Look up "Levirate marriage" on google. There are tons of references. And this does prove my point - that common modern interpretation of the bible is ignorant of its context and through this causes even more harm.
but God has always been, shall we say, a tad judgmental towards people who have heard His word and still chosen not to believe.
I have a problem believing that an onmnpotent being would be quite so intolerant of minors who - by definition - have not yet gained the full faculty to make their own judgement. And thus I choose to interpret that story as Man's word, something that it doesn't seem we will agree upon no matter how much we argue.
Yes, it's in the Torah. I was unconsciously rejecting it as even being part of my testament. That's all I can think of to explain what I wrote.
Classical question from religious philosophy: does an infinitely knowing being have the power to hide something from His own Knowledge? If so, is he infinitely knowing?
Yes, it would be nice if his followers acted according to his teachings. But they seem to have twisted those words to use as justification for persecution of Jews, among other people. The Blood Libel is my favorite example, but I could go on.
Well then, what do you think of the piece from 2 Kings about the bears tearing up kids for sassing Elijah? I have quoted it in a posting below. I was brought up as a Jew, so no this is not my testament, sorry.
I think you missed my point. Which is that the bible is Man's Word.
Let me reproduce for you 2 Kings, 2:23-24.
23: And he (Elisha) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24: And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
The world would be a much better place if more of those who profess a belief in God also posessed the capability to hold scripture up to the light as you have.
Ya, there's some savage stuff in the Bible (like stoning), but you should try to interpret it relative to its time.
Yeah, I wish religious people would do that.
You want an example? How about the story of Onan? Homosexuals get a lot of trouble from that one today. I doubt many of them decide to be homosexuals, they can't help it and the bible says to treat them... the way it says to treat lepers, which is another part that led to tremendous pain on the part of innocents.
If there really is a creator, how could anyone think that such a superior being would have anything to do with all of the hate and ignorance in the bible?
Oops. He's moved his site recently. The front page is the Red Hat place-holder. The license qualifies as Open Source, commercial printing and resale allowed.
First, there is no way that the $250 policy can ever be a money maker. There just aren't enough folks who will get it. It might break even. It is a way to provide normal folks with access to the resources that companies are paying $100,000 for.
This is what I worry about. Some turkey sues an Open Source developer with intent to restrain. Not to recover funds. Said developer says "Uh-oh, I don't have the funds to support a single day in court. I'd better sign my copyright over to that turkey, sign whatever documents he has saying that I will never, ever write Open Source again, and find some other way to entertain myself."
$25,000 is not necessarily enough to defend every case, but it's enough to tide you over until you can get a publicly-funded defense up and running.
Regarding OSDL (not OSDN!) I don't know if there will be anything left for you when they are done with Autozone and Damiler, etc. Same with the Red Hat funds. I hope there is and that they are available to you. And also, I am worried about what happens if one of OSDL's corporate members is the plaintiff in a patent case against Open Source software. So, having a party that is not tied to HP and IBM is probably a good thing. And having a party that concentrates the funds for defending Open Source software into an entity that can actually do something is a good thing, too.
I think the most important point for the individual Open Source developer is "if you don't think you need this - you probably don't". Those who do need it know who they are.
Slashdot Mirror
Bruce
I have a problem believing that an onmnpotent being would be quite so intolerant of minors who - by definition - have not yet gained the full faculty to make their own judgement. And thus I choose to interpret that story as Man's word, something that it doesn't seem we will agree upon no matter how much we argue.
Yes, it's in the Torah. I was unconsciously rejecting it as even being part of my testament. That's all I can think of to explain what I wrote.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Oops. Strike that last sentence, this is an old testament story too. :-)
Bruce
Bruce
Let me reproduce for you 2 Kings, 2:23-24.
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Christopher. It's an old testament story.
Bruce
Bruce
Yeah, I wish religious people would do that.
You want an example? How about the story of Onan? Homosexuals get a lot of trouble from that one today. I doubt many of them decide to be homosexuals, they can't help it and the bible says to treat them... the way it says to treat lepers, which is another part that led to tremendous pain on the part of innocents.
Bruce
Bruce
Are you sure that's a problem?
Bruce
Go to phptr.com/perens .
Come to think of it, perhaps bounding boxes should be a feature of PDF viewers.
Or you could buy the book :-)
Bruce
Bruce
Here's the source RTF document in a zip file. That's Rich Text File, not the usual acronym :-)
So, having established that it really is Open Source, I do encourage you to buy the book.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
This is what I worry about. Some turkey sues an Open Source developer with intent to restrain. Not to recover funds. Said developer says "Uh-oh, I don't have the funds to support a single day in court. I'd better sign my copyright over to that turkey, sign whatever documents he has saying that I will never, ever write Open Source again, and find some other way to entertain myself."
$25,000 is not necessarily enough to defend every case, but it's enough to tide you over until you can get a publicly-funded defense up and running.
Regarding OSDL (not OSDN!) I don't know if there will be anything left for you when they are done with Autozone and Damiler, etc. Same with the Red Hat funds. I hope there is and that they are available to you. And also, I am worried about what happens if one of OSDL's corporate members is the plaintiff in a patent case against Open Source software. So, having a party that is not tied to HP and IBM is probably a good thing. And having a party that concentrates the funds for defending Open Source software into an entity that can actually do something is a good thing, too.
I think the most important point for the individual Open Source developer is "if you don't think you need this - you probably don't". Those who do need it know who they are.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Look for sites about tort reform.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce