the case and we will see sufficient evidence to justify this guy's incarceration and ultimate penalty.
"Cisco, for its own reasons, didn't intend to distribute a fix before long (next year!). Too major a flaw? Publicity? Too much work already? Internal politics?"
The two most important words, and the reason for not putting this info out there?
STOCK PRICE.
Greedy damn bastards don't give a rat's ass about their customers. The share holders are the people that the company is providing the customer service and security enchancements to. They have completely forgotten who keeps them in business.
It used to be that companies made decisions to keep their customers happy and to make sure that they had a competetive edge to stay in the customer's financial field of view. These days companies make decisions that screw their customers to inflate stockholder's portfolios and then sue anyone who contradicts the marketing department's ultra-spin.
Nice. Freaking nice.
Give them a break man.
There is a good reason for this.
GEEKS CAN'T SING!
The best we have to offer is William Hung for Christ's sake!
WILLIAM FREAKING HUNG!!
Do you really want more of that? Do you want to be responsible for the next William Hung? DO YA?!?!
Let 'em rap, says I. Just let 'em rap...
It really is quite simple. He accidentally harvested his own email address and, in a fit of rage and frustration at the massive amount of spam he had to deal with, beat himself to death his own keyboard.
Replying to an AC! What would my preacher think? Har har har!
Anyways, I prefaced the second half of my post with "As an aside" meaning that it had little or no connection to the post above it. So I did not ignore the parent, you see. I was speaking about something else entirely, without reference to the above poster, at all, in this case, as it was an aside you see, and not a direct rebuttal or reference to the above poster.
I am not stating anywhere that Christianity is without dogma. All I am pointing out is that NOWHERE in the Bible is blind acceptance mandated or encouraged. Quite the contrary actually, as the really awkward questions have the greatest teaching value.
Your last sentence sums up nicely what I was trying to express with the second half of my post. Thank you. I was not pointing out that people should necessarily believe, only that denying the possibility of the existence of God is rooted in faith and is not "scientific" at all.
In other words, shut up, sit down and stop asking awkward questions
Actually, the "religion" that I subscribe to is Christianity and it says nothing of the sort. In fact, those who question and think for themselves are held in high regard by the central figures of the Bible.
Unfortunately the truth interferes with your finely constructed straw man so please disregard this post.
As an aside, my favorite thing to watch is someone with a "scientific" mindset who does not believe in God point to something and say "LOOK, NO GOD!"
For all those who "know" that God does not exist, please show me the test that you have divised that tests for the presence of divinity and the results of your tests from all points in the universe.
Anyone without said test who completely denies the possible existence of God is falling prey to the exact same human weakness that creates the much maligned zealot.
"Religion starts from the standpoint that some things cannot be explained"
Actually, most religions start from the standpoint that unobservable phenomena control and are the reason for the observable phenomena in the universe.
As for explanations, most religions are ALL ABOUT explanation. They are just about describing the unobservable forces that result in the observable. They are about revealing the underpinnings of the universe and how it works, just from an intangible superstructure point of view, if you will.
The fact that you look at religion the way you do makes me think that you have never even given it a bit of thought, much less a critical examination. Before you describe something as universal and overarching of all human history like this it is a good idea to at least have a miniscule understanding of what it is. I am sorry if I sound a bit acidic, but this is really central to all religions and, in my opinion, fundamentally obvious. So obvious in fact that I have to either consider you a moron (which, based on your use of logic and good vocabulary you seem not to be at all!) or I have to consider your opening statement a dubious mischaracterization on the level of a straw man. Hopefully it is the result of a third option that I had not considered.
As for this...
"The problem I have with the idea of "intelligent design" is that it breaks several important rules, not the least of which is the KISS principle."
If KISS were an overriding principle that has as much sway over the universe as you arbitrarily assign it then all the matter in the universe would have stayed in whatever format it was in before the big bang. Either that or the universe would be a big 'ol sphere of homogenous material. Needles to say, simplicity as a guiding principle would have resulted in a universe without the ability to generate life sustaining worlds, much less life itself. Do not take this as a defense of ID. Defending ID is like defending a square meter of water in the middle of a river at the bottom of a 40 foot ravine: impossible AND pointless. It is more of an examination of the method of attack.
And last but not least..."There is no process that could have created a creator"
Almost all religions postulate that the prime motivators in creation of the universe exist without having been created. As for the irreducible complexity idea, you have to remember that religions describe events, phenomena, and creatures that exist OUTSIDE of nature, existing before its creation. Therefore the things that you observe IN nature are derivative of these creatures and forces, but they do not describe the realm or the inhabitants of the unobservable universe. It is natural as an inhabitant of this universe to use what you see in nature to critically evaluate what you read (or do not read but assume is said) in a religious text. However, this leads to a situation where, when you try to reciprocate by reading the text and applying it to the universe, the only guiding principle is personal preference for belief, or faith if you will.
Some choose to believe, and some do not. Some try to use the universe at hand to describe why God/religion is undeniable. A fruitless task if you ask me, for the reasons I described earlier. Some try to debunk the faithful in the same way with similar results. The two ideas are rather like the magazines that you read while waiting for the doctor to come and tell you if you are going to live or not. They have no relevance to the really important issues, but they pass the time until you can find out for sure.
You profess your faith in your post. You consistently use the observable phenomena of nature to critique what you see as religion. Your reliance on what you see is evident from your writing. You appeal to probability, simplicity, elegance, logic, etc. as the prime factors in the creation of the universe. These things exist in the religious person's mind as well, however, they are relegated, ul