If damnation or salvation were like a grade tacked onto a life, you'd have a point. It seems to me that Heaven and Hell are likely to be the same metaphysical reality. Both are described as burning and intensely bright in places. In my beliefs, they are one and the same, and the source of that bright burning is God. The difference is the attitude of the individual.
An example on earth would be the reaction of a person meeting someone who was better at something than they were, say, playing chess for example. The lesser player has effectively two possible broad reactions to the greater: acceptance or denial. The former is based in humility. They would see this as an opportunity to learn and grow. The latter is fueled by selfish pride. They would rather reject the opportunity and stew in their own anger and self-importance.
Now, take this relatively minor difference in ability, and magnify it to an infinite degree in the person of God. The humble person would be exalted. The prideful one would be appalled at having their own inadequacy cast into perfect relief next to true perfection. The nature of God doesn't change. A good person is not made evil by the fact that someone hates them. But the subjective experience will be very different.
I have an even better solution: be a computer technician. Casually mention to the cop upon the return of his computer that he should password protect the pictures of his wife. You will get preferential treatment from him from then on:)
I don't mean to accept abuse, but learn to deal with abusive people. There will be abusive people in adult life too. You can't protect them forever. (obviously I don't know your specific situation, and I wouldn't tell anyone what's best for their kids, so take all this with a grain of salt)
I do teach them to deal with abuse. But in a public school environment, there is nothing to mitigate the abuse. There are too few teachers to stop the quite persecution that goes on behind their backs. My kids do have to deal with bullies and the like in the various sports and clubs they are part of. But there is more adult supervision there, so while they get a taste of abusive people, and learn how to deal with it, they also don't have to suffer the fear and isolation that can come in the schools. I learned to deal with it by becoming an angry headbanger, and those who would have attacked me either decided I was cool or were scared of crossing me and my group. I would rather my children not have to adapt such defensive techniques.
That's common objection to home schooling, and it doesn't wash. All of my kids are homeschooled(although a wonderful charter school is about to open, and we may place them in that), and they all have exceptional social skills, for which we get complimented on constantly. And that's the norm for such kids. For a lot of kids(I bet a lot of/.ers fit into this category; I was one) school was a gauntlet of abuse to be run everyday. Learning to accept abuse is not what I want for my kids.
Slivers are nice. I have a rainbow deck with slivers. Wonder what happened to it....hmmmm...
The ornithopters make a nice addition to a red speed deck. Round one, toss the ornithopter and a raging goblin, hit opponent for 1. Next round, drop another mountain, drop another goblin, cast bloodlust on the orni and hit for 6. Hit the orni with Taste of mayhem, and keep pounding your opponent. Within a turn or two, you have him in range of a lightning bolt or a gobline grenade or two.
Not a good card? A 0/2 with flying for free? That's a pretty good 1st round blocker. Throw blood lust on it to get a 2nd round 4/1 flying attack. Or toss an enchantment like "Armor of Faith", "Rancor", Holy or Unholy Strength or "Taste for Mayhem" on it for a 1st round bad assed flyer. Not bad at all.
Man, you've got it cased! Congratulations! That must be the only reason anyone has ever become Catholic! You're a sharp one!
No, I didn't go to a class. Common sense and a basic ability to reason is all that's needed to defend against the average asshat. It's just as fun today as it was in college!
I had this response written up, point for point, and I deleted it, because 90% of it was asking for you to give some actual references for your assertaions. If you can't back up your points with actual data, there's no point to this.
You say that the RCC has taught many things it doesn't, and never has, without a single reference, only a vague "well, everyone knows that" attitude. You say that Chardin was censored for scientific studies, when he wasn't. His theology was non-Catholic and as such is not taught, but what does that have to do with science?
First, I didn't claim that Hawking was lying. Cracking a joke is not a lie. And I never said that Hawking misunderstood because he was crippled. I pointed out that JPII had a thick accent. And this wasn't a private exchange, it was supposedly an address at a conference, if you bothered to RTFA. Of which we have the transcription, which has no such quote.
And I'm shameful for pointing out that we have no evidence, aside from one anecdote which conflicts with the evidence we DO have, that this ever happened? I would be more concerned with those who condemn a man for an unproven quote, regardless of proof.
The RCC taught from the Nicene Council to about 1960 in most places that the Earth was only several thousand years old
Citations please?
I mean, I just skimmed Lesson 4 of the Balitmore Catechism "On Creation." It doesn't mention anything like that at all.
