Saying you know about Christianity and then providing links to the SAB is like saying "hey - I know quantum physics!" and then using a 10-year old's essay as source material.
That's where you claimed that the Osiris myth was a copy of the Jesus myth. Yet the Osiris myth predated the Jesus myth. Of course you'll disagree, with some semantics, or maybe just some more circular references where you cite today's bible to prove today's bible.
I didn't and I won't - still waiting for some circular references that I've used.
You don't even seem to understand that in fact Lincoln's existence, while it can be readily accepted, cannot be proven the way that your existence can be proven, but could be proven in a way that god's existence cannot be proven.
And this is a meaningful distinction how exactly? Especially when you're talking about a historical figure who claimed be God.
You've been doing this "for decades". Yet your defense is the most trivially dismissed
You can believe that if you like.
And I certainly cannot learn anything from more exposure to your kind of representations that pass for "scholarship", but ceased being convincing as such towards the late Middle Ages.
That's rich from someone who doesn't even know the basics about Jesus or Osiris or Horus. The scholarship I was referring to was modern stuff from people like William Ramsay who spent most of his life verifying that Luke was the most reliable historian who ever lived.
No, you're just bound up in your book in the typically circular reasoning of people of "faith" who aren't so good as people of "proof", even in recognizing the limits of proof.
If I've used circular reasoning, by all means point it out. Otherwise you're just using standard arguments based on your flawed conception of what faith is - without bothering to read what I've written.
You have no more ability to prove that Osiris did not rise from the dead than you can prove that Jesus did.
Well, Osiris's followers never claimed he did so that would be news to them - not to mention offensive.
Unless you call "proof" the words written in records that survive today as hearsay.
You mean like Abraham Lincoln? We have four biographies of him too - all hearsay - plus all sorts of evidence in history for his life and works.
But the point is that Osiris' story predates Jesus', as do so many others prefiguring bible stories.
Can you give examples that would hold water for more than 30 seconds? Sceptics have been trying for hundreds of years. They'll flock to your door/website/whatever if you can. You'll be famous.
If anyone was a copycat, it was whoever retold Osiris' story with Jesus' name edited in.
For someone so concerned with the fact of facts, you're remarkably loose with them. Osiris and Jesus have almost nothing in common with their lives, deaths, teachings, claims or followers. But again - I encourage you to take your findings to your nearest sceptic. They'll welcome you with open arms. Hard nosed scientists who take decades to dig up the Middle East for a living won't be interested, but hey - they're more interested in, er, facts.
You're not going to convince me you're an expert in ancient evidence when you evidently believe that Jesus' life predated the Osiris myth that was still popular in the Egypt that Jesus' parents reportedly lived in, though it was already old by then.
Where did I say that Jesus' life predated the Osiris myth? Oh I see - if something is older it must be truer? Well the coming of Jesus is hinted at several times right at the beginning of the biblical account if that's any consolation. And if you have any evidence of your laughable theory about Egypt and his parents, rush to the nearest sceptic with it.
Just because your documents talk about faith in a way that doesn't benefit from, say, logical positivism's universally accurate distinctions between science and metaphysics, doesn't mean that they're talking about experience in a way that contradicts me.
It's much much simpler than that. The early christians who were mainly simple tradesmen were convinced that their master rose bodily from the dead. Is there any evidence for this? Yes, a staggering amount of eyewitness accounts, mentions by other sources and archaeological findings. Did those early followers wander around the ANE discussing the fine distinctions between science and metaphysics?
Besides, I thought logical positivism had serious problems with some scientific statements, most of quantum mechanics for example.
See, this is how actual arguments about reality, not about authority, work.
Really? Your knowledge of the facts of the lives of Jesus and Osiris seems remarkably ill-informed so far.
Using your definition of factual knowledge and proof, I'd like you to prove to me that Abraham Lincoln was a real person. I accept that he was, because our ways of knowing facts require quite a great deal of acceptance of facts that could possibly be proven with enough technology (eg. I could have an extremely powerful telescope, and point it at a very shiny object 75 light years away, and actually see a tall US politician signing his name and making speeches, or never see him appear where Lincoln appeared, such as at the White House or Ford's Theatre), which makes his existence a matter of fact (however true or false)
I'm sure historians everywhere will be ecstatic at th
We're not playing word games. We're talking about the only way to know metaphysics.
You're the one playing word games. You claim:
* faith is precisely what we have when things cannot be proven * the bible's value is as something mythological that needs to be accepted blindly * accepting the bible by defending the evidence for its reliability is missing the point
But faith did not - and does not - mean that in the documents. It means the kind of hard nosed questioning and scepticism about evidence and eyewitness testimony that is constantly appealed to by the early christians. Sorry if it upends your preconceptions. Maybe you should study more.
The bible indeed has much in common with other myths, including various ones popular among early Christians but out of sight for the last 3/4 or more of their history, even if you're referring to just the New Testament. It's far from the only messiah myth, the only martyr myth. The Osiris cycle, well known throughout the region that first believed the Christian bible, is a blueprint for the mortal divine sacrificed to rise again and take the blessed followers along with him. The list goes on and on.
The bible incorporates no mythical elements and has no contents that could remotely be described as myth. Osiris was not sacrificed, did not rise again and did not take his blessed followers along with him. Maybe you should study more.
As for the long list of pagan copycat saviours, by all means post it so I can shred it.
So I don't know just what "evidence" and myths you've been studying the past decades, and how you've magically found "all the other evidence" from a couple millennia ago, but it doesn't really matter.
Amazingly, plenty of people were there at the time and some of them even wrote down what happened. Even more amazingly, those documents survive and all evidence we have points to them being both textually and historically reliable. Maybe you should study more.
You clearly are using some other way of knowing these things than proof.
What exactly would be proof to you? I study eyewitness testimony, accounts from both friendly and hostile sources, scientific fields like carbon dating and archaeology and make decisions based on the weight of evidence - the way a court of law works.
That's your faith, your business, but you're not going to fool me just by using the words with which we accurately describe factual knowledge.
Using your definition of factual knowledge, you wouldn't be able to prove to me that Abraham Lincoln was a real person.
Proving the bible's stories are true is also besides the point, if the point is faith. Because faith is precisely what we have when things cannot be proven, not just because they're too inconvenient to do so on a given night.
Nah - the koine Greek word for faith is pistis which means either forensic proof, assurance based on a track record or faithfulness. It does not mean some vague belief in unknowable nonsense which is why you find the authors of the new testament documents constantly exhorting their audience to use their eyes and ears and go check things out for themselves.
I'm just going to point out that the value of the bible, other than in some of its rules for humane behavior (certainly not all of them, like stoning so many people), is in its myths, as myths.
There are plenty of scholars of ancient literature who will be mightily impressed if you would share these textual discoveries with them. Or they might just laugh at you. Hint: the great myths and the Bible have precious little in common liguistically, stylistically or historically.
Because myths require faith. If its all proven, there's no faith left, just routine knowledge. And if you destroy faith with your defense of the bible, then you're entirely missing the point of god.
The God of the bible has revealed more than enough evidence for people who want to trust him. There is absolutely no chance Christianity would have survived if its founders had started making claims that were trivially falsifiable by the authorities of the day. That's incredibly powerful evidence for me (and I've studied it for decades as well as all the other evidence). So does that now mean I trusted the evidence by just cutting off my head and hoping for the best? I think not.
Clever reference by Heffernan
on
Goodbye Cruel Word
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Microsoft Word. Light of my mind, fire of my frustration. My sin, my soul. Mi-cro-soft-word. The mouth contorts with anti-poetry. My. Crow. Soft. Word.
This was a coffee-out-the-nose moment for me - it's a parody of the very first paragraph of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita.
the expanded role of Arwen Political correctness, merchandising.
To be fair to Peter Jackson, it is a flaw in the book: Arwen just pops up near the end almost from nowhere and marries Aragorn. I remember doing a double take when reading it the first time. There's no way that could have worked on film.
My guess is that this post is from a real Microsoft insider, probably someone in support or IT.
Arrogant? Check. Condescending? Check. Thinks "slashdotters" are some kind of homogeneous Microsoft-bashing species? Check. Thinks Google competes with Microsoft? Check. Gives out information which is absolutely no use to anyone? Check.
