Why do you bother to make the argument that if so many scientists believe it it must be true? Don't you pay any attention to history? Why does it need to be a conspiracy theory if we happen to think most people are wrong on a certain point? It's happened in the past, it will happen again.
That doesn't make sense, sorry. You confine God to our physical realm, presuming He must fit within the mathematical laws He created. That is a faulty assumption.
Not to mention that God is infinite while everything created is finite. Another problem.
God is the first cause, the creator, the origin. Atheistic evolution has no answer for first cause, while there must be one.
Btw, I'd be curious to see the maths you used to show it impossible that God existed.
In 2000 years, I fully expect evolution to be recorded in history as a time when people beleived that absurd idea that all life evolved over billions of years. They'll laugh at us as much as we laugh at those who believed in a flat earth.
That IQ test has to be a joke. In some of the questions they practically gave the answers away. I'd be surprised if anyone scored
But then, I guess that's why they advertise it on USA Today. Let the readers think they're intelligent:)
It is my firm belief that the Bible is consistent. So if that were demostrated wrong then I'd have to seriously reconsider my faith.
However - just because something seems not to make sense doesn't mean I should outright reject it. I have had times in my life where something has made just no sense, but I've later found out that it actually did - I just didn't know enough. That applies to the Bible too. A lot of apparent contradictions really aren't contradictions at all. They just are when you don't bother to find the full facts, and you try to understand the Bible through an atheistic or amoral viewpoint.
So I'd encourage you - if you were a teenager when you departed, then perhaps your eyes have been opened more now. It seems hardly fair to me to reject a faith because it seems to be contradictory, when you don't actually know for sure if it is or not.
You sound as proud as peach, "don't feel bad" as if I didn't know these things!
I was well aware of both these. I don't know much greek, but I've started to teach myself some. I was certainly aware that the word "Christos" started with the greek letter chi which looks identical to "X".
Now how many Christians and non-Christians are aware of this? If we were greek, then the shortening might be unoffensive. If most understood it it wouldn't be offensive. But in almost every case someone who views it is not going to realise. We are christians, not xtians. We are english, not greek. I am quite sure that many, perhaps even most, that use the shorthand xtian are both non-christian and unaware as to why it is shortened that way. I don't really see any benefit to this way of saying christian other than it saves you typing 4 letters. The rest seems to be disadvantages.
Part of the problem is that a lot of new games just aren't fun to play. The classics had all we need.
Games should be $30 Australian each, or $15 US. Or something dirt cheap. Then parents would have little problem purchasing them for their kids, piracy would be less common, people would try new games that aren't big name. Adults would try new games, and youth with little money would be more likely to buy than to copy off their friend's computer or download from kazaa.
The god of the jews is an asshole. The god of the xtians is a pansy.
A common misconception. God is one and the same through the old and new testament. In the old testament there are many cases where God was merciful and forgiving. In the new testament there are many times He condemns and kills much as He did in the old testament. This sort of statement is made by those who have never seriously looked into the Bible (Acts 5:1-11, Acts 12:20-24, Rev 2:20-23).
Two thoughts. The first is that Christians claim their difference in these areas:
1. Monotheism - there is but one God only. He is all powerful, all knowing, present everywhere. We hold this in common with the other great monotheistic religions (Judaism & Islam - Mormons are polytheistic under the guise of monotheism).
2. Messiah - While the Jews await the Messiah we believe He has come. Thus as God promised salvation has come through Him. While the Jews still await the Messiah who will save them, we see He has come and teach what is true: that only through Him can men be saved. Muslims, while also believing Jesus is the Messiah, did what they ought not - they added laws and restrictions when Jesus came to liberate us from the law. The law was but a shadow, a sign of things to come. Once Jesus came the law was fulfilled and we were free from it's confines, obeying God's words and moral law, seeking to become righteous but never reaching. Islam adds laws as if the Messiah never came, crippling His salvation offer.
3. Grace alone - Now *this* is where we differ from every other religion. Every other religion teaches some form of works in order to reach salvation (do good works, visit temple/church regularly, discover mystical secrets, etc). Christianity teaches that we can never do enough to obtain salvation. That we are so wicked that we won't even pursue salvation. So we believe in grace - that God gives His gift freely, to save His chosen apart from anything they have done. We are not saved by something we do, but rather because He loved us first and saved us before we asked.
