When they are killing children for stealing lollipops, and the children start shooting back, the authoritarians will wonder, "What kind of monster would kill
for a lollipop?"
That's one of the most succinct and insightful statements about society I've ever seen.
If you haven't seen the demos, you might not know that levels are done by different people, so
the demo is not really one continuos game, but rather an ideal game that's a result of hundreds, if not thousands of invididual tries at levels.
After reading the headline, I was incredibly impressed, now less so. While creating a demo of the humanly fastest possible game of Quake compiled from the best run-throughs is impressive in its own right, I'd be far, far more impressed by a single person (or even a team) that produced a similiar time in one sitting.
After all, you can't combine your history of best scores in individual events to win the Iron Man or an Olympic Decathalon. You have to do all the events in series (and in the case of the Iron Man with little or no rest in between events).
Or at least I don't think so. Since the article continually spoke of 'numbers shipped,' its my educated guess that only retail sales are being counted. The article did specifically mention that preloads were not counted. In all liklihood, downloads, promotional disks (such as that in magazines), and discount sellers (ala cheap bytes and linux systems lab) were not included in the number.
I've installed Linux around ten to twelve times, only once have I purchased a retail box (Caldera OpenLinux 2.1) and its not the flavor of Linux I run on any of my machines (Storm 2000 2nd edition on my desktop, Debian Slink on my laptop). I sure wish there was some way to do a breakdown of numbers that included actual installs instead of retail box sales.
On the other hand, I think the article did raise a good point that only Linux companies with a decent number of retail sales will stay in business. Of course, balance that because the overall best distribution (in my lame opinion) is Debian which is compiled entirely by volunteers and as such is not dependant on marketshare for its survival.
Musician Roger McGuinn, former leader of the Byrds, was part of the fanfare Monday morning. Once each month for the past several years, McGuinn has recorded his own performance of a traditional folk song and uploaded it to MetaLab for free distribution on the Web.
I had no idea this was going on. This is just too cool for words. It is so rejeuvinating to hear about an artist that cares about music as art and is doing something about it instead of using music as a ticket to noteriety and money.
Anybody else hear that the Smashing Pumpkins released their final album only as.mp3? Well, they did press 25 vinyl copies...
Maybe Sunsite, er, Metalab, er, iBiblio can do for music what mp3.com and napster have claimed they were going to do and failed.
Do any Slashdot readers know of a way to verify someone's age over the internet?
There is (currently) no possible way to verify age over the internet.
There do exist some ways for a person to verify that some piece of information belongs to someone over a certain age. But how would you prove that the person keying in the information is the owner of that piece of information. For example if you require enough information to request a credit bureau report, how do you know that ten year old junior isn't just putting in dad's info?
Or for that matter, how do you know dad isn't putting in junior's info?
Another possibility is teleconferencing with the intended user holding a valid photo id up to the camera, but in the days of iMacs being bundled with at home movie editors anyone that has a screen cam can easily fake just about anything that is required for id.
Until the wide spread implentation of biometric devices what you are asking for is impossible. (And even then, fingerprint scanners might very well work with a finger that's been removed from its owner.)
Personally I fail to see how a man lusting after a man in tight clothes is any less clean than a man lusting after a woman in tight clothes. Lust is lust is lust. If a man lusting after a man is sinful, a man lusting after a woman is also sinful.
Therefore, I'm confused why you don't request that slashdot moderaters mod down posts that condone male/female lust.
I have for this opinion is that the apostles and other witnesses often contradict one another. In the Bible but even more so when you go outside the
(reviewed, edited, published by established Church authorities) Bible for evidence. So how can they be reliable witnesses?
The key points are: (1) there are only 'other witnesses' if one goes outside the accepted tradition of the Church and (2) the only significant contradictions (contradictions pertaining to theology rather than matters of fact) occur with extra-canonical sources.
So what's my point? Simply this, one can only make coherent sense of Christianity if one assumes that the apostles were valid witnesses (although, strictly speaking, one could also make coherent sense of the morass of extant documents by choosing any one school of theology and sticking with it as the rule to judge everything else). If one doesn't make a judgement call on who has the 'correct' tradition the teachings of Jesus are so contradictory that any attempt to make Jesus into a wise man like Gandhi or Sundar Singh or Buddha is doomed to failure on the sea of contradictions.
It is a simple matter as to how the apostles could be faithful witnesses given that there are contradictory accounts of Jesus' teachings outside of the party line. The other accounts could simply be wrong.
My contention is that the Church in the first century, having known Jesus and having known the apostles, was much better equipped to make such a judgement call than I am two thousand years later when the only evidence is on manuscripts copied (and edited) by hand for generations prior to the copies we've found.
I would love to continue this conversation via email if you please. lee . malatesta @ yahoo . com. Leave out the spaces.
I appreciate commentary on history, but I think you've swerved a bit close to revisionism.