Hmmm, let me explain a bit more. No, a single rifle calibre round can not cause a full size aircraft to tear itself to pieces but single AA rounds can and do because they have much more energy. AAAD is a form of training where you're shooting at models using an ordinary machine gun to get the feel of full calibre full scale anti-aircraft work.
I can use smaller words or post pictures taken on Salisbury Plain if this is still unclear.
Maybe that's what they tell the grunts. Congratulations, you managed to shoot down large mock targets that weren't shooting back.
The Royal Artillery expected intelligence from their soldiers and treated them as such. It was carefully explained to us before the exercise that a scale model of a jet with a wingspan of a couple of feet travelling fast enough would provide an accurate representation of being buzzed by the real thing. We were shown film footage from the Falklands that confirmed this experience.
Think you can shoot down supersonic missile flying below the horizon? No. They let the computer guided robots do that. You're not nearly good enough at it. Ok, maybe you get lucky and nail it. Now try thirty in five seconds all coming from different bearings. Didn't think so.
Fair point but the GP was talking about aircraft which can be hit because they're ten times the size of a missile. I don't know enough about modern computer guided anti-missile weaponry to know whether their shoot down rates are worth the money and the risk of lugging around as an addition to a standard AAA battery.
Of course they are. In the AAAD (All Arms Air Defence) training I did in the Royal Artillery we regularly knocked down scale targets that were moving at equivalent speeds with ordinary GPMGs. It wasn't easy at first but after a few thousand rounds you definitely get the hang of it.
A few other points:
* The majority of low level flying targets are subsonic anyway * It just takes a single hit in the right place on the airframe for the target to tear itself to pieces * Having a computer fire a weapon is a very very bad thing, One of the principles that was drummed into us was a human must always pull the trigger. Always. Computers can aim for you, make the tracking easier, calculate the numbers, whatever - anything but actually fire the weapon. That should always be done by a person with the correct training and authorisation.
If this weapon fired by itself because of a software glitch, then it's poorly designed.
I've done some takedowns and it's getting tricky these days just from a time point of view. 80Gb drives are no longer the standard, it's now 160Gb and 250Gb. That means longer to do the pre-checksum, copy the image, and then the post-checksum. The adoption of SATA as a standard is helping but there will come a time when there aren't enough hours in the day to perform a bit-for-bit copy of a defendant's infrastructure.
To just copy 4 terabytes - no sha256 or anything like that - at 4 Gb/min (which seems to be the fastest possible speed offered by specialised forensic disk duplicators) will take over 4 hours. Add the time for the two checksums and we're talking eight hours minimum. What if the suspect has two 4 terabyte drives? You get two disk duplicators obviously:) but that approach will also fail at some point the more huge drives proliferate.
I really worry that forensics guys will get left behind because of the best practice requirements of taking a complete image.
Anyway, I'm off to add a much-needed patch to md5sum which displays the current progress as an optional switch. I hope.
No it's Pulp Fiction but there's an interesting connection between the two films: Peter Green who plays Zed in Pulp Fiction also plays Redfoot in the Usual Suspects and says the word "gimp". When McManus asks him what he's supposed to do with the coke found in the bag, Redfoot looks at Verbal and says "I don't know, feed it to the Gimp, ease his pain."
That was a small price to pay for a) allowing ordinary people to buy shares in the auction instead of just institutions and b) telling the inbred and sleazy Wall Street system to go take a flying leap.
Evidence of this would be greatly appreciated. I can't remember _ever_ seeing plaintext passwords in/etc/passwd or/etc/shadow in Linux and I've been using it since 1992 or so.
Entirely natural though when they're still fledglings. The discussions about DVD and DeCSS raged for a good while when it was being adopted but I don't see much discussion about either of them now.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying you know about Christianity and then providing links to the SAB is like saying "hey - I know quantum physics!" and then using a 10-year old's essay as source material.
Osiris was believed to die and be reborn as Horus. Look it up.
I have. Try here too.
That's where you claimed that the Osiris myth was a copy of the Jesus myth. Yet the Osiris myth predated the Jesus myth. Of course you'll disagree, with some semantics, or maybe just some more circular references where you cite today's bible to prove today's bible.