You talk of rich churches, I couldn't agree more. It is wicked it seems that so much money could be hoarded and not used to help the poor. To whom much is given, much will be expected. To me it seems like you look at those who claim the title "Christian" but fail to live up to your expectations of what they believe. That is not fair to judge the religion by the misactions of some members. True Christianity as you suggest teaches mixing with those outside the faith - much as Jesus ate with a tax collector, and allowed a prostitute to wash His feet. Some Christians protect themselves from these sorts of people and that is not the true faith.
Your comments about others offering help is not very important. As I described elsewhere the 10 commandments are divided into two sections. The first being our duty towards God, and our second is our duty towards men. There are many things I could say on this, but I will settle on this point - while many are aware and try to act out the moral law towards men, they almost all fail miserably with their duty towards God. And such failings eventually lead towards a corruption of our duty towards men. Our western society *once* was a Christian culture. As we move further from that, we will see the moral law corrupted more and more.
And quit your offensive uses of "jeebus" and "xtian" if you consider yourself to be a fair, kind, tolerant person (tolerance being the catchphrase of the day).
Paul was certainly not a misogynist. You have either misread what he said, or not read it at all.
Paul wasn't interested in teaching popular topics. He taught things the way he believed it was, and so do I - males were created first, and the female was created for the man. Men should always have authority over women (unless a man gives the woman authority - in which case it is still ultimately under a man's authority).
Why should we apologise for Paul's teachings? Just because you don't agree, or because equal rights movements are popular today, doesn't mean they are correct.
Paul certainly did not hate women. The early Christians were much more accepting of woman than most others. I heard of one time when female children were "thrown away", so the Christians would take them and raise them up. Just because we believe men were created above women does not mean we think they (you?) are worthless. Not even close. It said that God created woman as a partner comparable to man. Something comparable is not worthless.
Your statement is just a blanket insult that veils a misunderstanding or deliberate distortion of Paul's teachings in an effort to discredit Christianity, which I am guessing you have a particular bias against.
"xtian" does not relate to Christ - the word "Christ" means anointed, not cross. The shorthand is offensive because it removes the central element of our faith. I am not an "xtian".
As for comments on comparative mythology - that is hardly helpful. I have read a lot on other religions and mythology. What exactly were you thinking might do me some "good"? It's very easy to say "well if you look at topic X you will eventually agree with me". But what if I read it and come to the opposite conclusion of you? Such a short defense is hardly helpful, and rarely informative.
In theory, an Angel, a servant of god, should be willing to suffer the predations of mankind at its worst. You'd think the grace of an omnipotent being would count for something, and angels, by definition, are recipients of grace.
God's grace is extended primarily to His chosen, and occasionally to everyone else. It is justice for God to demand the penalty of death for sin. God does not tolerate blasphemy against Himself. Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. The second is like it, love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments rest the whole law. If you read the ten commandments you will see it divided into two sections. The first commandments (5 or so can't remember) are the moral law regarding our duty towards God. The second half is the moral law of our duty towards fellow humans.
Given this - it is the most wicked of sins to rebel against God. These angels expect wickedness, but by no means are to be subjected to it. For lot to allow these perfect Angels to be defiled by men - and by extension letting it happen to God - would be far worse than offerring his sinful, human daughters (as he himself is sinful). It's just absurd to think that Lot would do better by allowing the angels to be raped.
In opposition, rape is one of the most horrific crimes humans can commit, and a man who offers his daughters to rapists is very possibly the lowest form of life on earth.
As I said, it's not like Lot had many options. As far as he knew the angels were at the mercy of the townsfolk. He could allow God (by proxy) to be abused by men, or he could allow his daughters. His duty is first to God then his family - so the best decision was obvious. However, the angels being the servents of God had the power to stop the townsfolk so it became unecessary. Now your argument is wrong anyway. Either way he's offering either the angels or his daughters to be raped - one or the other. And he's not doing the raping - he's merely trying to do the best thing he possibly can given the circumstances.