Its part of my rebel streak. I get sick of people toting the party line (doesn't matter much which party these days) of America being built on Christian principles. It wasn't. At best Christianity influenced some (and only some) of the thinking that went into this building this country. At worst, Christianity was twisted to support the thinking that went into building this country.
Fleeing Persecution: Most people, I think, would call that sensible, not cowardly.
In principle I certainly agree with your assertion that most people call fleeing persecution sensibility and not cowardice. However, we're talking about Christianity here, not common sense. There is a reason that Jesus called following his teachings the narrow path. Most faiths (not just Christianity) turn a good deal of 'common sense' on its head. And while I don't condemn people who choose to flee instead of staying and being martyred, I do think that the Christian philosophy is built on the premis that it is better to stay and be martyred. What would Christianity look like if Jesus had fled instead of being martyred?
Capitalism: Taking advantage of a way to improve your life is usually considered wise, not greedy.
I didn't do a very good job at placing this one in context. The American revolution was caused mainly (but not exclusively) by wealthy landowners that had a good deal to gain if the US escaped British control. As is the case in most wars, the poor were conscripted by both sides and had little actual say in the matter except that those unfortunate enough to be conscripted by the losing side got branded as traitors.
Refusing to accept taxation with representation: Most consider that sensible and appropriate; not negatively rebellious.
Remember, we're not talking about common sense. Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. Paul taught outright to pay one's taxes. Now, if Jesus and Paul living in Palestine under Roman rule thought that taxation without representation was a good reason to start an armed rebellion, I'm fairly sure that they wouldn't have incited their followers to pay their taxes. If there was ever a case of taxation without representation, it was in Roman occupied Palestine, and the word from the heads of the Christian movement was to obeisce, not revolt.
Granted, it's not that simplistic either, but you paint too cynical of a picture. It is accurate to say that Christians and the Christian worldview were significant influences on the formation of the USA. Not the only influence, nor were the theists perfect, but the impact is great, and much (most?) of it benefits us even now.
I agree that the real picture is never as simple as anyone makes it out to be. Theists did have an influence on the US, but I'd argue that deists had a far larger influence (especially in the realm of political philosophy) in shaping the reasons and rationelle for revolting against Britain. I'm sure there were Christian Patriots just as there were Christian Torries. But the only ones living out the teachings of Christ in the sad story of slaughter and mayhem were the pacifist Quakers who had their property confiscated, were thrown into prison, were publicly humiliated and tortured (good ole tarring and feathering and the stockades) and who were sometimes even executed (most commonly by hanging) just because their beliefs taught them to turn the other cheek and love their enemies.
Thank you very much for a reasonable and though out reply. I don't agree with everything you say but you certainly saw through much of my baiting...
If Christians actually followed the teachings of Jesus instead of the
biblical dogma created by the Hebrew/Roman/Christian tag team political wrestling and miracle mysticism that followed his death, well, the world
would probably be a much nicer place and I for one would be happy to call myself a Christian.
The traditional claim (FWIW) is that Paul (and the other apostles) being taught by Jesus had a much clearer understanding of what Jesus actually taught than we do almost two thousand years later. I think that there is something to this claim, but I couldn't prove it as history is in essence nonrepeateable.
The alternative, that the apostles were not faithful witnesses to the teachings of Jesus leaves us with absolutely no guide to judge which sayings of Jesus are authentic or not. After all, the Apostles (and their students) were the ones the wrote and compiled the New Testament.
Your view point is certainly worth considering, but it can only lead to agnosticism, not any form of Christianity (short of some sort of time travel device by which we can go back and find out what it is that Jesus actually taught independant of the traditions of his followers).
Actually, a needle in the context of that quote was a stone structure found at the outer edge of many fields in Biblical times(and no, I don't remember its exact purpose). A camel could fit through such a needle, but only with great effort.
You've been lied to.
There is absolutely no reference to a structure like you mention being called a needle. Nor is there a gate in the wall of Jerusalem refered to as the eye of the needle. Both of these are fictions that first appear in the medievel time period to make Christianity more palatable to rich people.
Too many game creators fail to take advantage of the value of a good creep-out.
The best part of Doom I was the series of cubicles where you didn't know which, if any, had a CacoDaemon hiding inside. Playing that scene in a darkened cubicle while working third shift on a help desk certainly raised the hairs on the back of my neck.
Suspense is the key to enthralling play in any media whether it be FPS or text adventure.
So what if they [the Catholic Church] put it together? A librarian could have done the same. They didn't write the thing, they just put separate pieces together in a book.
The Catholic Church did more than just put the books together. The Catholic Church has an enormous library containing many, many letters and books from the days of the Apostles. Not all of these books and letters are considered scripture. The Catholic Church not only collected all of these disparate works, they decided which ones were 'scripture' and which ones were not. Why does the Protestand New Testament contain the exact same books as the Catholic New Testament? Why not include the Shephard of Hermas or the Gospel of Peter. Why is the book of James included?
