those protestors get to live in a democracy, live how they please, and go home to a house with food and running water at the end of the day, they can even protest and have free speech without being executed. The Iraqis couldn't do any of that,
You might have a point there, if the war actually had anything to do with that whatsoever. We went to war for precisely one single reason. Namely that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US and UK due to it's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and readiness to use them.
Not to save the people from the regieme. Not to remove Saddam from power. Not to found a democracy, and open trade links. The legal case for war was WMD, and WMD only.
A rather poor case, really, when you consider that there actually were no WMD, and doubly poor when you realise that Blair and Bush actually had been advised before hand that there were no WMD.
Pff You want to try living in the UK, mate. We're around the $7/gallon mark where I live in Scotland. I'm sure plenty of other Brits can weigh in with their horror stories as well.
To be honest, this whole thing has run on way too far for Slashdot, but I don't want to just dismiss your post, as it's an extremely good one. I really didn't expect you to go turfing up all the things I referred to for me, and I feel a little bad about having been so lazy as to leave out the references now!
However, I can't help feeling there are some rather spurious apologetics going on here.
The case of Abraham, for example. Before anything else, there are logical issues to be addressed. Quite simply, it is not the act of a kind and loving God to ask you to sacrifice your own child, even just as a test. Presuming that he thinks of God as such, then Abraham's response should be that God wouldn't ask him to do this, and it must be a trick by Satan. Furthermore, while this takes place before "Thou shalt not kill" is laid down as a commandment in Ex 20, it seems rather fickle of God to be demanding sacrifices one minute (even if only as a test/joke), and making killing a damnable sin the next.
It's interesting to note that no matter what God does here, he can't go wrong. If he has Abraham sacrifice his kid, it's okay, because the kid goes to Heaven, which is a nice place to go, so it's all fine and happy, ergo, God is good. If he doesn't have Abraham sacrifice the kid, then it shows how merciful he is, ergo, God is good.
Also, not to confuse things any further, but just how many sons did Abraham have, anyway?
Gen 16:15: And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.
Gen.21:2-3: For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age.... And Abraham called him Isaac.
Note here that Ishmael was the first. So even if there was a reference to "Abraham's only son", between the first and second being born, then that would refer to Ishmael, and not Isaac.
But then we have Gen.22:2: Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac,... and offer him there for a burnt offering.
I have heard this addressed by apologetics with the argument that Isaac was his first and only son at that point after being called Abraham (rather than Abram) by God, but that is scuppered by Gen 17:23 in which Ishmael is acknowledged as being Abraham's son.
I always find it odd that God, who is all knowing, and has precognisance of all events should require so much adulation and evidence of faith from his creation. He gave us free will, but tests us to check that we won't use our free will instead of our faith. Even though he already knows the outcome of the test. Then sends us to hell if we fail.
Hoever, pressing on, the site you linked to does actually start putting words into the bible that aren't there. I guess much hangs on whether you (the general you, not you specifically) are a literalist, but Deuteronomy 21:18-21 actually makes no mention of a trial whatsoever:
Deut 21:20. And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.
The writer of that page assumes simply there must be a trial, because it would seem rather absurd if there wasn't. There are many things in the bible which would seem rather (or extremely) absurd if taken literally, and I don't even think this is amongst the worst offenders. This appears very simply to be describing the process of a parent recieving the authorisation of the elders for a stoning (as a formality, as it appears they'd never decline it).
If it is not to be taken literally, and is open to interpretation such as assuming there must be a trial when none is mentioned, then that opens a whole other can of worms. Just how much interpretation can there be in the Bible? Once you don't have to take it as literal fact that there was a 6 day creation, global flood, virgin birth, resurrection, Joshua's long day, and so on, then it certainly all fits much better with what we know to be fact about our world around us, but what'
As for an "uncompromised clear morally positive message", I refer again to the greatest commandments [gospelcom.net]:
Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
You uh.... don't think that's just a tiny bit compromised by telling people to kill their children, avoid women on their periods (filthy, dirty creatures), kill those who don't believe as they do, shun those who express certain personal choices they disagree with, gain revenge on those whole harm them, kill those who don't observe their sabbath, or the endorsement of slavery, sacrifice, child abuse, torture, rape, bigotry and racism?
Well, fair enough. Our concepts of a "uncompromised clear morally positive message" apparently differ somewhat. And I know I haven't referenced any of the above, if you really insist, I can and will, though I'd rather not go to the effort.
This one's easy: context. While there are certainly many things in the Bible which should cause readers to ask questions, this example doesn't require a lot of thought, and calling it a contradiction is a bit of a stretch. A simple example might be if you call your spouse perfect even though you know nobody's perfect.
I'd like to point out that dismissing the entire Bible just because of a few anomalies doesn't make sense
Oh, absolutely! And you'd be right. After all, just because a dog has four legs, it doesn't follow that all four legged animals are dogs. Except for the fact that the bible quite clearly states that it is absolutely, 100% literally true in it's entirity. (2 Tim 3:16 - and the argument that why would God allow his divine word to be corrupted by man?)
If the bible is not to be taken literally, then it is open to interpretation. So.. sure, when it says that homosexuality is an abomination, he means it's actually okay. And when it says that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, it actually means you should not eat hotdog buns on a Thursday. See where this leads to problems?
But fine, I'll grant you that, though there may not be any baby, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Can you show me anything of substance that would back up either the historical accuracy of any significant events (say, the virgin birth, the resurrection, Noah's flood, the parting of the seas, the long day, etc. Not just stuff like 'well, Israel exists, doesn't it?'), or the ethical validity (an uncompromised clear morally positive message) in the bible? Because believe me, I've looked... and I just don't see it.
By all means though, you have the right attitude - ask questions. Don't take my word for it, I'm just some shmuck on the interwebnet.. and likewise, don't take the bible's word for it - it's just some book. It was exactly that attitude which led me to where I am today. I haven't thrown out the bible over a single anomaly - I've thrown it out over anomaly after anomaly after anomaly after anomaly, and very little else.
Granted, my comment re: the confusion of people following the bible was perhaps a little trite given the sole example I provided, but as I'm sure your own investigations will reveal, it's far from being a lone contradiction in the bible.
At the end of the day though, as I already said, you're on the right track. If you let me, or the bible, or anyone else tell you what to think, then you're headed for trouble. Ask questions, and make up your own mind.
I don't hate Christians, though some of them spread plenty of hate - see godhatesfags.com [warning: potentially offensive], and if your answer is "but that's not a true Christian", I suggest you google for "no true scotsman fallacy", and explain just what does constitute a true Christian.
As for the Bible, well, I do rather dislike it. it's a pretty nasty piece of work, on the whole - and hey, call me crazy, but I tend to be wary of anybody who bases their life and morality around a book which orders them to kill me for not believing as they do.
I'm not denying there's some good stuff in the Bible, and I've no problem with that - in fact, I'll even link to some of it. Heck, the BNP probably have some good stuff amongst all their twisted, hateful policies too. But the fact is the Bible tells you to follow it. All of it. To the letter. And it includes a lot of bad stuff. Put simply, the good stuff does not justify the bad stuff. To say otherwise is to argue that it's okay for me to rape and murder, because I also help old ladies cross the road, and rescue cats from trees.
Funny though. At the start of this you accused me of being afraid of the Bible. I hope I have demonstrated by now that I am very familiar and comfortable with it as a subject. I suspect, however, it is you who is afraid. After all, you dismiss any problems with a wave of the hand and an "Oh, I'm sure there's an answer somewhere. Probably. I hope"
Incidentally, I had a look at the link in your sig. I presume that it being in your sig indicates an endorsement of some kind by yourself. Aside from being generally hostile - and insulting - towards atheists, the first few paragraphs alone describing the book are so staggeringly flawed that I'd be here all day were I to go through them. Just one random example: Massive strawman on the nature of faith. I do not have faith when I turn on a lightswitch, eat cornflakes, drink coffee, or expect the sun to rise tomorrow. I have expectation based on previous experience. Faith would be believing something with no previous experience or evidence - for instance that when the sun rises tomorrow it will be green and square.
