I always find it funny how people here on slashdot are so quick to lable christians as the brainwashed believe anything you pastor parents told you with out question types, while parotting everything they read on what ever source they cling to, but it is especialy funny hearing this coming from someone who is the son of the author of a book whose beliefs you are espousing. How is it that they were brainwashed into there parents beliefs, while you weren't?
For the first to the answer is very complicated, I realy can't think of any good way to put it into words with our writing pages of stuff. It has to do with the sovergnty of God and his plan for the whole of creation. Our love for him required the ability for us to turn away from him, or we would be mindless slaves. Thats about as good as I can answere in short.
Why does Satan continue to roam the Earth even after Christ has performed his actions on the Cross?
Jesus's actions were not to cast Satan into hell. The devil has always been, and will always be defeted, Jesus came here to save humanity.
Why in Genesis 6 are there angels that interbreed with humans and what is the connection withthe flood?
It was an example of the evil that had become the world.
What actions and methodology does Satan use to complete the "I wills" that he states in Isiah? Ie. what is his plan and how has he carried it out to this point. Here are the statements that he has made
He doesn't, he knows hes defeted, he knows what he has coming, the only thing he does is try to mess up God's creation and turn mankind against God.
Also, knowing that God is omnipotent, how can Satan, an immensely powerfum and similarly intelligent being make these claims with any shred of hope to accomplish them? This really refers back to the frist question about the "I wills" but is an amplification.
Pride. Why do people today chalenge God? Clearly we are far less qualified that satan would have been when he was the arcangel of worship, yet we persist.
Why does Jesus Christ state that "there will be wars and "rumors of wars" until I return" and what does that mean?
That there will be wars and rumors of wars until he returns? Perhaps I'm missing what your asking.
However, name one major denomination that consistently teaches systematic theology, that teaches from the original languages, or that uses isagogics and exegesis in their daily teaching.
The only one listed there that might not be common would be teaching from the original languages. There simply aren't that many people who know the original languages, but even those pastors who don't teach by reading from the original languages use concordances. And actualy, the pastor of the Calvary Chapel I go to does teach from the original languages.
Yeah, sure, just quote me the verse where it says that. Aren't you supposed to be explaining to me, pursuant to my original post, how a non-believer could read the Bible and understand what is to be takern literally and what is not?
You got it right later on when you pointed out that it does come down to translation and interpretation. But if you are looking for a verse that says it was an angel, try Hosia 12:4. Just like with english today words mean different things in different contexts, its difficult to get it right with out serious study on how each author uses different words and sayings, and what previous works he would have been gettting phrases from.
Regardless of how many time you try, it doesn't tell them to sacrifice there first born. Just because you or someone else who has an elementary understanding of the bible things it might be eluding to it does not make it so. Every biblical scholar (and yet there are pleanty who are not christian) would disagree with you.
And no you invent what christians interpret this verse to be, it does not refer to the first born being priests. It's a dirrect reference Numbers 3:46-48. If you want to understand the bible, your going to have to put some serious time studying it. You can't just jump in our all of the references to things you need to know are going to be lost on you. Your right you could put whatever "interpretation" on the Iliad or any other work and people would ignore you, so what makes you believe your qualified to put your "interpretation" on the bible, especialy considering its far more difficult that most other works?
The US government has be putting Osama with Al Qaeda since the early 90's and it has always been known that he was mostly just a rich kid who went fanatical and was the source of funding for much of the terrorist activities. So while I haven't watched it, if thats what you got from it, I can't imagine the rest of it being much better.
First off, stop using the KJV, and if anyone quotes something from KJV, and you care about acuracy, check it with a different translation, the english language has changed enough since the translation that it is not very usefull just on that merit alone.
And once again, Exodus 22:29 does not in any way tell people to sacrafice there first born to God, you can pretend it does all you want but the words are not going to change. God is saying that the first born should be given to him, that does not mean sacrifice, that means dedicated to him, sanctified in his name.