We're not talking about just putting together a collection of old writings, we are talking about the definition of scripture. Why accept the definition of scripture provided by a group alleged to be a cult? Or reverse the question, if one accepts the authority of the Catholic Church to define what books are scripture, why does one state that they are a cult?
give me a referenced citation (in context) of the practice you are questioning and then I will respond with a reasoned and thought out answer.
Eh? A "referenced citation"? You have heard of the confessional before haven't you... I'm not making this up.
A referenced citation should be rather easy to provide if the ceremony of confession does contain the words you assert it does. I have heard of the confessional and I've even been inside one before, but I don't know the details of what goes on inside of the confessional booth. My contention is that (1) if Mary is even mentioned in the ritual of confession it is not in the context that you seem to think and (2) its likely Mary is not invoked at all. If you can give me a referenced citation that proves otherwise, I might begin to believe your allegations.
Now it's your turn to stop avoiding answering my questions.
I'll answer you're questions as soon as I see something worth answering. I'm not about to go off on a wild goose chase answering allegations about practices that may or may not be the case.
I'm not a Protestant, but at least they follow the True Faith.
Don't know much Church history do you? Unless your Church is one of few faiths descended from the anabaptist movements (such as the Church of the Brethren or the Quakers) or one of the Catholic faiths (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism), you're Protestant. Given that you have a hard time with the practices of the oldest faiths to venerate saints, I doubt you belong to one of the Catholic faiths.
What associations (if any) does the congregation you attend (if any) belong to. I'd bet dollars to donuts its a descendant or a split from of one of the Protestant faiths (Lutheran, Anglican, Calvanism, etc.)
Attending Church does not, in and of itself, equal religion, but attending Church is one (among many) good indicators of whether a given individual (or society) is religious.
I am a Christian, but I don't go
to church. I think I can get more on my own than from a church.
This individualistic attitude runs quite contrary to scripture. The analogy of the believers being a body is used time and time again in the New Testament. The purpose of this analogy is to show that Christians need each other.
Churches are for people who either don't know enough about the religion to practice
on their own, or don't want to think for themselves and follow like sheep.
The Bible teaches otherwise. Scripture teaches that all spiritual gifts (such as pastoring, teaching, healing, etc.) have been given for one purpose, the building up of the body. These gifts have not been given for the building up of the individual, but of the body. Christianity is inherently a team sport, not an individual sport. This is why we have assertions like that of Paul's in Corinthians where he makes the outrageous claim that if any Christian is hurting, all Christians are hurting.
The Church is not an organization with walls and congregations. There are
no priests, pastors, or whatever you want to call them. It consists only of people who can think for themselves and choose to follow Jesus.
The Bible puts forth a different claim. Paul mentions the positions of deacons, priests, and bishops by name throughout his letters. He goes on to detail (in some places) some of their responsibilities and the qualifications of people fit for the job.
There are two aspects to the Church, the Church militant and the Church triumphant. The Church militant consists of all believers present on this earth and the Church Triumphant consists of all believers that are now in heaven. To say that the Church militant does not have boundaries and does not meet in buildings and does not have people that were given by God to shephard people into a fuller relationship with Deity is to deny the validity of the scriptures that your faith in Jesus are based on.
One can be a Christian without attending a Church, but individuals on their own will seldomly grow into mature Christians. This is similiar to open source software. Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow. Well, given a body of believers, all sins are shallow. Together we can build each other up and help each other achieve the full and abundant life that Jesus promised for his followers. Alone we are limited to only what we ourselves can achieve which in most (but not all) cases is not very much.
Then how is it that in the Confessional, forgiveness can be granted through the invocation of either the Lord or Mary?
(1) Go back and answer my other points such as if the Catholic Church is a cult, why do you use the canon of scriptures that the Catholic Church put together, and (2) give me a referenced citation (in context) of the practice you are questioning and then I will respond with a reasoned and thought out answer.
[native Americans] most probably arrived in the Continental US some time after the Vikings left
It seems to me that the variety of artifacts that predate the second millenium indicates otherwise. The most notable ruins are, of course, in South America where entire civilizations are dated to prior to 1000 CE, but up here in North America there have been many discoveries made of tools and dwellings that date to before Lief Erikson made his longboat voyage.
the curriculum is basically "Are you white? Then hate yourself?"
Now that is indeed a shame because if history teaches one thing it is that there are no innocents. Virtually every race and nationality imaginable has its share of skeletons in the closet. It just so happens that some were more successful in their conqueests than others.
Children should be taught in school that, yes, Europeans did do quite a number on the natives when colonizing the Americas and, yes, this was a bad thing, but this is the story of history. There is not one race on the planet that is not guilty of the same crimes. We must not forget that humanity as a species is prone to horrendous violent and despicable acts, but neither should we let that fact result in a defeatest attitude that attempts to slough off responsibility for our despicable acts.
And also, within the sad story of history, there are also many, many acts of redemption, the genesis of the ideas of the hospital, of equal rights, of liberty. To teach one side of the story without also teaching the the other is to do an injustice to children.
This country was founded on the decent Christian ideal that hard work leads to reward - the American dream is a reflection of the Protestant work ethic.
*BZZT* Wrong answer. This country was founded on these principles:
Cowardice (fleeing persecution)
Greed (capitalism)
Rebellion (refusing to pay taxes)
Church attendance by early American colonists was less than 20%. There were some colonies that had a strictly religious nature (such as the Puritan and Quaker settlements) but those were in the minority. Most colonists either wanted to get away from a bad life or a chance to get rich.
And the US as a country was based almost entirely on an ungodly desire to not pay taxes (hint: what does the Bible say about paying taxes). The US of A was founded on the idea of armed rebellion and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.
Nobody can sustain the contemplative life any more
With the exception of a minority of austere individuals that have become monks and nuns of one flavor or another, no society in recorded history was ever given over to a contemplative life.
These are all perpertrated by the cult of Catholocism, which markets itself as being Christian, but is in fact not, as is demonstrated by its worship of saints and
the virgin whore.
Okay, lets look at the works perpetrated by the "cult of Catholocism."
Decisively produced the 'canon' of New Testament scripture
Decisively defined most of the common doctrines about Jesus (the trinity, the dual God/Man nature of Christ, etc.)
Compiled the Textus Receptus that the King James folks used to translate the Bible into English
Taught Martin Luther the meaning of salvation
Next time you pick up the Bible, bear in mind that it was the Catholic Church that not only decided which books and letters to include but also protected and saved those books and letters for well over a thousand years before we upstart Protestants came onto the scene.
How can anyone with a straight face claim that Catholicism is a cult and then use the exact same canon of New Testament scripture for the sole reason that the Catholic Church defined which books belonged in the Bible?
Also bear in mind that the vaunted Textus Receptus that Martin Luther and the King James scholars used to translate the Bible was compiled by Erasmus, a Catholic Monk.
And let's briefly examine the claim that Mary the Mother of Jesus was a virgin whore. Aside from being completely unknown to Catholic tradition, such a claim runs contrary to scripture. If Mary was a whore, then it is quite likely that Jesus had a human father which is heresey according to most Protestants.
As far as worship of Mary goes, go back and read the introductions to the Gospels (in particulary Luke) where an angel (not the Pope) calls Marry 'Blessed among all women.' There is a large distinction between veneration and worship.
Further, Protestant Churches are just as blood stained as the Catholic Church. Martin Luther fully supported the brutally violent massacre of the lower classes during the peasant rebellion. The 'God-fearing' colonists of the America's would often beat and imprison in stocks anyone that came into their territory that was not of the same denominatin. I won't even start on all the Protestants that owned slaves and treated them as being less than human.
The God-fearing founding fathers of the USA imprisoned, tortured and even executed such noble people as the Quakers who refused to fight in the revolutionary war on either side.
OTOH, out of sixty some bids, there have only been twenty some bidders (in other words some bidders have bid more than once, i.e. they've come back to bid anew after being outbid the first time.) There have also been two retractions, one of which had a great explanation:
Oh hell, maxed out Ebay, doesnt look like someone will outbid me now
So the question is, how many of the bids have been serious? I'm pretty sure the 'winner' (I don't know if 'winner' is a good title for the winning bidder of this one) could make a good case that since some of the bidding was fraudelent (dweebs dorking around the system just to see how high they can get the price to go), they can back out.
IIRC, something similiar happened with Sue, the T-Rex. The owner put her bones on ebay and jokers spoiled the auction. The owner eneded up reauctioning the bones on millionaire.com where bidders are pre-qualified.
I'm also jealous as spit. I've made close to $1,000 this year on ebay by auctioning off my unwanted junk. I should have just started a weblog and auctioned it...
Hurrah! I've won the argument. Hmm. Perhaps not. I think I detect sarcasm.
Next time my coffee is not 98.6 degrees F, I will sue the restaurant.
Because IF it is hotter than that I could possibly burn myself.
Well, we're not speaking of coffee that is merely warmer than 98.6 Farenheight. We're speaking of coffee that is hot enough to cause third degree burns. For comparrison, I keep my hot water heater at home around 120 Farenheight and the water is not hot enough to cause second degree burns. It might be hot enough to cause first degree burns if I soaked in it long enough.
McDonald's policy at the time was to server coffee at between 160 and 180 degrees, 20 degrees higher than the industry standard
The coffee in question was likely to have been hotter than 180 degrees
The accident caused third-degree burns on more than 6 percent of the plaintiff's body
The burns were so extensive as to require skin grafs and a week long stay in the hospital
The plaitiff originally requested reimbursement for actual medical expenses of $11k and only spoke to a lawyer when McDonald's only counter-offered $800
McDonald's had already ignored more than 700 similar claims of coffee burns
McDonald's refused a third party mediator's reccomendation to settle out of court for $225k
McDonald's lied about the over 700 prior incidents in court
The Jury tied the 'extravagent' punitive damages to their profit on coffee. based on McDonald's annual profits of more than $1 billion
annually, and more than $1.3 million gross daily coffee sales,
the jury levied two days of coffee sales receipts as punitive
damages for a punitive damage award of $2.7 million The plaitiff had never asked for that exhorbitant sum
The judge knocked the actual award down to somewhere around $400k
Here's an idea using my "keen sense (use) of logic and reason", next time
you're faced with the horrendous beast of boiling coffee that is too hot to drink...go to the soda machine...hit the little ice button...put an ice cube in the
drink.