Anyway though, this is all way off topic, this is not the place, and I suspect this has run it's course anyway. If you're interested in persuing any of it further, you might want to head on over to www.infidelguy.com - don't let the name put you off, it's not a Christian bashing site - it's a place for people of all (and no) faith to discuss and debate religion in the light of critical analysis.
Rather presumptious, don't you think? Because I link to a website I must have not done any research, never read the bible, and believe whatever I read on the web?
The reason I'm an atheist is exactly because I've read the bible. Cover to cover. And thought about it. Long before the Skeptics Annotated Bible website even existed. So. Afraid? Hardly.
I link to the SAB as my preferred version because it's a useful resource. Also, it's not "some website" proving the bible wrong. It's the bible proving the bible wrong. The website simply points those contradictions out. I notice you don't refute any of the points I brought up.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Tell you what, why not join my religion? It involves brushing your teeth with glue. I know, I know! it sounds stupid.. but only because you're a non-believer, and you're going to perish in the fiery depths of hell. Once you believe it all makes perfect sense, and you'll see how foolish all the non believers really are.
Never mind though, after all, "The simple believeth every word" (Proverbs 14:15)
The Bible doesn't say sex is wrong, the Bible does say pornography is wrong, and lusting after another woman in your heart means you already comitted adultery. The Bible also says adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, murderers and drunks will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Lest they repent and abandon their ways.
Is pornography wrong? As a Christian, I obviously think so. I used to be addicted to it from an early age, but thanks to God I am free from it now.
So you draw your morality from the bible? Jolly good.
Do you have kids? A son, perhaps? Let's hope he never gets stubborn and rebellious, or you'll have to stone him to death
And if he manages to survive long enough to get through that phase, I sure hope he doesn't try to convert you to another religion, because you'll have to kill him for that, too
And he'd better not be gay either, because that's an abomination
Hey, you're quids in if you've got a daughter though, because it's A-OK to sell her into slavery... wonder if eBay allow that?
Of course, you can make it real nice and easy by just sticking to the Ten Commandments, right? I mean, you can't go wrong there, surely. Except which of the threedifferentsets should you use?
Whoever modded the parent as flamebait needs to go and read their bible a bit more carefully, because there's a hell of a lot of sex, not to mention what it has to say about women . If you think porn is degrading to women, you REALLY need to read the Bible - y'know it tells us to check whether a woman is on her period before having any contact with her at all, as menstruating women are so filthy, dirty, and basically unclean that everything she so much as touches is unclean for a week!
Oh, and if family values is your thing - well, the Bible's got plenty to say about that too
I think it's Lot, I'm not sure and my Bible is packed in a box, so I can't look it up
Time for my clippy impersonation... Sounds like you're referring to Gen:19 5-8
You might also be interested in the rest of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible - a fantastic website containing the complete, unaltered KJV bible, that also happens to have sidenotes pointing out the contradictions, absurdities, morally questionable, and other interesting bits.
Finally, Lot is called "Just" and "Righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8, but the bible tells us on several occasions that There are no just or righteous people Good thing nobody bases their lives or morality around this book! Just think how confused they'd be!
I turned the ringer off on my phone. There's a red light on it that blinks when someone calls.
Pff.. Blinkenlights are so noisy! Real.. err.. people-who-don't-want-to-be-disturbed use the Kraftwerk approach - No ringer, no lights, nothing. Schedule a time for someone to call you, pick up the phone at precisely at that moment, and if they're not on the other end they've missed you.
From Wikipedia's entry on Kraftwerk: The band are notoriously reclusive, so much so that it is rumoured that their own record company do not have their phone numbers. Another notable example of eccentric behaviour was reported by Johnny Marr of The Smiths, who, in trying to contact the band for collaboration, was told that their studio telephone did not have a ringtone, as during recording the band did not like to hear any kind of dissonant noise. Instead, Marr was instructed to phone their studio at a certain time on the dot, and the phone was answered by Ralf Hutter at that moment, despite showing no sign of ringing.