And back so Ezekiel 22:25, no he wasn't testing them at all. Its not a commandment he gave them in this verse, its an action, he says, I did this to them as punishment for there wicked ways. This is a chapter on here is how Isreal screwed up, and this is the punishment they got. You either know your changing the meaning of this to fit your aim, or you didn't read it at all, stop being dishonest to yourself.
And to repeat, "to pass through the fire" does not mean human sacrifice, it mean to take the life of, it can be used often to describe human sacrifice, but so can the word kill, as in "they killed there first born". But the main point is that this was not a command, that is pretty obvious just reading the verse, let along the contex that it is in.
And on to Genesis, God tell Adam, eat of any fruit except of that one tree or he would surely die. The thing your missing is that in the bible death is used for two seperate things. There is physical death and spiritual death. Physical death is obvious, spiritual death is a seperation from God. So when Adam ate the fruit he was cut off from his relationship with God, because sin entered his life. First off, why would God want Adam to know evil, you say that like its a bad thing. Now the snake tells her, that surely you will not die (a lie) and the rest truth, but spun in a way to make it sound like its not a bad thing. And so man ate of the fruit, and was cut off from God, ie he died. And in 3:22 God is talking to Adam and Eve, no them eating of the tree was not a worry to God, and not Adam was not already subject do death. The bottom line is that God told them the truth and the snake lied to them, and what he said that was true was twisted. And now for the Jacob and the nerve. Once again, stop relying on an old translation, the English language has changed, if you want to argue that it doesn't refer to the sciatic nerve you can take it up with the Hebrew Scholors. And it was not God himself that wresled with him, it was an angle of a preincarnate christ.
Congrats, you've found the skeptics annotated bible, and learned to parrot everything they post without actualy putting any though into its validity. You are blinded by faith, just not a faith in God or christianity.
Exodus 22: [29] Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. [30] Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.
And where does this say to sacrifice your first born? It doesn't thats your suggestion.
Ezekiel 20: [25] Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; [26] And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.
Try reading the rest of the chapter (hint this was punishing them for there idolatry and wickedness)
And once again, you post a passage that shows, woops, he wasn't hit in the crotch, you realy made that up. It is the the sciatic nerve that it is talking about. And no "to pass through the fire" does not mean sacrifice here, or else where (where do you get these ideas?). Also, I notice you gave up on the idea that God lied to Adam and Eve while the snake told the truth, I'm very curious where you got that idea from.
Evolution has made MANY predictions, and every single time it has passed with flying colors.
Thats some crazy world you live in, either that our you realy are here with us and you just need to go back and check your facts, go ahead, ask the nearest biologist for some examples of failed evolutionary predictions.
Sure we're still working out a few details of the tree, but the overall structure is extremely distinct.
If by a few small details you mean enormous holes that seem to be more prevelant than the connections, the ok, I'll give you that.
Evolution predicts that mutation and heredity and selection in a population is sufficient to CREATE INFORMATION and produce great complexity and optimisation.
Your inventing realities here if you think this one has come to pass, the creation of information has never been observed, only the oposite. Your example is more an argument for ID than evolution.
The same thing could be argued against evolution, that it is a transparent attempt to make an athiestic world view logicaly sound. I personaly believe strongly in ID, not because I find the evidence for a biblical creation to be strong, but because I find the evidence for evolution to be very weak. And so, not having any reason to believe that the bible was not literal in the story of creation, I'll continue to believe that, and continue to read new discoveries and theories with intrest and a large grain of salt. And yes I do understand evolution very well, far better than most posters here, so please don't respond with the typical "you don't understand evolution" argument, because it's not a valid argument. Having said that, the reason I will defend the teaching of ID in schools as a theory other than evolution mainly has to do with the the way evolution is taught in schools. It is not taught as a scientfic theory that best describes how life could have formed by it self, but is instead used as an "in your face christians, we don't need your God" attack on christianity and religion. And like anyone whos "team" is being attacked, I like it when the attack is countered. Now of course in the big scheme of things I don't consern myself over evolution vs creation other than as an intrest, because it's not a central tenent of my beliefs, and they are in no way dependent on the outcome. But then on to the mistaken view that ID has no scientific backing, that is just false. Yes it requires a "non-scientific entity" to work, but regardless of popular falicy, that does not make it any less scientific. Science is mearly a process of determining the truths of nature, and how things work. Just because one aspect of a theory does not allow itself to be tested by the scientific method does not invalidate other testable or indirect evidence for that said theory. If you want to look into some "hard science" done by creationists, take a look at some of the work done by D. Russell Humphreys, especialy in his book, "Starlight and Time" or Michael J. Behe just off the top of my head. ID is not "custom-built" to get into class rooms, I realy have no idea where you get that idea from. Especialy since ID spans several differnt groups of thought. It covers everything from guided evolution to a literal biblical creation, and keep in mind, ID is not the newer of the two theories, evolution was proposed as a replacement for ID, not the otherway around.