I also don't recall anything in ANY council teaching a specific age of the Earth. Again, citations?
The first pope to "allow" for evolution (of the body - not the soul) was Pius XII, but he was generally ignored on the subject by many/most Bishops.
It wasn't a public issue prior to that time. Of course noone bothered to comment on it. And what bishops ignored it? Was there a bunch of bishops speaking out against evolution at some point that I missed?
The RCC from ancient times to Thomas Acquinas to now, is basically hostile to open scientific inquiry and believes it has the actual revelation from God in scripture.
I know. I mean, it's not like the majority of the scientists of the middle ages were priests or otherwise trained by the RCC. Oh, wait...
It's not like the RCC today maintains colleges dedicated to the study of the hard sciences. Oh, wait....
For an anti-science institution, they certainly spend a lot of resources on fostering it.
On the one hand, there is a pathetic arrogance that is completely unwarranted about how science will find the same things that the RCC has
Really? What are the odds that someone is going to publish a study on the existence of the human soul, or the existance and/or nature of God, or the nature of grace, etc? Is there going to be some mathematical proof of right and wrong?
As to Tieldhard, he was shut up by the Church because his theology was innovative.You say he ceased to be Catholic, but if you believe in an old Earth, by nineteenth century standards (or eighteenth - basically on back to the decimation of the Origenists) so have you.
Innovative? That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? His beliefs are far removed from Catholic doctrine. It was Christian in name alone. By your logic, the RCC should embrace Mormonism. I mean, it's closer to Catholic theology that Chardin was. It's just "innovative," right?
There is no RCC teaching allowing this. I think a couple of bishops in Africa tried to teach it, but it certainly is not RCC doctrine. And it doesn't make sense if you want to contain the problem. People with AIDS should probably avoid having sex with anyone if they don't want to chance further infections. I addressed the pill in the message above.
This isn't new, nor is it specific to the RCC. The RCC basically teaches that the morality of an action is affected by intention. For example, a person who accidentally runs someone over is not a murderer, while a person who intends to do so is. The action is identical, the intent is the difference. It's enshrined in virtually every secular law system. In this case, the intent is not to prescribe contraceptives, but rather hormone treatments. If this was being used as a pretext for contraception, then the RCC would see it as wrong. No change there at all.
He was also "demanded" that science not contradict Christianity.
I think I know where you got that semi quote(more than a little mangled):
159 Faith and science : "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." (Dei Filius 4: DS 3017) "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (GS 36 ' 1)
From the Catechism, the official teaching guide of the RCC. As far as the Church is concerned, the only caveat to scientific study is that it respects moral law, which boils down to the fact that in biological sciences, you can't treat human beings in ways that are offensive to their innate dignity(Tuskegee study, Axis death camp studies, etc). The idea is that that faith and science can never be in opposition because they have one author, not that science has to be altered to fit religious belief.
Chardin was condemned not for his scientific writings, but because of his religion. He was most certainly, judging from his own writings, not Catholic anymore. His desire was to eliminate most if not all of Christian belief, and replace it with his own. It had nothing at all to do with science. He wanted to create a new religion and call it Catholic, and the RCC understandably said no. He was free at any time to leave and publish his beliefs in any way he wished. But the RCC is also free not to teach his religion in its schools.
Evolution was never condemned by the RCC, so I fail to see how that is "backhanded and deceptive."
If you look at all of the other statements that JPII made regarding science and faith, this would immediately strike you as out of character. Add that to the fact that I've never seen someone actually produce proof that he ever said it, like a transcription or something. So, I think Hawking either misquoted, misunderstood(given JPII's accent, understandable) or made up the quote. After all, it makes a good joke, right?
Damn, man, have you ever tried to move a tank through Caen? You have to keep rebuilding bridges, and blowing up gates. It's a real PITA. Helps if you have a covert ops, though.
He didn't have to spend years and years practicing the opening melody of "nothing else matters"
For those of you who didn't find this damn hilarious, the beginning of "Nothing Else Matters" is all open strings, that is, no fretwork involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone knows that it was used by Jazz to describe Unicron: "ginormous weird looking planet."
If damnation or salvation were like a grade tacked onto a life, you'd have a point. It seems to me that Heaven and Hell are likely to be the same metaphysical reality. Both are described as burning and intensely bright in places. In my beliefs, they are one and the same, and the source of that bright burning is God. The difference is the attitude of the individual.