Personally, I don't give a toss about Harry Potter, but tricking people into reading spoilers just for some kind of vague personal kick is the absolute height of shit headded dickdom. Assuming you are the same AC who posted the spoiler, congratualtions. I think you might be the single biggest loser arsehole I've met on the internet - and that's saying something. You telling anybody to grow up is a laugh.
Anyway. I've always thought of a musical MIDI keyboard with glowing keys.
Why? You give it the music, and it can teach you to play a specific piece of music. Just put your hands on the glowing keys, and ta-da!:)
's been done. I can't remember the particular product or manufacturer, but there used to be a setup like that for kids. It was a small midi (well.. USB, actually) keyboard with light-up keys, and some "learn the piano" type software that lit up the keys as it played back music, or as part of interactive music lessons
Adding a topless woman in a frame of The Rescuers (Disney)
I'd not heard of that incident, and thought it sounded very dubious, so I had a quick google around, and lo and behold, Snopes confirms it as true. here, if anyone's interested. Quality stuff ^_^
Slashdot Mirror
Comic book, Norse mythology. Either way, they're stories. Good stories, but just stories.
Oh my. I think this post has just redefined irony.
A Christian arguing that someone else's religion is based on a book of fiction.
those protestors get to live in a democracy, live how they please, and go home to a house with food and running water at the end of the day, they can even protest and have free speech without being executed. The Iraqis couldn't do any of that,
You might have a point there, if the war actually had anything to do with that whatsoever.
We went to war for precisely one single reason.
Namely that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US and UK due to it's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and readiness to use them.
Not to save the people from the regieme. Not to remove Saddam from power. Not to found a democracy, and open trade links. The legal case for war was WMD, and WMD only.
A rather poor case, really, when you consider that there actually were no WMD, and doubly poor when you realise that Blair and Bush actually had been advised before hand that there were no WMD.
Pff
You want to try living in the UK, mate.
We're around the $7/gallon mark where I live in Scotland. I'm sure plenty of other Brits can weigh in with their horror stories as well.
To be honest, this whole thing has run on way too far for Slashdot, but I don't want to just dismiss your post, as it's an extremely good one. I really didn't expect you to go turfing up all the things I referred to for me, and I feel a little bad about having been so lazy as to leave out the references now!
.... And Abraham called him Isaac.
... and offer him there for a burnt offering.
However, I can't help feeling there are some rather spurious apologetics going on here.
The case of Abraham, for example. Before anything else, there are logical issues to be addressed. Quite simply, it is not the act of a kind and loving God to ask you to sacrifice your own child, even just as a test. Presuming that he thinks of God as such, then Abraham's response should be that God wouldn't ask him to do this, and it must be a trick by Satan. Furthermore, while this takes place before "Thou shalt not kill" is laid down as a commandment in Ex 20, it seems rather fickle of God to be demanding sacrifices one minute (even if only as a test/joke), and making killing a damnable sin the next.
It's interesting to note that no matter what God does here, he can't go wrong.
If he has Abraham sacrifice his kid, it's okay, because the kid goes to Heaven, which is a nice place to go, so it's all fine and happy, ergo, God is good.
If he doesn't have Abraham sacrifice the kid, then it shows how merciful he is, ergo, God is good.
Also, not to confuse things any further, but just how many sons did Abraham have, anyway?
Gen 16:15: And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.
Gen.21:2-3: For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age
Note here that Ishmael was the first. So even if there was a reference to "Abraham's only son", between the first and second being born, then that would refer to Ishmael, and not Isaac.
But then we have Gen.22:2: Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac,
I have heard this addressed by apologetics with the argument that Isaac was his first and only son at that point after being called Abraham (rather than Abram) by God, but that is scuppered by Gen 17:23 in which Ishmael is acknowledged as being Abraham's son.