Personally I don't think I should have to risk third degree burns to myself or the people around me when I go get a cup of joe. It would be different if (a) this were an isolated incident or (b) this were the first incident. As it stands, I don't think causing over 700 documented injuries (some of which were to children) due to burns is indicative of an eye to public safety. I think ignoring that number of injuries does border on being criminally negligent.
At no time have you proved your point
Considering that you have yet to offer an argument that is anything other than an appeal to emotion or an ad hominem attack, I'm not altogether concerned whether you agree with me or not.
Lose the attitude and grow up.
Coming from a person that has yet to offer anything even approaching a reasonable argument, I find the request that I grow up to be fairly amusing.
Well, Big Brother always trys to keep track of The Resistance.
True, but in Orwell's 1984 at least, Big Brother also was the resistance .
Emanuel Goldstein was construction of the party to help weed out people that needed to be re-educated. Now doesn't that put a whole new spin on 2600, the hacker quarterly.....
Trends will always have exceptions, but every IT salary survey I have ever seen that asked about college education has always placed salaries for degreed individuals higher than non-degreed individuals.
In a population (such as/. readers) where there is an abnormally high percentage of highly skilled there will be an abnormally high level of anecdotes about degree-less techs making a killing.
For most people, however, a four year degree will virtually always pay off over time. The average salary for degreed IT workers is about 20k higher than non-degreed IT workers. Degreed workers have higher ceilings when moving up the ladder in their career.
And as always, those with sharp enough skills will start their own consultancies and and bring in lots of dough whether they have a degree or not.
Slashdot Mirror
That's one of the most succinct and insightful statements about society I've ever seen.
And to think I found it on /.
The noise doesn't totally overpower the signal
yet.
regards,
-l
After reading the headline, I was incredibly impressed, now less so. While creating a demo of the humanly fastest possible game of Quake compiled from the best run-throughs is impressive in its own right, I'd be far, far more impressed by a single person (or even a team) that produced a similiar time in one sitting.
After all, you can't combine your history of best scores in individual events to win the Iron Man or an Olympic Decathalon. You have to do all the events in series (and in the case of the Iron Man with little or no rest in between events).
No.
Or at least I don't think so. Since the article continually spoke of 'numbers shipped,' its my educated guess that only retail sales are being counted. The article did specifically mention that preloads were not counted. In all liklihood, downloads, promotional disks (such as that in magazines), and discount sellers (ala cheap bytes and linux systems lab) were not included in the number.
I've installed Linux around ten to twelve times, only once have I purchased a retail box (Caldera OpenLinux 2.1) and its not the flavor of Linux I run on any of my machines (Storm 2000 2nd edition on my desktop, Debian Slink on my laptop). I sure wish there was some way to do a breakdown of numbers that included actual installs instead of retail box sales.
On the other hand, I think the article did raise a good point that only Linux companies with a decent number of retail sales will stay in business. Of course, balance that because the overall best distribution (in my lame opinion) is Debian which is compiled entirely by volunteers and as such is not dependant on marketshare for its survival.
That's my take,
-l
I had no idea this was going on. This is just too cool for words. It is so rejeuvinating to hear about an artist that cares about music as art and is doing something about it instead of using music as a ticket to noteriety and money.
Anybody else hear that the Smashing Pumpkins released their final album only as .mp3? Well, they did press 25 vinyl copies...
Maybe Sunsite, er, Metalab, er, iBiblio can do for music what mp3.com and napster have claimed they were going to do and failed.
If their all about freedom, has anyone uploaded a copy of deCSS yet? Would they fight to keep it?
On the other hand, I'd hate to see them burn through the entire $4M donation in lawyer bills....
foo to you and yours,
-l
There is (currently) no possible way to verify age over the internet.
There do exist some ways for a person to verify that some piece of information belongs to someone over a certain age. But how would you prove that the person keying in the information is the owner of that piece of information. For example if you require enough information to request a credit bureau report, how do you know that ten year old junior isn't just putting in dad's info?
Or for that matter, how do you know dad isn't putting in junior's info?
Another possibility is teleconferencing with the intended user holding a valid photo id up to the camera, but in the days of iMacs being bundled with at home movie editors anyone that has a screen cam can easily fake just about anything that is required for id.
Until the wide spread implentation of biometric devices what you are asking for is impossible. (And even then, fingerprint scanners might very well work with a finger that's been removed from its owner.)
Personally I fail to see how a man lusting after a man in tight clothes is any less clean than a man lusting after a woman in tight clothes. Lust is lust is lust. If a man lusting after a man is sinful, a man lusting after a woman is also sinful.