I didn't and I won't - still waiting for some circular references that I've used.
You don't even seem to understand that in fact Lincoln's existence, while it can be readily accepted, cannot be proven the way that your existence can be proven, but could be proven in a way that god's existence cannot be proven.
And this is a meaningful distinction how exactly? Especially when you're talking about a historical figure who claimed be God.
You've been doing this "for decades". Yet your defense is the most trivially dismissed
You can believe that if you like.
And I certainly cannot learn anything from more exposure to your kind of representations that pass for "scholarship", but ceased being convincing as such towards the late Middle Ages.
That's rich from someone who doesn't even know the basics about Jesus or Osiris or Horus. The scholarship I was referring to was modern stuff from people like William Ramsay who spent most of his life verifying that Luke was the most reliable historian who ever lived.
No, you're just bound up in your book in the typically circular reasoning of people of "faith" who aren't so good as people of "proof", even in recognizing the limits of proof.
If I've used circular reasoning, by all means point it out. Otherwise you're just using standard arguments based on your flawed conception of what faith is - without bothering to read what I've written.
You have no more ability to prove that Osiris did not rise from the dead than you can prove that Jesus did.
Well, Osiris's followers never claimed he did so that would be news to them - not to mention offensive.
Unless you call "proof" the words written in records that survive today as hearsay.
You mean like Abraham Lincoln? We have four biographies of him too - all hearsay - plus all sorts of evidence in history for his life and works.
But the point is that Osiris' story predates Jesus', as do so many others prefiguring bible stories.
Can you give examples that would hold water for more than 30 seconds? Sceptics have been trying for hundreds of years. They'll flock to your door/website/whatever if you can. You'll be famous.
If anyone was a copycat, it was whoever retold Osiris' story with Jesus' name edited in.
For someone so concerned with the fact of facts, you're remarkably loose with them. Osiris and Jesus have almost nothing in common with their lives, deaths, teachings, claims or followers. But again - I encourage you to take your findings to your nearest sceptic. They'll welcome you with open arms. Hard nosed scientists who take decades to dig up the Middle East for a living won't be interested, but hey - they're more interested in, er, facts.
You're not going to convince me you're an expert in ancient evidence when you evidently believe that Jesus' life predated the Osiris myth that was still popular in the Egypt that Jesus' parents reportedly lived in, though it was already old by then.
Where did I say that Jesus' life predated the Osiris myth? Oh I see - if something is older it must be truer? Well the coming of Jesus is hinted at several times right at the beginning of the biblical account if that's any consolation. And if you have any evidence of your laughable theory about Egypt and his parents, rush to the nearest sceptic with it.
Just because your documents talk about faith in a way that doesn't benefit from, say, logical positivism's universally accurate distinctions between science and metaphysics, doesn't mean that they're talking about experience in a way that contradicts me.
It's much much simpler than that. The early christians who were mainly simple tradesmen were convinced that their master rose bodily from the dead. Is there any evidence for this? Yes, a staggering amount of eyewitness accounts, mentions by other sources and archaeological findings. Did those early followers wander around the ANE discussing the fine distinctions between science and metaphysics?
Besides, I thought logical positivism had serious problems with some scientific statements, most of quantum mechanics for example.
See, this is how actual arguments about reality, not about authority, work.
Really? Your knowledge of the facts of the lives of Jesus and Osiris seems remarkably ill-informed so far.
Using your definition of factual knowledge and proof, I'd like you to prove to me that Abraham Lincoln was a real person. I accept that he was, because our ways of knowing facts require quite a great deal of acceptance of facts that could possibly be proven with enough technology (eg. I could have an extremely powerful telescope, and point it at a very shiny object 75 light years away, and actually see a tall US politician signing his name and making speeches, or never see him appear where Lincoln appeared, such as at the White House or Ford's Theatre), which makes his existence a matter of fact (however true or false)
I'm sure historians everywhere will be ecstatic at th
We're not playing word games. We're talking about the only way to know metaphysics.