I always find it odd that God, who is all knowing, and has precognisance of all events should require so much adulation and evidence of faith from his creation. He gave us free will, but tests us to check that we won't use our free will instead of our faith. Even though he already knows the outcome of the test. Then sends us to hell if we fail.
Hoever, pressing on, the site you linked to does actually start putting words into the bible that aren't there. I guess much hangs on whether you (the general you, not you specifically) are a literalist, but Deuteronomy 21:18-21 actually makes no mention of a trial whatsoever:
Deut 21:20. And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.
The writer of that page assumes simply there must be a trial, because it would seem rather absurd if there wasn't.
There are many things in the bible which would seem rather (or extremely) absurd if taken literally, and I don't even think this is amongst the worst offenders.
This appears very simply to be describing the process of a parent recieving the authorisation of the elders for a stoning (as a formality, as it appears they'd never decline it).
If it is not to be taken literally, and is open to interpretation such as assuming there must be a trial when none is mentioned, then that opens a whole other can of worms. Just how much interpretation can there be in the Bible? Once you don't have to take it as literal fact that there was a 6 day creation, global flood, virgin birth, resurrection, Joshua's long day, and so on, then it certainly all fits much better with what we know to be fact about our world around us, but what'
As for an "uncompromised clear morally positive message", I refer again to the greatest commandments [gospelcom.net]:
Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
You uh.... don't think that's just a tiny bit compromised by telling people to kill their children, avoid women on their periods (filthy, dirty creatures), kill those who don't believe as they do, shun those who express certain personal choices they disagree with, gain revenge on those whole harm them, kill those who don't observe their sabbath, or the endorsement of slavery, sacrifice, child abuse, torture, rape, bigotry and racism?
Well, fair enough. Our concepts of a "uncompromised clear morally positive message" apparently differ somewhat.
And I know I haven't referenced any of the above, if you really insist, I can and will, though I'd rather not go to the effort.
This one's easy: context. While there are certainly many things in the Bible which should cause readers to ask questions, this example doesn't require a lot of thought, and calling it a contradiction is a bit of a stretch. A simple example might be if you call your spouse perfect even though you know nobody's perfect.
I'd like to point out that dismissing the entire Bible just because of a few anomalies doesn't make sense
Oh, absolutely! And you'd be right. After all, just because a dog has four legs, it doesn't follow that all four legged animals are dogs.
Except for the fact that the bible quite clearly states that it is absolutely, 100% literally true in it's entirity. (2 Tim 3:16 - and the argument that why would God allow his divine word to be corrupted by man?)
If the bible is not to be taken literally, then it is open to interpretation. So.. sure, when it says that homosexuality is an abomination, he means it's actually okay. And when it says that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, it actually means you should not eat hotdog buns on a Thursday. See where this leads to problems?
But fine, I'll grant you that, though there may not be any baby, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Can you show me anything of substance that would back up either the historical accuracy of any significant events (say, the virgin birth, the resurrection, Noah's flood, the parting of the seas, the long day, etc. Not just stuff like 'well, Israel exists, doesn't it?'), or the ethical validity (an uncompromised clear morally positive message) in the bible?
Because believe me, I've looked... and I just don't see it.
By all means though, you have the right attitude - ask questions. Don't take my word for it, I'm just some shmuck on the interwebnet.. and likewise, don't take the bible's word for it - it's just some book. It was exactly that attitude which led me to where I am today. I haven't thrown out the bible over a single anomaly - I've thrown it out over anomaly after anomaly after anomaly after anomaly, and very little else.
Granted, my comment re: the confusion of people following the bible was perhaps a little trite given the sole example I provided, but as I'm sure your own investigations will reveal, it's far from being a lone contradiction in the bible.
At the end of the day though, as I already said, you're on the right track. If you let me, or the bible, or anyone else tell you what to think, then you're headed for trouble. Ask questions, and make up your own mind.