Therefore, I'm confused why you don't request that slashdot moderaters mod down posts that condone male/female lust.
The key points are: (1) there are only 'other witnesses' if one goes outside the accepted tradition of the Church and (2) the only significant contradictions (contradictions pertaining to theology rather than matters of fact) occur with extra-canonical sources.
So what's my point? Simply this, one can only make coherent sense of Christianity if one assumes that the apostles were valid witnesses (although, strictly speaking, one could also make coherent sense of the morass of extant documents by choosing any one school of theology and sticking with it as the rule to judge everything else). If one doesn't make a judgement call on who has the 'correct' tradition the teachings of Jesus are so contradictory that any attempt to make Jesus into a wise man like Gandhi or Sundar Singh or Buddha is doomed to failure on the sea of contradictions.
It is a simple matter as to how the apostles could be faithful witnesses given that there are contradictory accounts of Jesus' teachings outside of the party line. The other accounts could simply be wrong.
My contention is that the Church in the first century, having known Jesus and having known the apostles, was much better equipped to make such a judgement call than I am two thousand years later when the only evidence is on manuscripts copied (and edited) by hand for generations prior to the copies we've found.
I would love to continue this conversation via email if you please. lee . malatesta @ yahoo . com. Leave out the spaces.
Its part of my rebel streak. I get sick of people toting the party line (doesn't matter much which party these days) of America being built on Christian principles. It wasn't. At best Christianity influenced some (and only some) of the thinking that went into this building this country. At worst, Christianity was twisted to support the thinking that went into building this country.
In principle I certainly agree with your assertion that most people call fleeing persecution sensibility and not cowardice. However, we're talking about Christianity here, not common sense. There is a reason that Jesus called following his teachings the narrow path. Most faiths (not just Christianity) turn a good deal of 'common sense' on its head. And while I don't condemn people who choose to flee instead of staying and being martyred, I do think that the Christian philosophy is built on the premis that it is better to stay and be martyred. What would Christianity look like if Jesus had fled instead of being martyred?
I didn't do a very good job at placing this one in context. The American revolution was caused mainly (but not exclusively) by wealthy landowners that had a good deal to gain if the US escaped British control. As is the case in most wars, the poor were conscripted by both sides and had little actual say in the matter except that those unfortunate enough to be conscripted by the losing side got branded as traitors.
Remember, we're not talking about common sense. Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. Paul taught outright to pay one's taxes. Now, if Jesus and Paul living in Palestine under Roman rule thought that taxation without representation was a good reason to start an armed rebellion, I'm fairly sure that they wouldn't have incited their followers to pay their taxes. If there was ever a case of taxation without representation, it was in Roman occupied Palestine, and the word from the heads of the Christian movement was to obeisce, not revolt.
I agree that the real picture is never as simple as anyone makes it out to be. Theists did have an influence on the US, but I'd argue that deists had a far larger influence (especially in the realm of political philosophy) in shaping the reasons and rationelle for revolting against Britain. I'm sure there were Christian Patriots just as there were Christian Torries. But the only ones living out the teachings of Christ in the sad story of slaughter and mayhem were the pacifist Quakers who had their property confiscated, were thrown into prison, were publicly humiliated and tortured (good ole tarring and feathering and the stockades) and who were sometimes even executed (most commonly by hanging) just because their beliefs taught them to turn the other cheek and love their enemies.
Thank you very much for a reasonable and though out reply. I don't agree with everything you say but you certainly saw through much of my baiting...
-l
The traditional claim (FWIW) is that Paul (and the other apostles) being taught by Jesus had a much clearer understanding of what Jesus actually taught than we do almost two thousand years later. I think that there is something to this claim, but I couldn't prove it as history is in essence nonrepeateable.
The alternative, that the apostles were not faithful witnesses to the teachings of Jesus leaves us with absolutely no guide to judge which sayings of Jesus are authentic or not. After all, the Apostles (and their students) were the ones the wrote and compiled the New Testament.
Your view point is certainly worth considering, but it can only lead to agnosticism, not any form of Christianity (short of some sort of time travel device by which we can go back and find out what it is that Jesus actually taught independant of the traditions of his followers).
regards,
-l
You've been lied to.
There is absolutely no reference to a structure like you mention being called a needle. Nor is there a gate in the wall of Jerusalem refered to as the eye of the needle. Both of these are fictions that first appear in the medievel time period to make Christianity more palatable to rich people.
You can get more info on this untruth and other s in David Downing's humorous volume What you know might not be so: 220 Misinterpretations of the Bible
The best part of Doom I was the series of cubicles where you didn't know which, if any, had a CacoDaemon hiding inside. Playing that scene in a darkened cubicle while working third shift on a help desk certainly raised the hairs on the back of my neck.
Suspense is the key to enthralling play in any media whether it be FPS or text adventure.
Yeah, all those mean Catholics stole all those Christian books that pius Jews were hoarding throughout the millenia. Sure. Whatever.