You're the one playing word games. You claim:
* faith is precisely what we have when things cannot be proven
* the bible's value is as something mythological that needs to be accepted blindly
* accepting the bible by defending the evidence for its reliability is missing the point
But faith did not - and does not - mean that in the documents. It means the kind of hard nosed questioning and scepticism about evidence and eyewitness testimony that is constantly appealed to by the early christians. Sorry if it upends your preconceptions. Maybe you should study more.
The bible indeed has much in common with other myths, including various ones popular among early Christians but out of sight for the last 3/4 or more of their history, even if you're referring to just the New Testament. It's far from the only messiah myth, the only martyr myth. The Osiris cycle, well known throughout the region that first believed the Christian bible, is a blueprint for the mortal divine sacrificed to rise again and take the blessed followers along with him. The list goes on and on.
The bible incorporates no mythical elements and has no contents that could remotely be described as myth. Osiris was not sacrificed, did not rise again and did not take his blessed followers along with him. Maybe you should study more.
As for the long list of pagan copycat saviours, by all means post it so I can shred it.
So I don't know just what "evidence" and myths you've been studying the past decades, and how you've magically found "all the other evidence" from a couple millennia ago, but it doesn't really matter.
Amazingly, plenty of people were there at the time and some of them even wrote down what happened. Even more amazingly, those documents survive and all evidence we have points to them being both textually and historically reliable. Maybe you should study more.
You clearly are using some other way of knowing these things than proof.
What exactly would be proof to you? I study eyewitness testimony, accounts from both friendly and hostile sources, scientific fields like carbon dating and archaeology and make decisions based on the weight of evidence - the way a court of law works.
That's your faith, your business, but you're not going to fool me just by using the words with which we accurately describe factual knowledge.
Using your definition of factual knowledge, you wouldn't be able to prove to me that Abraham Lincoln was a real person.
Proving the bible's stories are true is also besides the point, if the point is faith. Because faith is precisely what we have when things cannot be proven, not just because they're too inconvenient to do so on a given night.
Nah - the koine Greek word for faith is pistis which means either forensic proof, assurance based on a track record or faithfulness. It does not mean some vague belief in unknowable nonsense which is why you find the authors of the new testament documents constantly exhorting their audience to use their eyes and ears and go check things out for themselves.
I'm just going to point out that the value of the bible, other than in some of its rules for humane behavior (certainly not all of them, like stoning so many people), is in its myths, as myths.
There are plenty of scholars of ancient literature who will be mightily impressed if you would share these textual discoveries with them. Or they might just laugh at you. Hint: the great myths and the Bible have precious little in common liguistically, stylistically or historically.
Because myths require faith. If its all proven, there's no faith left, just routine knowledge. And if you destroy faith with your defense of the bible, then you're entirely missing the point of god.
The God of the bible has revealed more than enough evidence for people who want to trust him. There is absolutely no chance Christianity would have survived if its founders had started making claims that were trivially falsifiable by the authorities of the day. That's incredibly powerful evidence for me (and I've studied it for decades as well as all the other evidence). So does that now mean I trusted the evidence by just cutting off my head and hoping for the best? I think not.
Microsoft Word. Light of my mind, fire of my frustration. My sin, my soul. Mi-cro-soft-word. The mouth contorts with anti-poetry. My. Crow. Soft. Word.
This was a coffee-out-the-nose moment for me - it's a parody of the very first paragraph of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita.
Have to agree with you - thanks for the rebuttal and the politeness of it :)
the expanded role of Arwen
Political correctness, merchandising.
To be fair to Peter Jackson, it is a flaw in the book: Arwen just pops up near the end almost from nowhere and marries Aragorn. I remember doing a double take when reading it the first time. There's no way that could have worked on film.
Technically it could've happened on Vista, but I haven't seen anything that said it did.
Well, that would require a group of people who have Vista installed.
In other words, if X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one...
My guess is that this post is from a real Microsoft insider, probably someone in support or IT.
Arrogant? Check.
Condescending? Check.
Thinks "slashdotters" are some kind of homogeneous Microsoft-bashing species? Check.
Thinks Google competes with Microsoft? Check.
Gives out information which is absolutely no use to anyone? Check.
It just has the ring of truth.