The sons of Lot, by the way, founded tribes that later become speed-bumps for Israelites on the way to Palestine. god sure has it in for his chosen people, what with all the "Let's save one horrid man so his human-sacrificing descendents can make incursions into Israel to fill up on unholy-ritual-fodder" stuff.
I have no idea what you are saying. But I will say that the Israelites only had trouble with neighbouring countries when they rebelled against God. Whilst they were obedient to Him (such as during the reign of Solomon and David) they experienced great blessings and victory in battle. When David committed that wicked sin and committed adultery and sent the husband to die, he and Israel were punished for the rebellion. David was not commended for that.
xtians say that only god can judge. Good thing I'm not an xtian.
Don't say "xtians". We are followers of the Christ, therefore we are called Christians. xtian means nothing.
Christians do not say only God can judge - the message is different. God judges who is saved and who is condemned. But He certainly expects us to judge earthly matters, such as crimes, and punish accordingly. We are not to judge the inward man. Yet Christians are to judge each other, but not those who are outside. If a man steals, he is guilty and we judge.
While I'm at it, I'm pretty sure Job is an old Testament book, and therefore Job predates Jesus. Prefacing a point on Job's personal faith with a statement about xtian theology seems kind of pointless, given that he wasn't a xtian.
This makes little sense. Job is so old that it may in fact predate the Pentatuach and Moses - so are you going to say that Judaism theology makes no sense to explain Job's faith?
Christianity is the one true religion. I wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't believe that (so don't consider me ignorant - wha
I love it how quick you guys are to call Noah's ark fantasy. Do you love to put us in the same category as those who think the world is flat? Galileo was a Christian. Today's evolutionary mindset is hardened into concrete ignorance. It is an attitude much like the portrayed Catholic stubborness against Galileo's ideas.
Whether you intended to or not (assuming that the Slashdot crowd was all pro evolution), you offend when you make comments like these. I have spent a great deal of time reading and arguing evolution - I know it well compared to most people (but not compared, necessarily, to most of the slashdot crowd). And I think the labelling of Noah's ark as fantasy is just an easy summary showing signs of a deep rooted ignorant stubborness.
Let me turn the tables. Evolution is "well founded" in facts because everyone believes it. Some new bones are found, or a new hut, whatever - evolutionists try to fit it into an evolutionary date based on their understanding. Eg, "This strata is known to be about 30million years old, so this particular sample must be around that date". These dates are built up more and more, and are seen by the ignorant as evidences of evolution, when they are merely interpreted under an evolutionary view. If someone can show me how evolution is rational and believable, then I'll reconsider. But for now it seems like an imaginary tale if impossibilities and absurdness. It just appears ridiculous, every bit as much as you perceive the Biblical events to be absurd. Even more.
We are supposedly 98% or so similar to Apes/chimps (I cannot recall). Yet this is a difference of millions of sections. For the time of our divergence, only perhaps 1700 differences could have occurred. That's not even *close* to what is needed. And I'm supposed to believe that evolution makes sense?!?
No, instead the media is flooded with evolutionary ideas so people think that it's probably true. Scientists work within those assumptions, building on the evolutionary timeline until all these "evidences" built on a faulty foundation are seen as overwhelming.
I challenge anyone to give me a scientific statement of evolution.
And to make this challenging you cannot use the one that talkorigins presents. I'll tell you why, it's really simple. The statement of biological evolution that talkorigins presents is acceptable. Creationists accept that statement as true, tested, and proven. That is NOT the theory of evolution that causes so much contention. It is the idea that all life on earth originated from simple single celled life, evolving through mutations into what we have today. The definition on talkorigins does not encompass that, and it is not the myth that causes contention.
So many demand creationists to present a scientific theory of creationism. I say give me one of evolution, and I try to provide one in like manner. If you present the talkorigins one, then I will quote the same one as the scientific theory of creationism! It's no different, because it doesn't contradict creationism.
Where did God command the smashing of children against walls?
David was punished for doing that wicked thing, you can't put that there as if God commanded him.