I'm just going to respond to one part of you post here. The part about eating bacon and the old Testament Laws. There is a distinction between things that are sins and things that are unclean. The laws regarding food, cleanliness, etc, were not introduced because those issues were sins, they were there for one of three reasons, for the benifit of the people, so seperate Isreal from the nations around them making them visibly unique, and to point toward the coming of Jesus. Some of these laws crossed over one or more of the three groups. But the important thing to know is that violating these laws was only a sin because doing so would be diobediance to God, not because they were inherantly sinfull. This is in contrast to laws regarding murder, theft, sexual sins, etc. Since "perverse sexual behaviors" is very vaugue and could mean alot of different things to different people, I'll just lay out the guideline, and you can check what ever you were thinking of against it. If it is not sex between a man and a woman who are married, then it is a sin, thats realy the only guideline. The bible is very clear that the comming of Jesus and his death and resurection frees us from the Old Testamant Laws, but those are different from things that are sinnfull. If someone wants to still follow one or more of the Old Testament Laws, ie. Seventh Day Adventists, that is there perogative, but not required, and in fact advised against.
You have some serious issues with dislexia or are just reading the wrong book if what you found was any of those things. The only example that I can even say you mearly took it out of context was Jacob wrestled God, and even then he wasn't hit in the crotch, thats your addition. If you willing to just make stuff up on the spot your only deluding yourself.
That version would be his own, it is definately not a view that would be held by any major christian denomination, or any prominante theologians. If would like to know what the bible realy teaches just ask and I'll be happy to post a response, but what dread ed posted is definately not it (no offence dread ed, but its not).
Since you have established that the attackers obviously know everything, why not give them detailed layouts of all our bases in the middle east, including gps coordinates for key points, and detailed structual analysis of all the bridges and key infrastructure we are building, including weak points and just how much force would be needed to break them, and while we are at it, lets give them detailed scheduals of all importan personel, including exact waypoints for there travels, because we all know that the attackers already know this. Oh and as a side note, since im one of those ignorant US citizens who only watches Fox News, please clue me in on the IED and VBIED analysis, since you are obviously much more informed than me.
There is not a single valid reason for ignoring all TTL's and setting them to 2 weeks. If your doing this it's because you are ignorant of the way DNS should work, or you are just to stuck up to care that you are making other peoples lives difficult. Yes, DNS TTL's are there to make peoples lives easier, and your being a total iresponsible jerk by setting the TTL two weeks no matter what. You are not saving your self any trouble, and are making others jobs harder, just because something is technicaly valid (and please show me the RFC that allows ignoring TTL) to the specs doesn't mean that it should be done. If the customers in this case can't send and email to the domain, it is your fault, regardles of you "technical validity", because you are just being an ass.
I realy like that second quote, it's realy something you should have read and though about before you wrote your finishing sentences. Do you realy believe we know so much more today than we did than when Einstein wrote those words? Or backing up a little in his quote, to the part that describes alot of vocal posters on slashdot, the "professional atheist", think about what he says there, it might change your perspective a bit.
Ok, well I don't want to get into a debate over the protestant reformation, etc, because there are so many points and arguments that it would literaly take months on a forum. But I will point out one of the biggest problems with the Catholic church, and that is the dependence on tradition over scriptures. The entirety of your argument was based on comentaries writen over 1000 years after christ. If you want to ever get anywhere with protestants, you are going to have to use scripture, and nothing but scripture.