Hmmm, let me explain a bit more. No, a single rifle calibre round can not cause a full size aircraft to tear itself to pieces but single AA rounds can and do because they have much more energy. AAAD is a form of training where you're shooting at models using an ordinary machine gun to get the feel of full calibre full scale anti-aircraft work.
I can use smaller words or post pictures taken on Salisbury Plain if this is still unclear.
Maybe that's what they tell the grunts. Congratulations, you managed to shoot down large mock targets that weren't shooting back.
The Royal Artillery expected intelligence from their soldiers and treated them as such. It was carefully explained to us before the exercise that a scale model of a jet with a wingspan of a couple of feet travelling fast enough would provide an accurate representation of being buzzed by the real thing. We were shown film footage from the Falklands that confirmed this experience.
Think you can shoot down supersonic missile flying below the horizon? No. They let the computer guided robots do that. You're not nearly good enough at it. Ok, maybe you get lucky and nail it. Now try thirty in five seconds all coming from different bearings. Didn't think so.
Fair point but the GP was talking about aircraft which can be hit because they're ten times the size of a missile. I don't know enough about modern computer guided anti-missile weaponry to know whether their shoot down rates are worth the money and the risk of lugging around as an addition to a standard AAA battery.
Of course they are. In the AAAD (All Arms Air Defence) training I did in the Royal Artillery we regularly knocked down scale targets that were moving at equivalent speeds with ordinary GPMGs. It wasn't easy at first but after a few thousand rounds you definitely get the hang of it.
A few other points:
* The majority of low level flying targets are subsonic anyway
* It just takes a single hit in the right place on the airframe for the target to tear itself to pieces
* Having a computer fire a weapon is a very very bad thing, One of the principles that was drummed into us was a human must always pull the trigger. Always. Computers can aim for you, make the tracking easier, calculate the numbers, whatever - anything but actually fire the weapon. That should always be done by a person with the correct training and authorisation.
If this weapon fired by itself because of a software glitch, then it's poorly designed.
Even if you didn't like his editing, you cannot deny his contribution to Slashdot culture. Truly an American icon.
I've done some takedowns and it's getting tricky these days just from a time point of view. 80Gb drives are no longer the standard, it's now 160Gb and 250Gb. That means longer to do the pre-checksum, copy the image, and then the post-checksum. The adoption of SATA as a standard is helping but there will come a time when there aren't enough hours in the day to perform a bit-for-bit copy of a defendant's infrastructure.
:) but that approach will also fail at some point the more huge drives proliferate.
To just copy 4 terabytes - no sha256 or anything like that - at 4 Gb/min (which seems to be the fastest possible speed offered by specialised forensic disk duplicators) will take over 4 hours. Add the time for the two checksums and we're talking eight hours minimum. What if the suspect has two 4 terabyte drives? You get two disk duplicators obviously
I really worry that forensics guys will get left behind because of the best practice requirements of taking a complete image.
Anyway, I'm off to add a much-needed patch to md5sum which displays the current progress as an optional switch. I hope.
No it's Pulp Fiction but there's an interesting connection between the two films: Peter Green who plays Zed in Pulp Fiction also plays Redfoot in the Usual Suspects and says the word "gimp". When McManus asks him what he's supposed to do with the coke found in the bag, Redfoot looks at Verbal and says "I don't know, feed it to the Gimp, ease his pain."
Ah, the good old E6B. If you want a nice watch which has some - not nearly all - but some of its features check out this one at Think Geek.
Although a true mentat could never by definition visit MENTAT.COM...
That was a small price to pay for a) allowing ordinary people to buy shares in the auction instead of just institutions and b) telling the inbred and sleazy Wall Street system to go take a flying leap.
but was also at one time true for Linux.
/etc/passwd or /etc/shadow in Linux and I've been using it since 1992 or so.
Evidence of this would be greatly appreciated. I can't remember _ever_ seeing plaintext passwords in
Entirely natural though when they're still fledglings. The discussions about DVD and DeCSS raged for a good while when it was being adopted but I don't see much discussion about either of them now.
Replace "google" with "Microsoft" in the above post for surprising insight.
I weel not install this Vista CD, eet ees scratched...
Care to rebut this explanation?