As for Lot - he had the choice of letting the men rape the angels of God who had visited him (who, as God's messengers would have been akin to letting the men rape God - just like beating a diplomat from another nation is an assault against the ruler of that nation), or offer these men his daughters. I'm sure he would have been none too happy about the idea, but consider the options...
God did not egg Satan on. God permitted Satan to do the damage he did. Satan was unable to touch Job, unless God let him. Job said, "The Lord gives, the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord". Whether or not you think God acted justly - Job was submissive to God's authority. Understand that Christians believe we are scum of the earth - so punishment like what God permitted Satan to do to Job is seen as something that Job deserved. When someone is blessed, and experiences security - it is *purely* because of the mercy and grace of God. I'm not interested in whether you believe that or not - but that's how a Christian explains it.
Regarding the racial purification - that's just too different from our current society to understand properly. Though may I remind you that there are an ample number of people who advocate nuking the middle east (which I am extremely opposed to). It's just a matter of where you view something from. If I had the choice, I would see the KKK wiped out in an instant. I consider a group like that disgustingly evil. Yet to those inside it, they don't see themselves as all that bad. In the eyes of God the societies He commanded to wipe out were incredibly evil - and the best way to eliminate their practices was to wipe out the entire culture. Yet as you say it didn't work - though I'm sure that it was better than if they hadn't been wiped out (bearing in mind that some times the Israelites would not do as they were told, and took wives from the cultures they were not supposed to, etc).
Elisha...well...all I can say is different culture, different times, different understandings. This man was a great prophet of God. Prophets are messengers of God - they speak His word and message. Calling him a baldy (they actually said "Go up, you baldy", perhaps a reference to his mentor Elijah who had ascended to heaven. Ie, telling him to go away. Read this for more discussion.
All I can really say, is that these need to be understood in context, and through the eyes of a follower of God. If you try and think of these actions in an atheistic, amoral worldview then of course they are absurd. But you have to put yourself into a Christian's shoes and try and imagine whether these stories are consistent or contradictory to our faith. To me they make perfect sense, but I can only go so far to explain that - ultimately people of two very different worldviews will only breed confusion.
And now to brace myself against the onslaught of posts and potential moddings as trolls (despite the fact that your post is more trollish than mine). Although...by mentioning that I will be modded troll, I may in fact protect myself against it! Though mentioning that will cause people to mod me troll in spite. Lah, just going in circles now.
I don't think I understand the options properly. Why wouldn't Microsoft choose the option of having the exploit released? Two alternatives:
1. Let people install linux on their hardware legally so that they won't make money on the console through game purchases
2. Let people do it illegally so they can have people fined/imprisoned when they install Linux.
What other software besides Linux are people going to use, afterall? Either way it's going to be Linux on X-Box, it's just a question of whether Microsoft wants to make it legal or not. So I don't understand the bonus.
Btw, your signature has little pursuasive content.
Ultimately you miss the problem. Currently scanners can only scan a few inches/feet.
It won't always be like that. Some day we may find out how to make small RFID's able to emit a signal without a battery/with a small battery. We may likely find new ways to scan RFID's over a much longer range.
Now it's not a problem, but in the future it could very well be. Stick a frog in cold water and boil it slowly, and the frog will die. Stick it in hot water and it will leap right out.
Re:Shielding RFID against security
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
I imagine there will be many ways to exploit this. Like many things it will have advantages and disadvantages. I read a good article once about security - saying that we shouldn't try as if we can make a perfectly secure environment. Instead, we should minimise the damage caused by a breach of security.
RFID's will be abused in many ways I imagine, I'm already thinking of a few ideas myself. It will just be another layer that makes one part of life easier and another harder/more complex.
I'm sure a great deal of Americans will be outraged at this waste of money, for reasons you post and for others.
But for many of the rest of the world who fear attacks by the US (founded or unfounded), I'm sure they'll be happy to hear the military blew $471million when they could have spent a lot less.
Seems irrelevant to me really, not being a US citizen. If America continues it's obsession with Microsoft, then we'll just move on without them. Not that I feel bad towards our American counterparts. I can understand your angst over decisions like these.
Most are just normal user names (I have a telstra account with some spam archived). Some usernames are more complex. One is 4 letters followed by 4 digits. I see a few with a username followed by a single digit. Some have 2+ digits, but very rare.