I don't hate Christians, though some of them spread plenty of hate - see godhatesfags.com [warning: potentially offensive], and if your answer is "but that's not a true Christian", I suggest you google for "no true scotsman fallacy", and explain just what does constitute a true Christian.
As for the Bible, well, I do rather dislike it. it's a pretty nasty piece of work, on the whole - and hey, call me crazy, but I tend to be wary of anybody who bases their life and morality around a book which orders them to kill me for not believing as they do.
I'm not denying there's some good stuff in the Bible, and I've no problem with that - in fact, I'll even link to some of it. Heck, the BNP probably have some good stuff amongst all their twisted, hateful policies too. But the fact is the Bible tells you to follow it. All of it. To the letter. And it includes a lot of bad stuff. Put simply, the good stuff does not justify the bad stuff. To say otherwise is to argue that it's okay for me to rape and murder, because I also help old ladies cross the road, and rescue cats from trees.
Funny though. At the start of this you accused me of being afraid of the Bible. I hope I have demonstrated by now that I am very familiar and comfortable with it as a subject. I suspect, however, it is you who is afraid. After all, you dismiss any problems with a wave of the hand and an "Oh, I'm sure there's an answer somewhere. Probably. I hope"
Incidentally, I had a look at the link in your sig. I presume that it being in your sig indicates an endorsement of some kind by yourself. Aside from being generally hostile - and insulting - towards atheists, the first few paragraphs alone describing the book are so staggeringly flawed that I'd be here all day were I to go through them. Just one random example: Massive strawman on the nature of faith. I do not have faith when I turn on a lightswitch, eat cornflakes, drink coffee, or expect the sun to rise tomorrow. I have expectation based on previous experience. Faith would be believing something with no previous experience or evidence - for instance that when the sun rises tomorrow it will be green and square.
Anyway though, this is all way off topic, this is not the place, and I suspect this has run it's course anyway. If you're interested in persuing any of it further, you might want to head on over to www.infidelguy.com - don't let the name put you off, it's not a Christian bashing site - it's a place for people of all (and no) faith to discuss and debate religion in the light of critical analysis.
Rather presumptious, don't you think?
Because I link to a website I must have not done any research, never read the bible, and believe whatever I read on the web?
The reason I'm an atheist is exactly because I've read the bible. Cover to cover. And thought about it. Long before the Skeptics Annotated Bible website even existed. So. Afraid? Hardly.
I link to the SAB as my preferred version because it's a useful resource. Also, it's not "some website" proving the bible wrong. It's the bible proving the bible wrong. The website simply points those contradictions out. I notice you don't refute any of the points I brought up.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Tell you what, why not join my religion? It involves brushing your teeth with glue.
I know, I know! it sounds stupid.. but only because you're a non-believer, and you're going to perish in the fiery depths of hell. Once you believe it all makes perfect sense, and you'll see how foolish all the non believers really are.
Never mind though, after all, "The simple believeth every word" (Proverbs 14:15)
The Bible doesn't say sex is wrong, the Bible does say pornography is wrong, and lusting after another woman in your heart means you already comitted adultery. The Bible also says adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, murderers and drunks will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Lest they repent and abandon their ways.
Is pornography wrong? As a Christian, I obviously think so. I used to be addicted to it from an early age, but thanks to God I am free from it now.
So you draw your morality from the bible?
Jolly good.
Do you have kids? A son, perhaps? Let's hope he never gets stubborn and rebellious, or you'll have to stone him to death
And if he manages to survive long enough to get through that phase, I sure hope he doesn't try to convert you to another religion, because you'll have to kill him for that, too
And he'd better not be gay either, because that's an abomination
Hey, you're quids in if you've got a daughter though, because it's A-OK to sell her into slavery... wonder if eBay allow that?
Before you do that though, you should check whether she's on her period before having any contact with her, as menstruating women are unclean, and contaminate anything they touch
Hope you don't like eating shellfish either, 'cuz those are an abomination too
Of course, you can make it real nice and easy by just sticking to the Ten Commandments, right? I mean, you can't go wrong there, surely. Except which of the three different sets should you use?