The standardization of Scripture happened at a point before the Catholic Church gained any sort of meaningful political power.
Do you mean the parable where the rich man dies and goes to hell, while the beggar (Lazarus) that sat on his doorstep goes to heaven?
Or perhaps you mean the parable of the rich fool where the rich guy dies, faces God and is condemned.
on the canon of scripture
The Catholic Church did more than just put the books together. The Catholic Church has an enormous library containing many, many letters and books from the days of the Apostles. Not all of these books and letters are considered scripture. The Catholic Church not only collected all of these disparate works, they decided which ones were 'scripture' and which ones were not. Why does the Protestand New Testament contain the exact same books as the Catholic New Testament? Why not include the Shephard of Hermas or the Gospel of Peter. Why is the book of James included?
We're not talking about just putting together a collection of old writings, we are talking about the definition of scripture. Why accept the definition of scripture provided by a group alleged to be a cult? Or reverse the question, if one accepts the authority of the Catholic Church to define what books are scripture, why does one state that they are a cult?
A referenced citation should be rather easy to provide if the ceremony of confession does contain the words you assert it does. I have heard of the confessional and I've even been inside one before, but I don't know the details of what goes on inside of the confessional booth. My contention is that (1) if Mary is even mentioned in the ritual of confession it is not in the context that you seem to think and (2) its likely Mary is not invoked at all. If you can give me a referenced citation that proves otherwise, I might begin to believe your allegations.
I'll answer you're questions as soon as I see something worth answering. I'm not about to go off on a wild goose chase answering allegations about practices that may or may not be the case.
Don't know much Church history do you? Unless your Church is one of few faiths descended from the anabaptist movements (such as the Church of the Brethren or the Quakers) or one of the Catholic faiths (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism), you're Protestant. Given that you have a hard time with the practices of the oldest faiths to venerate saints, I doubt you belong to one of the Catholic faiths.
What associations (if any) does the congregation you attend (if any) belong to. I'd bet dollars to donuts its a descendant or a split from of one of the Protestant faiths (Lutheran, Anglican, Calvanism, etc.)
Attending Church does not, in and of itself, equal religion, but attending Church is one (among many) good indicators of whether a given individual (or society) is religious.
This individualistic attitude runs quite contrary to scripture. The analogy of the believers being a body is used time and time again in the New Testament. The purpose of this analogy is to show that Christians need each other.
The Bible teaches otherwise. Scripture teaches that all spiritual gifts (such as pastoring, teaching, healing, etc.) have been given for one purpose, the building up of the body. These gifts have not been given for the building up of the individual, but of the body. Christianity is inherently a team sport, not an individual sport. This is why we have assertions like that of Paul's in Corinthians where he makes the outrageous claim that if any Christian is hurting, all Christians are hurting.
The Bible puts forth a different claim. Paul mentions the positions of deacons, priests, and bishops by name throughout his letters. He goes on to detail (in some places) some of their responsibilities and the qualifications of people fit for the job.
There are two aspects to the Church, the Church militant and the Church triumphant. The Church militant consists of all believers present on this earth and the Church Triumphant consists of all believers that are now in heaven. To say that the Church militant does not have boundaries and does not meet in buildings and does not have people that were given by God to shephard people into a fuller relationship with Deity is to deny the validity of the scriptures that your faith in Jesus are based on.
One can be a Christian without attending a Church, but individuals on their own will seldomly grow into mature Christians. This is similiar to open source software. Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow. Well, given a body of believers, all sins are shallow. Together we can build each other up and help each other achieve the full and abundant life that Jesus promised for his followers. Alone we are limited to only what we ourselves can achieve which in most (but not all) cases is not very much.
regards,
-l
(1) Go back and answer my other points such as if the Catholic Church is a cult, why do you use the canon of scriptures that the Catholic Church put together, and (2) give me a referenced citation (in context) of the practice you are questioning and then I will respond with a reasoned and thought out answer.
Thanks.
It seems to me that the variety of artifacts that predate the second millenium indicates otherwise. The most notable ruins are, of course, in South America where entire civilizations are dated to prior to 1000 CE, but up here in North America there have been many discoveries made of tools and dwellings that date to before Lief Erikson made his longboat voyage.
Now that is indeed a shame because if history teaches one thing it is that there are no innocents. Virtually every race and nationality imaginable has its share of skeletons in the closet. It just so happens that some were more successful in their conqueests than others.
Children should be taught in school that, yes, Europeans did do quite a number on the natives when colonizing the Americas and, yes, this was a bad thing, but this is the story of history. There is not one race on the planet that is not guilty of the same crimes. We must not forget that humanity as a species is prone to horrendous violent and despicable acts, but neither should we let that fact result in a defeatest attitude that attempts to slough off responsibility for our despicable acts.
And also, within the sad story of history, there are also many, many acts of redemption, the genesis of the ideas of the hospital, of equal rights, of liberty. To teach one side of the story without also teaching the the other is to do an injustice to children.