I know companies are "evil" and all that, but umm, I'm pretty sure they will be the ones to build the next public cyberinfrastructure, considering they built the first one and all.
Your taking your beliefs, ones that I'm fairly sure are not Orthodox even in the Catholic church (and definately not in any protestant denomination), making them far more confusing and less clear than you should, and then acting as though they are mainstream in the church, I strongly disagree.
For the most part the only people who get on my foe list are people who do one of 2 things:
a. Mindlessly bash religion (mostly just christianity), things like saying anyone who believes in religion is a stupid uninteligent fool. Basicly, somewho who I view as being so stuck up in being anti-christian that there would be no point in every getting into a discusion with them.
b. People who truely believe that those of us who voted for Bush, any Republicans, or are left of center are evil corperate christian neocon's bent on bringing the next theocracy or police state, etc, and who I feel are so stuck in there view that again any discusion would be pointless.
If I see someone as one or both of the above then then depending on how bad they did it, and how I'm feeling that particular day, they are likely to get marked as foe. If they also seem to never add anything inteligent, or start trolling in either category on stories that are entirely not related, they are pretty much always added. As for you, looking through your comments, I didn't see anything that would suggest your are either, so it was probably just a joke that I reacted to on a day that I was already anoyed.
So you post links to two highly editorial pieces that are not about specificly about Crichton, but merly use some of his quotes to prove thier views as a reason to disrespect Crichton?
Thats why we are spending lots of money on research and developement, so that it won't stay in its "current state." Also, the Union of Concerned Scientists is more of a political action group than anything, and to pretend that they represent the views of even all professors let alone the scientific comunity as a whole is just laughable.
Slashdot Mirror
I always find it funny how people here on slashdot are so quick to lable christians as the brainwashed believe anything you pastor parents told you with out question types, while parotting everything they read on what ever source they cling to, but it is especialy funny hearing this coming from someone who is the son of the author of a book whose beliefs you are espousing. How is it that they were brainwashed into there parents beliefs, while you weren't?
Just a quick one, the whole eugenics movement.
For the first to the answer is very complicated, I realy can't think of any good way to put it into words with our writing pages of stuff. It has to do with the sovergnty of God and his plan for the whole of creation. Our love for him required the ability for us to turn away from him, or we would be mindless slaves. Thats about as good as I can answere in short.
Why does Satan continue to roam the Earth even after Christ has performed his actions on the Cross?
Jesus's actions were not to cast Satan into hell. The devil has always been, and will always be defeted, Jesus came here to save humanity.
Why in Genesis 6 are there angels that interbreed with humans and what is the connection withthe flood?
It was an example of the evil that had become the world.
What actions and methodology does Satan use to complete the "I wills" that he states in Isiah? Ie. what is his plan and how has he carried it out to this point. Here are the statements that he has made
He doesn't, he knows hes defeted, he knows what he has coming, the only thing he does is try to mess up God's creation and turn mankind against God.
Also, knowing that God is omnipotent, how can Satan, an immensely powerfum and similarly intelligent being make these claims with any shred of hope to accomplish them? This really refers back to the frist question about the "I wills" but is an amplification.
Pride. Why do people today chalenge God? Clearly we are far less qualified that satan would have been when he was the arcangel of worship, yet we persist.
Why does Jesus Christ state that "there will be wars and "rumors of wars" until I return" and what does that mean?
That there will be wars and rumors of wars until he returns? Perhaps I'm missing what your asking.
However, name one major denomination that consistently teaches systematic theology, that teaches from the original languages, or that uses isagogics and exegesis in their daily teaching.
The only one listed there that might not be common would be teaching from the original languages. There simply aren't that many people who know the original languages, but even those pastors who don't teach by reading from the original languages use concordances. And actualy, the pastor of the Calvary Chapel I go to does teach from the original languages.
Yeah, sure, just quote me the verse where it says that. Aren't you supposed to be explaining to me, pursuant to my original post, how a non-believer could read the Bible and understand what is to be takern literally and what is not?