In fact, looking through the list I notice when I receive spam it seems to be the same other bigpond users that are also sent it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you bother to make the argument that if so many scientists believe it it must be true? Don't you pay any attention to history? Why does it need to be a conspiracy theory if we happen to think most people are wrong on a certain point? It's happened in the past, it will happen again.
That doesn't make sense, sorry. You confine God to our physical realm, presuming He must fit within the mathematical laws He created. That is a faulty assumption.
Not to mention that God is infinite while everything created is finite. Another problem.
God is the first cause, the creator, the origin. Atheistic evolution has no answer for first cause, while there must be one.
Btw, I'd be curious to see the maths you used to show it impossible that God existed.
In 2000 years, I fully expect evolution to be recorded in history as a time when people beleived that absurd idea that all life evolved over billions of years. They'll laugh at us as much as we laugh at those who believed in a flat earth.
Yes, if you can't win with logic, then resort to insults!
I'm betting that some pretty good movies could be made from the haflife 2 engine, for those who have seen the 500mb gameplay demo.
Yes, but I like to get new books :)
That IQ test has to be a joke. In some of the questions they practically gave the answers away. I'd be surprised if anyone scored But then, I guess that's why they advertise it on USA Today. Let the readers think they're intelligent :)
Btw, my e-mail address is slashdotbtrpg at tyreth.homelinux.org if you were still wanting it.
Thanks for the response.
It is my firm belief that the Bible is consistent. So if that were demostrated wrong then I'd have to seriously reconsider my faith.
However - just because something seems not to make sense doesn't mean I should outright reject it. I have had times in my life where something has made just no sense, but I've later found out that it actually did - I just didn't know enough. That applies to the Bible too. A lot of apparent contradictions really aren't contradictions at all. They just are when you don't bother to find the full facts, and you try to understand the Bible through an atheistic or amoral viewpoint.
So I'd encourage you - if you were a teenager when you departed, then perhaps your eyes have been opened more now. It seems hardly fair to me to reject a faith because it seems to be contradictory, when you don't actually know for sure if it is or not.
I was well aware of both these. I don't know much greek, but I've started to teach myself some. I was certainly aware that the word "Christos" started with the greek letter chi which looks identical to "X".
Now how many Christians and non-Christians are aware of this? If we were greek, then the shortening might be unoffensive. If most understood it it wouldn't be offensive. But in almost every case someone who views it is not going to realise. We are christians, not xtians. We are english, not greek. I am quite sure that many, perhaps even most, that use the shorthand xtian are both non-christian and unaware as to why it is shortened that way. I don't really see any benefit to this way of saying christian other than it saves you typing 4 letters. The rest seems to be disadvantages.
Because people will ask the system builders for a desktop with an nVidia card. It doesn't directly affect them, but it does somewhere down the line.
Part of the problem is that a lot of new games just aren't fun to play. The classics had all we need.
Games should be $30 Australian each, or $15 US. Or something dirt cheap. Then parents would have little problem purchasing them for their kids, piracy would be less common, people would try new games that aren't big name. Adults would try new games, and youth with little money would be more likely to buy than to copy off their friend's computer or download from kazaa.
A common misconception. God is one and the same through the old and new testament. In the old testament there are many cases where God was merciful and forgiving. In the new testament there are many times He condemns and kills much as He did in the old testament. This sort of statement is made by those who have never seriously looked into the Bible (Acts 5:1-11, Acts 12:20-24, Rev 2:20-23).
Two thoughts. The first is that Christians claim their difference in these areas:
1. Monotheism - there is but one God only. He is all powerful, all knowing, present everywhere. We hold this in common with the other great monotheistic religions (Judaism & Islam - Mormons are polytheistic under the guise of monotheism).
2. Messiah - While the Jews await the Messiah we believe He has come. Thus as God promised salvation has come through Him. While the Jews still await the Messiah who will save them, we see He has come and teach what is true: that only through Him can men be saved. Muslims, while also believing Jesus is the Messiah, did what they ought not - they added laws and restrictions when Jesus came to liberate us from the law. The law was but a shadow, a sign of things to come. Once Jesus came the law was fulfilled and we were free from it's confines, obeying God's words and moral law, seeking to become righteous but never reaching. Islam adds laws as if the Messiah never came, crippling His salvation offer.