An example on earth would be the reaction of a person meeting someone who was better at something than they were, say, playing chess for example. The lesser player has effectively two possible broad reactions to the greater: acceptance or denial. The former is based in humility. They would see this as an opportunity to learn and grow. The latter is fueled by selfish pride. They would rather reject the opportunity and stew in their own anger and self-importance.
Now, take this relatively minor difference in ability, and magnify it to an infinite degree in the person of God. The humble person would be exalted. The prideful one would be appalled at having their own inadequacy cast into perfect relief next to true perfection. The nature of God doesn't change. A good person is not made evil by the fact that someone hates them. But the subjective experience will be very different.
I have an even better solution: be a computer technician. Casually mention to the cop upon the return of his computer that he should password protect the pictures of his wife. You will get preferential treatment from him from then on :)
Depends. Do I get to go sit on a beach in the Bahamas while it codes Perl?
I don't mean to accept abuse, but learn to deal with abusive people. There will be abusive people in adult life too. You can't protect them forever. (obviously I don't know your specific situation, and I wouldn't tell anyone what's best for their kids, so take all this with a grain of salt)
I do teach them to deal with abuse. But in a public school environment, there is nothing to mitigate the abuse. There are too few teachers to stop the quite persecution that goes on behind their backs. My kids do have to deal with bullies and the like in the various sports and clubs they are part of. But there is more adult supervision there, so while they get a taste of abusive people, and learn how to deal with it, they also don't have to suffer the fear and isolation that can come in the schools. I learned to deal with it by becoming an angry headbanger, and those who would have attacked me either decided I was cool or were scared of crossing me and my group. I would rather my children not have to adapt such defensive techniques.
That's common objection to home schooling, and it doesn't wash. All of my kids are homeschooled(although a wonderful charter school is about to open, and we may place them in that), and they all have exceptional social skills, for which we get complimented on constantly. And that's the norm for such kids. For a lot of kids(I bet a lot of /.ers fit into this category; I was one) school was a gauntlet of abuse to be run everyday. Learning to accept abuse is not what I want for my kids.
Slivers are nice. I have a rainbow deck with slivers. Wonder what happened to it....hmmmm... The ornithopters make a nice addition to a red speed deck. Round one, toss the ornithopter and a raging goblin, hit opponent for 1. Next round, drop another mountain, drop another goblin, cast bloodlust on the orni and hit for 6. Hit the orni with Taste of mayhem, and keep pounding your opponent. Within a turn or two, you have him in range of a lightning bolt or a gobline grenade or two.
Not a good card? A 0/2 with flying for free? That's a pretty good 1st round blocker. Throw blood lust on it to get a 2nd round 4/1 flying attack. Or toss an enchantment like "Armor of Faith", "Rancor", Holy or Unholy Strength or "Taste for Mayhem" on it for a 1st round bad assed flyer. Not bad at all.
Man, you've got it cased! Congratulations! That must be the only reason anyone has ever become Catholic! You're a sharp one!
No, I didn't go to a class. Common sense and a basic ability to reason is all that's needed to defend against the average asshat. It's just as fun today as it was in college!
Yeah, the RCC apparently has this naive belief that people are rational enough to control their sexual urges in the face of a killer virus.
I had this response written up, point for point, and I deleted it, because 90% of it was asking for you to give some actual references for your assertaions. If you can't back up your points with actual data, there's no point to this. You say that the RCC has taught many things it doesn't, and never has, without a single reference, only a vague "well, everyone knows that" attitude. You say that Chardin was censored for scientific studies, when he wasn't. His theology was non-Catholic and as such is not taught, but what does that have to do with science?
First, I didn't claim that Hawking was lying. Cracking a joke is not a lie. And I never said that Hawking misunderstood because he was crippled. I pointed out that JPII had a thick accent. And this wasn't a private exchange, it was supposedly an address at a conference, if you bothered to RTFA. Of which we have the transcription, which has no such quote.
And I'm shameful for pointing out that we have no evidence, aside from one anecdote which conflicts with the evidence we DO have, that this ever happened? I would be more concerned with those who condemn a man for an unproven quote, regardless of proof.
I'll warn you, I've read the same things.
The RCC taught from the Nicene Council to about 1960 in most places that the Earth was only several thousand years old
Citations please? I mean, I just skimmed Lesson 4 of the Balitmore Catechism "On Creation." It doesn't mention anything like that at all. I also don't recall anything in ANY council teaching a specific age of the Earth. Again, citations?