You got it right later on when you pointed out that it does come down to translation and interpretation. But if you are looking for a verse that says it was an angel, try Hosia 12:4. Just like with english today words mean different things in different contexts, its difficult to get it right with out serious study on how each author uses different words and sayings, and what previous works he would have been gettting phrases from.
Regardless of how many time you try, it doesn't tell them to sacrifice there first born. Just because you or someone else who has an elementary understanding of the bible things it might be eluding to it does not make it so. Every biblical scholar (and yet there are pleanty who are not christian) would disagree with you.
And no you invent what christians interpret this verse to be, it does not refer to the first born being priests. It's a dirrect reference Numbers 3:46-48. If you want to understand the bible, your going to have to put some serious time studying it. You can't just jump in our all of the references to things you need to know are going to be lost on you. Your right you could put whatever "interpretation" on the Iliad or any other work and people would ignore you, so what makes you believe your qualified to put your "interpretation" on the bible, especialy considering its far more difficult that most other works?
The US government has be putting Osama with Al Qaeda since the early 90's and it has always been known that he was mostly just a rich kid who went fanatical and was the source of funding for much of the terrorist activities. So while I haven't watched it, if thats what you got from it, I can't imagine the rest of it being much better.
The Planet recently installed Tipping Point into there network, and they are much larger that most ISP with around 15GB of bandwidth.
First off, stop using the KJV, and if anyone quotes something from KJV, and you care about acuracy, check it with a different translation, the english language has changed enough since the translation that it is not very usefull just on that merit alone.
And once again, Exodus 22:29 does not in any way tell people to sacrafice there first born to God, you can pretend it does all you want but the words are not going to change. God is saying that the first born should be given to him, that does not mean sacrifice, that means dedicated to him, sanctified in his name.
And back so Ezekiel 22:25, no he wasn't testing them at all. Its not a commandment he gave them in this verse, its an action, he says, I did this to them as punishment for there wicked ways. This is a chapter on here is how Isreal screwed up, and this is the punishment they got. You either know your changing the meaning of this to fit your aim, or you didn't read it at all, stop being dishonest to yourself.
And to repeat, "to pass through the fire" does not mean human sacrifice, it mean to take the life of, it can be used often to describe human sacrifice, but so can the word kill, as in "they killed there first born". But the main point is that this was not a command, that is pretty obvious just reading the verse, let along the contex that it is in.
And on to Genesis, God tell Adam, eat of any fruit except of that one tree or he would surely die. The thing your missing is that in the bible death is used for two seperate things. There is physical death and spiritual death. Physical death is obvious, spiritual death is a seperation from God. So when Adam ate the fruit he was cut off from his relationship with God, because sin entered his life. First off, why would God want Adam to know evil, you say that like its a bad thing. Now the snake tells her, that surely you will not die (a lie) and the rest truth, but spun in a way to make it sound like its not a bad thing. And so man ate of the fruit, and was cut off from God, ie he died.
And in 3:22 God is talking to Adam and Eve, no them eating of the tree was not a worry to God, and not Adam was not already subject do death.
The bottom line is that God told them the truth and the snake lied to them, and what he said that was true was twisted.
And now for the Jacob and the nerve. Once again, stop relying on an old translation, the English language has changed, if you want to argue that it doesn't refer to the sciatic nerve you can take it up with the Hebrew Scholors. And it was not God himself that wresled with him, it was an angle of a preincarnate christ.
Congrats, you've found the skeptics annotated bible, and learned to parrot everything they post without actualy putting any though into its validity. You are blinded by faith, just not a faith in God or christianity.
Exodus 22: [29] Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. [30] Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.
And where does this say to sacrifice your first born? It doesn't thats your suggestion.
Ezekiel 20: [25] Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; [26] And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.
Try reading the rest of the chapter (hint this was punishing them for there idolatry and wickedness)
And once again, you post a passage that shows, woops, he wasn't hit in the crotch, you realy made that up. It is the the sciatic nerve that it is talking about. And no "to pass through the fire" does not mean sacrifice here, or else where (where do you get these ideas?). Also, I notice you gave up on the idea that God lied to Adam and Eve while the snake told the truth, I'm very curious where you got that idea from.