3. Grace alone - Now *this* is where we differ from every other religion. Every other religion teaches some form of works in order to reach salvation (do good works, visit temple/church regularly, discover mystical secrets, etc). Christianity teaches that we can never do enough to obtain salvation. That we are so wicked that we won't even pursue salvation. So we believe in grace - that God gives His gift freely, to save His chosen apart from anything they have done. We are not saved by something we do, but rather because He loved us first and saved us before we asked.
You talk of rich churches, I couldn't agree more. It is wicked it seems that so much money could be hoarded and not used to help the poor. To whom much is given, much will be expected. To me it seems like you look at those who claim the title "Christian" but fail to live up to your expectations of what they believe. That is not fair to judge the religion by the misactions of some members. True Christianity as you suggest teaches mixing with those outside the faith - much as Jesus ate with a tax collector, and allowed a prostitute to wash His feet. Some Christians protect themselves from these sorts of people and that is not the true faith.
Your comments about others offering help is not very important. As I described elsewhere the 10 commandments are divided into two sections. The first being our duty towards God, and our second is our duty towards men. There are many things I could say on this, but I will settle on this point - while many are aware and try to act out the moral law towards men, they almost all fail miserably with their duty towards God. And such failings eventually lead towards a corruption of our duty towards men. Our western society *once* was a Christian culture. As we move further from that, we will see the moral law corrupted more and more.
And quit your offensive uses of "jeebus" and "xtian" if you consider yourself to be a fair, kind, tolerant person (tolerance being the catchphrase of the day).
Don't worry, whenever you post pro-evolution/atheistic comments you are bound not to get modded troll unless you try really hard.
Paul wasn't interested in teaching popular topics. He taught things the way he believed it was, and so do I - males were created first, and the female was created for the man. Men should always have authority over women (unless a man gives the woman authority - in which case it is still ultimately under a man's authority).
Why should we apologise for Paul's teachings? Just because you don't agree, or because equal rights movements are popular today, doesn't mean they are correct.
Paul certainly did not hate women. The early Christians were much more accepting of woman than most others. I heard of one time when female children were "thrown away", so the Christians would take them and raise them up. Just because we believe men were created above women does not mean we think they (you?) are worthless. Not even close. It said that God created woman as a partner comparable to man. Something comparable is not worthless.
Your statement is just a blanket insult that veils a misunderstanding or deliberate distortion of Paul's teachings in an effort to discredit Christianity, which I am guessing you have a particular bias against.
As for comments on comparative mythology - that is hardly helpful. I have read a lot on other religions and mythology. What exactly were you thinking might do me some "good"? It's very easy to say "well if you look at topic X you will eventually agree with me". But what if I read it and come to the opposite conclusion of you? Such a short defense is hardly helpful, and rarely informative.
God's grace is extended primarily to His chosen, and occasionally to everyone else. It is justice for God to demand the penalty of death for sin. God does not tolerate blasphemy against Himself. Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. The second is like it, love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments rest the whole law. If you read the ten commandments you will see it divided into two sections. The first commandments (5 or so can't remember) are the moral law regarding our duty towards God. The second half is the moral law of our duty towards fellow humans.
Given this - it is the most wicked of sins to rebel against God. These angels expect wickedness, but by no means are to be subjected to it. For lot to allow these perfect Angels to be defiled by men - and by extension letting it happen to God - would be far worse than offerring his sinful, human daughters (as he himself is sinful). It's just absurd to think that Lot would do better by allowing the angels to be raped.
In opposition, rape is one of the most horrific crimes humans can commit, and a man who offers his daughters to rapists is very possibly the lowest form of life on earth.
As I said, it's not like Lot had many options. As far as he knew the angels were at the mercy of the townsfolk. He could allow God (by proxy) to be abused by men, or he could allow his daughters. His duty is first to God then his family - so the best decision was obvious. However, the angels being the servents of God had the power to stop the townsfolk so it became unecessary. Now your argument is wrong anyway. Either way he's offering either the angels or his daughters to be raped - one or the other. And he's not doing the raping - he's merely trying to do the best thing he possibly can given the circumstances.