*BZZT* Wrong answer. This country was founded on these principles:
Church attendance by early American colonists was less than 20%. There were some colonies that had a strictly religious nature (such as the Puritan and Quaker settlements) but those were in the minority. Most colonists either wanted to get away from a bad life or a chance to get rich.
And the US as a country was based almost entirely on an ungodly desire to not pay taxes (hint: what does the Bible say about paying taxes). The US of A was founded on the idea of armed rebellion and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.
With the exception of a minority of austere individuals that have become monks and nuns of one flavor or another, no society in recorded history was ever given over to a contemplative life.
Okay, lets look at the works perpetrated by the "cult of Catholocism."
Next time you pick up the Bible, bear in mind that it was the Catholic Church that not only decided which books and letters to include but also protected and saved those books and letters for well over a thousand years before we upstart Protestants came onto the scene.
How can anyone with a straight face claim that Catholicism is a cult and then use the exact same canon of New Testament scripture for the sole reason that the Catholic Church defined which books belonged in the Bible?
Also bear in mind that the vaunted Textus Receptus that Martin Luther and the King James scholars used to translate the Bible was compiled by Erasmus, a Catholic Monk.
And let's briefly examine the claim that Mary the Mother of Jesus was a virgin whore. Aside from being completely unknown to Catholic tradition, such a claim runs contrary to scripture. If Mary was a whore, then it is quite likely that Jesus had a human father which is heresey according to most Protestants.
As far as worship of Mary goes, go back and read the introductions to the Gospels (in particulary Luke) where an angel (not the Pope) calls Marry 'Blessed among all women.' There is a large distinction between veneration and worship.
Further, Protestant Churches are just as blood stained as the Catholic Church. Martin Luther fully supported the brutally violent massacre of the lower classes during the peasant rebellion. The 'God-fearing' colonists of the America's would often beat and imprison in stocks anyone that came into their territory that was not of the same denominatin. I won't even start on all the Protestants that owned slaves and treated them as being less than human.
The God-fearing founding fathers of the USA imprisoned, tortured and even executed such noble people as the Quakers who refused to fight in the revolutionary war on either side.
And, BTW, I'm not Catholic.
Why go public when there is ebay?
OTOH, out of sixty some bids, there have only been twenty some bidders (in other words some bidders have bid more than once, i.e. they've come back to bid anew after being outbid the first time.) There have also been two retractions, one of which had a great explanation:
So the question is, how many of the bids have been serious? I'm pretty sure the 'winner' (I don't know if 'winner' is a good title for the winning bidder of this one) could make a good case that since some of the bidding was fraudelent (dweebs dorking around the system just to see how high they can get the price to go), they can back out.
IIRC, something similiar happened with Sue, the T-Rex. The owner put her bones on ebay and jokers spoiled the auction. The owner eneded up reauctioning the bones on millionaire.com where bidders are pre-qualified.
I'm also jealous as spit. I've made close to $1,000 this year on ebay by auctioning off my unwanted junk. I should have just started a weblog and auctioned it...
Hurrah! I've won the argument. Hmm. Perhaps not. I think I detect sarcasm.
Well, we're not speaking of coffee that is merely warmer than 98.6 Farenheight. We're speaking of coffee that is hot enough to cause third degree burns. For comparrison, I keep my hot water heater at home around 120 Farenheight and the water is not hot enough to cause second degree burns. It might be hot enough to cause first degree burns if I soaked in it long enough.
Let's look at the hard facts of the case ( some of which were taken from here and some of which were taken from here ).
Personally I don't think I should have to risk third degree burns to myself or the people around me when I go get a cup of joe. It would be different if (a) this were an isolated incident or (b) this were the first incident. As it stands, I don't think causing over 700 documented injuries (some of which were to children) due to burns is indicative of an eye to public safety. I think ignoring that number of injuries does border on being criminally negligent.
Considering that you have yet to offer an argument that is anything other than an appeal to emotion or an ad hominem attack, I'm not altogether concerned whether you agree with me or not.
Coming from a person that has yet to offer anything even approaching a reasonable argument, I find the request that I grow up to be fairly amusing.
have a day.
Is it just me or does this sentence make absolutely no sense?
True, but in Orwell's 1984 at least, Big Brother also was the resistance .
Emanuel Goldstein was construction of the party to help weed out people that needed to be re-educated. Now doesn't that put a whole new spin on 2600, the hacker quarterly.....
Trends will always have exceptions, but every IT salary survey I have ever seen that asked about college education has always placed salaries for degreed individuals higher than non-degreed individuals.
In a population (such as /. readers) where there is an abnormally high percentage of highly skilled there will be an abnormally high level of anecdotes about degree-less techs making a killing.
For most people, however, a four year degree will virtually always pay off over time. The average salary for degreed IT workers is about 20k higher than non-degreed IT workers. Degreed workers have higher ceilings when moving up the ladder in their career.
And as always, those with sharp enough skills will start their own consultancies and and bring in lots of dough whether they have a degree or not.