The first pope to "allow" for evolution (of the body - not the soul) was Pius XII, but he was generally ignored on the subject by many/most Bishops.
It wasn't a public issue prior to that time. Of course noone bothered to comment on it. And what bishops ignored it? Was there a bunch of bishops speaking out against evolution at some point that I missed?
The RCC from ancient times to Thomas Acquinas to now, is basically hostile to open scientific inquiry and believes it has the actual revelation from God in scripture.
I know. I mean, it's not like the majority of the scientists of the middle ages were priests or otherwise trained by the RCC. Oh, wait...
It's not like the RCC today maintains colleges dedicated to the study of the hard sciences. Oh, wait....
For an anti-science institution, they certainly spend a lot of resources on fostering it.
On the one hand, there is a pathetic arrogance that is completely unwarranted about how science will find the same things that the RCC has
Really? What are the odds that someone is going to publish a study on the existence of the human soul, or the existance and/or nature of God, or the nature of grace, etc? Is there going to be some mathematical proof of right and wrong?
As to Tieldhard, he was shut up by the Church because his theology was innovative.You say he ceased to be Catholic, but if you believe in an old Earth, by nineteenth century standards (or eighteenth - basically on back to the decimation of the Origenists) so have you.
Innovative? That's a bit disingenuous, don't you think? His beliefs are far removed from Catholic doctrine. It was Christian in name alone. By your logic, the RCC should embrace Mormonism. I mean, it's closer to Catholic theology that Chardin was. It's just "innovative," right?
There is no RCC teaching allowing this. I think a couple of bishops in Africa tried to teach it, but it certainly is not RCC doctrine. And it doesn't make sense if you want to contain the problem. People with AIDS should probably avoid having sex with anyone if they don't want to chance further infections. I addressed the pill in the message above.
This isn't new, nor is it specific to the RCC. The RCC basically teaches that the morality of an action is affected by intention. For example, a person who accidentally runs someone over is not a murderer, while a person who intends to do so is. The action is identical, the intent is the difference. It's enshrined in virtually every secular law system. In this case, the intent is not to prescribe contraceptives, but rather hormone treatments. If this was being used as a pretext for contraception, then the RCC would see it as wrong. No change there at all.
He was also "demanded" that science not contradict Christianity.
I think I know where you got that semi quote(more than a little mangled):
159 Faith and science : "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." (Dei Filius 4: DS 3017) "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (GS 36 ' 1)
From the Catechism, the official teaching guide of the RCC. As far as the Church is concerned, the only caveat to scientific study is that it respects moral law, which boils down to the fact that in biological sciences, you can't treat human beings in ways that are offensive to their innate dignity(Tuskegee study, Axis death camp studies, etc). The idea is that that faith and science can never be in opposition because they have one author, not that science has to be altered to fit religious belief.
Chardin was condemned not for his scientific writings, but because of his religion. He was most certainly, judging from his own writings, not Catholic anymore. His desire was to eliminate most if not all of Christian belief, and replace it with his own. It had nothing at all to do with science. He wanted to create a new religion and call it Catholic, and the RCC understandably said no. He was free at any time to leave and publish his beliefs in any way he wished. But the RCC is also free not to teach his religion in its schools.
Evolution was never condemned by the RCC, so I fail to see how that is "backhanded and deceptive."
If you look at all of the other statements that JPII made regarding science and faith, this would immediately strike you as out of character. Add that to the fact that I've never seen someone actually produce proof that he ever said it, like a transcription or something. So, I think Hawking either misquoted, misunderstood(given JPII's accent, understandable) or made up the quote. After all, it makes a good joke, right?
Loopholes for contraception? Do tell.
He will lawyer the fuck out of Apple!
Damn, man, have you ever tried to move a tank through Caen? You have to keep rebuilding bridges, and blowing up gates. It's a real PITA. Helps if you have a covert ops, though.
He didn't have to spend years and years practicing the opening melody of "nothing else matters"
For those of you who didn't find this damn hilarious, the beginning of "Nothing Else Matters" is all open strings, that is, no fretwork involved.
Arbitration was a term of a contract SCO's aleged predisser in interest signed.
This just struck me as funny. "Yes, your Honor, he was dissing me prior to our agreement."
And if you actually need it, you would know to download it.
That makes total sense. How are you supposed to hold you latte and talk on your cellphone if you have to shift, too?
Yeah, that Jesus guy never said anything about it.....