The sons of Lot, by the way, founded tribes that later become speed-bumps for Israelites on the way to Palestine. god sure has it in for his chosen people, what with all the "Let's save one horrid man so his human-sacrificing descendents can make incursions into Israel to fill up on unholy-ritual-fodder" stuff.
I have no idea what you are saying. But I will say that the Israelites only had trouble with neighbouring countries when they rebelled against God. Whilst they were obedient to Him (such as during the reign of Solomon and David) they experienced great blessings and victory in battle. When David committed that wicked sin and committed adultery and sent the husband to die, he and Israel were punished for the rebellion. David was not commended for that.
xtians say that only god can judge. Good thing I'm not an xtian.
Don't say "xtians". We are followers of the Christ, therefore we are called Christians. xtian means nothing.
Christians do not say only God can judge - the message is different. God judges who is saved and who is condemned. But He certainly expects us to judge earthly matters, such as crimes, and punish accordingly. We are not to judge the inward man. Yet Christians are to judge each other, but not those who are outside. If a man steals, he is guilty and we judge.
While I'm at it, I'm pretty sure Job is an old Testament book, and therefore Job predates Jesus. Prefacing a point on Job's personal faith with a statement about xtian theology seems kind of pointless, given that he wasn't a xtian.
This makes little sense. Job is so old that it may in fact predate the Pentatuach and Moses - so are you going to say that Judaism theology makes no sense to explain Job's faith?
Christianity is the one true religion. I wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't believe that (so don't consider me ignorant - wha
So maybe I misunderstand as I said. Will using the exploit if it's released be illegal or not? Violation of DMCA?
Whether you intended to or not (assuming that the Slashdot crowd was all pro evolution), you offend when you make comments like these. I have spent a great deal of time reading and arguing evolution - I know it well compared to most people (but not compared, necessarily, to most of the slashdot crowd). And I think the labelling of Noah's ark as fantasy is just an easy summary showing signs of a deep rooted ignorant stubborness.
Let me turn the tables. Evolution is "well founded" in facts because everyone believes it. Some new bones are found, or a new hut, whatever - evolutionists try to fit it into an evolutionary date based on their understanding. Eg, "This strata is known to be about 30million years old, so this particular sample must be around that date". These dates are built up more and more, and are seen by the ignorant as evidences of evolution, when they are merely interpreted under an evolutionary view. If someone can show me how evolution is rational and believable, then I'll reconsider. But for now it seems like an imaginary tale if impossibilities and absurdness. It just appears ridiculous, every bit as much as you perceive the Biblical events to be absurd. Even more.
We are supposedly 98% or so similar to Apes/chimps (I cannot recall). Yet this is a difference of millions of sections. For the time of our divergence, only perhaps 1700 differences could have occurred. That's not even *close* to what is needed. And I'm supposed to believe that evolution makes sense?!?
No, instead the media is flooded with evolutionary ideas so people think that it's probably true. Scientists work within those assumptions, building on the evolutionary timeline until all these "evidences" built on a faulty foundation are seen as overwhelming.
I challenge anyone to give me a scientific statement of evolution.
And to make this challenging you cannot use the one that talkorigins presents. I'll tell you why, it's really simple. The statement of biological evolution that talkorigins presents is acceptable. Creationists accept that statement as true, tested, and proven. That is NOT the theory of evolution that causes so much contention. It is the idea that all life on earth originated from simple single celled life, evolving through mutations into what we have today. The definition on talkorigins does not encompass that, and it is not the myth that causes contention.
So many demand creationists to present a scientific theory of creationism. I say give me one of evolution, and I try to provide one in like manner. If you present the talkorigins one, then I will quote the same one as the scientific theory of creationism! It's no different, because it doesn't contradict creationism.
David was punished for doing that wicked thing, you can't put that there as if God commanded him.
As for Lot - he had the choice of letting the men rape the angels of God who had visited him (who, as God's messengers would have been akin to letting the men rape God - just like beating a diplomat from another nation is an assault against the ruler of that nation), or offer these men his daughters. I'm sure he would have been none too happy about the idea, but consider the options...