Whoever modded the parent as flamebait needs to go and read their bible a bit more carefully, because there's a hell of a lot of sex, not to mention what it has to say about women . If you think porn is degrading to women, you REALLY need to read the Bible - y'know it tells us to check whether a woman is on her period before having any contact with her at all, as menstruating women are so filthy, dirty, and basically unclean that everything she so much as touches is unclean for a week!
Oh, and if family values is your thing - well, the Bible's got plenty to say about that too
I think it's Lot, I'm not sure and my Bible is packed in a box, so I can't look it up
Time for my clippy impersonation...
Sounds like you're referring to Gen:19 5-8
You might also be interested in the rest of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible - a fantastic website containing the complete, unaltered KJV bible, that also happens to have sidenotes pointing out the contradictions, absurdities, morally questionable, and other interesting bits.
Finally, Lot is called "Just" and "Righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8, but the bible tells us on several occasions that There are no just or righteous people
Good thing nobody bases their lives or morality around this book! Just think how confused they'd be!
Pff
Yeah, 'cuz I really like, read through all the other posts before posting mine.
This is Slashdot, dear. We don't even read the articles.
I don't really see how those are related, but for what it's worth, I'm vegetarian, and I still think GIMP is Photoshop's bitch.
from the woooooooooo-woooooooooooo dept.
Mystery solved!
It's Bubb Rub & Lil' Sis checking out their latest dec-o-rashuns.
Heck, let's go a stage further and sort this out once and for all.
I'm patenting the patent, along with it's application and issuing process.
I turned the ringer off on my phone. There's a red light on it that blinks when someone calls.
Pff.. Blinkenlights are so noisy!
Real.. err.. people-who-don't-want-to-be-disturbed use the Kraftwerk approach - No ringer, no lights, nothing. Schedule a time for someone to call you, pick up the phone at precisely at that moment, and if they're not on the other end they've missed you.
From Wikipedia's entry on Kraftwerk:
The band are notoriously reclusive, so much so that it is rumoured that their own record company do not have their phone numbers. Another notable example of eccentric behaviour was reported by Johnny Marr of The Smiths, who, in trying to contact the band for collaboration, was told that their studio telephone did not have a ringtone, as during recording the band did not like to hear any kind of dissonant noise. Instead, Marr was instructed to phone their studio at a certain time on the dot, and the phone was answered by Ralf Hutter at that moment, despite showing no sign of ringing.
No, surely ironic would be rain on your wedding day, or a free ride when you've already paid?
Everything you need to know about chavs
Slashdot. News for nerds, stuff that matters, failed car analogies.
Surely you could at least just reformat the harddrive?
Throwing out the whole PC seems a bit excessive..
Personally, I don't give a toss about Harry Potter, but tricking people into reading spoilers just for some kind of vague personal kick is the absolute height of shit headded dickdom.
Assuming you are the same AC who posted the spoiler, congratualtions. I think you might be the single biggest loser arsehole I've met on the internet - and that's saying something. You telling anybody to grow up is a laugh.
Anyway. I've always thought of a musical MIDI keyboard with glowing keys.
:)
Why? You give it the music, and it can teach you to play a specific piece of music. Just put your hands on the glowing keys, and ta-da!
's been done.
I can't remember the particular product or manufacturer, but there used to be a setup like that for kids. It was a small midi (well.. USB, actually) keyboard with light-up keys, and some "learn the piano" type software that lit up the keys as it played back music, or as part of interactive music lessons
But the positives are:
- Quiet.
- Low energy
- Low heat
- Small physical foot print
- Cheaper than a full system
- Not much good to anyone if they steal it
Rather interestingly these positive points are also shared by the common or garden brick. Make of that what you will.
Adding a topless woman in a frame of The Rescuers (Disney)
I'd not heard of that incident, and thought it sounded very dubious, so I had a quick google around, and lo and behold, Snopes confirms it as true. here, if anyone's interested. Quality stuff ^_^
LOL
Para-sigged.