Evolution has made MANY predictions, and every single time it has passed with flying colors.
Thats some crazy world you live in, either that our you realy are here with us and you just need to go back and check your facts, go ahead, ask the nearest biologist for some examples of failed evolutionary predictions.
Sure we're still working out a few details of the tree, but the overall structure is extremely distinct.
If by a few small details you mean enormous holes that seem to be more prevelant than the connections, the ok, I'll give you that.
Evolution predicts that mutation and heredity and selection in a population is sufficient to CREATE INFORMATION and produce great complexity and optimisation.
Your inventing realities here if you think this one has come to pass, the creation of information has never been observed, only the oposite. Your example is more an argument for ID than evolution.
The same thing could be argued against evolution, that it is a transparent attempt to make an athiestic world view logicaly sound. I personaly believe strongly in ID, not because I find the evidence for a biblical creation to be strong, but because I find the evidence for evolution to be very weak. And so, not having any reason to believe that the bible was not literal in the story of creation, I'll continue to believe that, and continue to read new discoveries and theories with intrest and a large grain of salt. And yes I do understand evolution very well, far better than most posters here, so please don't respond with the typical "you don't understand evolution" argument, because it's not a valid argument. Having said that, the reason I will defend the teaching of ID in schools as a theory other than evolution mainly has to do with the the way evolution is taught in schools. It is not taught as a scientfic theory that best describes how life could have formed by it self, but is instead used as an "in your face christians, we don't need your God" attack on christianity and religion. And like anyone whos "team" is being attacked, I like it when the attack is countered. Now of course in the big scheme of things I don't consern myself over evolution vs creation other than as an intrest, because it's not a central tenent of my beliefs, and they are in no way dependent on the outcome. But then on to the mistaken view that ID has no scientific backing, that is just false. Yes it requires a "non-scientific entity" to work, but regardless of popular falicy, that does not make it any less scientific. Science is mearly a process of determining the truths of nature, and how things work. Just because one aspect of a theory does not allow itself to be tested by the scientific method does not invalidate other testable or indirect evidence for that said theory. If you want to look into some "hard science" done by creationists, take a look at some of the work done by D. Russell Humphreys, especialy in his book, "Starlight and Time" or Michael J. Behe just off the top of my head. ID is not "custom-built" to get into class rooms, I realy have no idea where you get that idea from. Especialy since ID spans several differnt groups of thought. It covers everything from guided evolution to a literal biblical creation, and keep in mind, ID is not the newer of the two theories, evolution was proposed as a replacement for ID, not the otherway around.
I'm just going to respond to one part of you post here. The part about eating bacon and the old Testament Laws. There is a distinction between things that are sins and things that are unclean. The laws regarding food, cleanliness, etc, were not introduced because those issues were sins, they were there for one of three reasons, for the benifit of the people, so seperate Isreal from the nations around them making them visibly unique, and to point toward the coming of Jesus. Some of these laws crossed over one or more of the three groups. But the important thing to know is that violating these laws was only a sin because doing so would be diobediance to God, not because they were inherantly sinfull. This is in contrast to laws regarding murder, theft, sexual sins, etc. Since "perverse sexual behaviors" is very vaugue and could mean alot of different things to different people, I'll just lay out the guideline, and you can check what ever you were thinking of against it. If it is not sex between a man and a woman who are married, then it is a sin, thats realy the only guideline. The bible is very clear that the comming of Jesus and his death and resurection frees us from the Old Testamant Laws, but those are different from things that are sinnfull. If someone wants to still follow one or more of the Old Testament Laws, ie. Seventh Day Adventists, that is there perogative, but not required, and in fact advised against.
You have some serious issues with dislexia or are just reading the wrong book if what you found was any of those things. The only example that I can even say you mearly took it out of context was Jacob wrestled God, and even then he wasn't hit in the crotch, thats your addition. If you willing to just make stuff up on the spot your only deluding yourself.