God did not egg Satan on. God permitted Satan to do the damage he did. Satan was unable to touch Job, unless God let him. Job said, "The Lord gives, the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord". Whether or not you think God acted justly - Job was submissive to God's authority. Understand that Christians believe we are scum of the earth - so punishment like what God permitted Satan to do to Job is seen as something that Job deserved. When someone is blessed, and experiences security - it is *purely* because of the mercy and grace of God. I'm not interested in whether you believe that or not - but that's how a Christian explains it.
Regarding the racial purification - that's just too different from our current society to understand properly. Though may I remind you that there are an ample number of people who advocate nuking the middle east (which I am extremely opposed to). It's just a matter of where you view something from. If I had the choice, I would see the KKK wiped out in an instant. I consider a group like that disgustingly evil. Yet to those inside it, they don't see themselves as all that bad. In the eyes of God the societies He commanded to wipe out were incredibly evil - and the best way to eliminate their practices was to wipe out the entire culture. Yet as you say it didn't work - though I'm sure that it was better than if they hadn't been wiped out (bearing in mind that some times the Israelites would not do as they were told, and took wives from the cultures they were not supposed to, etc).
Elisha...well...all I can say is different culture, different times, different understandings. This man was a great prophet of God. Prophets are messengers of God - they speak His word and message. Calling him a baldy (they actually said "Go up, you baldy", perhaps a reference to his mentor Elijah who had ascended to heaven. Ie, telling him to go away. Read this for more discussion.
All I can really say, is that these need to be understood in context, and through the eyes of a follower of God. If you try and think of these actions in an atheistic, amoral worldview then of course they are absurd. But you have to put yourself into a Christian's shoes and try and imagine whether these stories are consistent or contradictory to our faith. To me they make perfect sense, but I can only go so far to explain that - ultimately people of two very different worldviews will only breed confusion.
And now to brace myself against the onslaught of posts and potential moddings as trolls (despite the fact that your post is more trollish than mine). Although...by mentioning that I will be modded troll, I may in fact protect myself against it! Though mentioning that will cause people to mod me troll in spite. Lah, just going in circles now.
1. Let people install linux on their hardware legally so that they won't make money on the console through game purchases 2. Let people do it illegally so they can have people fined/imprisoned when they install Linux.
What other software besides Linux are people going to use, afterall? Either way it's going to be Linux on X-Box, it's just a question of whether Microsoft wants to make it legal or not. So I don't understand the bonus.
Btw, your signature has little pursuasive content.
Ultimately you miss the problem. Currently scanners can only scan a few inches/feet.
It won't always be like that. Some day we may find out how to make small RFID's able to emit a signal without a battery/with a small battery. We may likely find new ways to scan RFID's over a much longer range.
Now it's not a problem, but in the future it could very well be. Stick a frog in cold water and boil it slowly, and the frog will die. Stick it in hot water and it will leap right out.
I imagine there will be many ways to exploit this. Like many things it will have advantages and disadvantages. I read a good article once about security - saying that we shouldn't try as if we can make a perfectly secure environment. Instead, we should minimise the damage caused by a breach of security.
RFID's will be abused in many ways I imagine, I'm already thinking of a few ideas myself. It will just be another layer that makes one part of life easier and another harder/more complex.
I wasn't referring to the blind masses :) Rather the slashdot brethren from America...though I didn't make that clear.
I'm sure a great deal of Americans will be outraged at this waste of money, for reasons you post and for others.
But for many of the rest of the world who fear attacks by the US (founded or unfounded), I'm sure they'll be happy to hear the military blew $471million when they could have spent a lot less.
Seems irrelevant to me really, not being a US citizen. If America continues it's obsession with Microsoft, then we'll just move on without them. Not that I feel bad towards our American counterparts. I can understand your angst over decisions like these.
Most are just normal user names (I have a telstra account with some spam archived). Some usernames are more complex. One is 4 letters followed by 4 digits. I see a few with a username followed by a single digit. Some have 2+ digits, but very rare.
In fact, looking through the list I notice when I receive spam it seems to be the same other bigpond users that are also sent it.