That version would be his own, it is definately not a view that would be held by any major christian denomination, or any prominante theologians. If would like to know what the bible realy teaches just ask and I'll be happy to post a response, but what dread ed posted is definately not it (no offence dread ed, but its not).
Tanks being fired, several hundred rounds, and "the kidnapers said the Americans would try to kill me" goes a bit beyond being "confused".
Since you have established that the attackers obviously know everything, why not give them detailed layouts of all our bases in the middle east, including gps coordinates for key points, and detailed structual analysis of all the bridges and key infrastructure we are building, including weak points and just how much force would be needed to break them, and while we are at it, lets give them detailed scheduals of all importan personel, including exact waypoints for there travels, because we all know that the attackers already know this. Oh and as a side note, since im one of those ignorant US citizens who only watches Fox News, please clue me in on the IED and VBIED analysis, since you are obviously much more informed than me.
If Osama had used Iran as a base, you might have a point, but as it stands you should go back and check your facts.
There is not a single valid reason for ignoring all TTL's and setting them to 2 weeks. If your doing this it's because you are ignorant of the way DNS should work, or you are just to stuck up to care that you are making other peoples lives difficult. Yes, DNS TTL's are there to make peoples lives easier, and your being a total iresponsible jerk by setting the TTL two weeks no matter what. You are not saving your self any trouble, and are making others jobs harder, just because something is technicaly valid (and please show me the RFC that allows ignoring TTL) to the specs doesn't mean that it should be done. If the customers in this case can't send and email to the domain, it is your fault, regardles of you "technical validity", because you are just being an ass.
I realy like that second quote, it's realy something you should have read and though about before you wrote your finishing sentences. Do you realy believe we know so much more today than we did than when Einstein wrote those words? Or backing up a little in his quote, to the part that describes alot of vocal posters on slashdot, the "professional atheist", think about what he says there, it might change your perspective a bit.
Oh dear, it seems slashdot has bred a new type breed of troll. And unfortunately your not the only one of its kind.
Ok, well I don't want to get into a debate over the protestant reformation, etc, because there are so many points and arguments that it would literaly take months on a forum. But I will point out one of the biggest problems with the Catholic church, and that is the dependence on tradition over scriptures. The entirety of your argument was based on comentaries writen over 1000 years after christ. If you want to ever get anywhere with protestants, you are going to have to use scripture, and nothing but scripture.
I know companies are "evil" and all that, but umm, I'm pretty sure they will be the ones to build the next public cyberinfrastructure, considering they built the first one and all.
Your taking your beliefs, ones that I'm fairly sure are not Orthodox even in the Catholic church (and definately not in any protestant denomination), making them far more confusing and less clear than you should, and then acting as though they are mainstream in the church, I strongly disagree.
For the most part the only people who get on my foe list are people who do one of 2 things:
a. Mindlessly bash religion (mostly just christianity), things like saying anyone who believes in religion is a stupid uninteligent fool. Basicly, somewho who I view as being so stuck up in being anti-christian that there would be no point in every getting into a discusion with them.
b. People who truely believe that those of us who voted for Bush, any Republicans, or are left of center are evil corperate christian neocon's bent on bringing the next theocracy or police state, etc, and who I feel are so stuck in there view that again any discusion would be pointless.
If I see someone as one or both of the above then then depending on how bad they did it, and how I'm feeling that particular day, they are likely to get marked as foe. If they also seem to never add anything inteligent, or start trolling in either category on stories that are entirely not related, they are pretty much always added. As for you, looking through your comments, I didn't see anything that would suggest your are either, so it was probably just a joke that I reacted to on a day that I was already anoyed.
So you post links to two highly editorial pieces that are not about specificly about Crichton, but merly use some of his quotes to prove thier views as a reason to disrespect Crichton?
Thats why we are spending lots of money on research and developement, so that it won't stay in its "current state." Also, the Union of Concerned Scientists is more of a political action group than anything, and to pretend that they represent the views of even all professors let alone the scientific comunity as a whole is just laughable.