Just started doing a bit of drupal development... totally agree:)
"Hi, I really don't like this system and did I mention it really sucks and that it's not pleasant at all to work with? Yeah... I'm going to decide to work with it anyway."
Reminds me of the dolts that call up radio talk shows, all pissed off and offended, and they know the last several shows as well as the host does. Easier to bitch bitch bitch than to do something different, at least for some people. It's as though complaining gives you some sort of perverse satisfaction.
Yeah, trust me, I am only using drupal because I have to for my job. Legacy systems do exist...
I agree about the hacked browser. I think one of the main arguments by Eran against OAuth2 is that it is basically broken for mobile applications (non-web) and this is just another of the ways it is broken.
This law doesn't really pertain to bloggers, but instead to groups like moveon.org which function to stimulate grassroots lobbying of congress by individuals. An example is that some bill comes up which Moveon decides is a bad thing. It then sends an mass email out to its members and provides a way for them to communicate with their representatives, via an automated fax or email campaign for example. Ironically, I think Slashdot, if there was some comment on this post, saying people should oppose the bill and write their representatives, would be covered under the law and be forced to register.
This message has been intercepted by the Ministry of Motherland Security. Your IP address has been logged and we have your DNA. Please stay right where you are. We'll come and pick you up shortly.
Furthermore, if one is willing to accept the possibility of a rigged election (on the basis of the discrepancy, alone), then he or she must also be willing to accept the possibility of rigged polling, which--strangely--is something that nobody ever does.
The problem with this statement is that in 2004, we had the mismatch between the votes and the exit polls in addition to numerous widespread well-documented evidence of voting irregularities. Given this, if you can still ignore the exit poll discrepancies, then there's no way you are going to change your mind and your assessment of the voting system is basically faith-based.
At a previous workplace, a favorite break activity was Q3 deathmatches. At first I could only play for a few minutes without getting sick. As the days went by, and I kept playing, I started to not feel so bad. Eventually I adjusted completely and was able to play without any feelings of sickness. The interesting thing is that after I left that job, and left off of regularly playing, I get motion sick when I try to play these types of games again, so the adjustment only seems to last as long as you keep playing.
Do you believe in God? If so, then why is it hard for you to imagine that God could multiply the fish and the loaves? If the (non-)miracle was just that everyone shared the food that they had, then why did the disciples ask Jesus to send the people away so that they could buy food to eat. Furthermore, if it wasn't a miracle, then why did Jesus refer back to it in Matt 16:9, pointing out that it didn't matter if they forgot to bring bread? And why did Jesus in John 6:26 say "Most certainly I tell you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves, and were filled." The only thing insightful about your post is how much it reveals of your ignorance of the Bible.
So if an atheist believes there is no god, without knowing there is no god, how is he different than a theist. Is this not just another religion, the null religion?
I guess my point is, how can you disbelieve it, any more than you can believe it, if it is theoretically possible? It seems to be a much more rational position to say that you just don't know, one way or another.
I was not suggesting any of the above. I was only referring to considering the hypothetical possibility of our universe, our existence, being created by some higher being. I was not making any suppositions as to who this being is or if/how you should behave with respect to it.
Regarding the chicken and the egg problem, atleast in Christianity, God and his Son are both eternally existent, outside of time, and Jesus is incarnated, ie made flesh, at a certain point within time. So, in a way, he is like the hypothetical traveler that moves from one dimension/universe to another.
This article, among other things, seems to say that a sufficiently advanced civilization, could potentially create entire universes and travel from this universe to these other universes.
So if this is theoretically possible, then is it not theoretically possible that some sufficiently advanced being (or intelligence) created our universe and is able to travel to it? Can it be ruled out?
I feel that ignoring the definitions of words so they won't contradict your position is a fairly biased activity. Indeed, your approach only works if you start with the assumption that the Bible is true, for otherwise you wouldn't accept it's redefinitions. Muslims and Jews can use exactly the same technique to demonstrate the absolute correctness of their own respective creeds, since they all start from the assumption of truth.
My original position was that Christians who killed unbelievers were not really Christians, and Christians are never commanded to kill unbelievers, because that is what the Bible says. You attacked this position by saying that this is not what the Bible says. You attempted to characterize the Bible itself as contradictory, and in some places supportive of your belief that Christians are encouraged to kill non-believers. I responded by pointing out that the things you claimed to be contradictory were in fact consistent with my position, given some additional context.
I am not trying to get you to believe what the Bible says -- I am only trying to make the point that the Bible does not say what you believe it says. I have relied primarily on the Bible for my argument. You have relied primarily on your own gut feelings and selected parts of the Bible, taken out of context. You have judged these parts based on your own limited knowledge of the Bible and external references to human definitions of evil. None of this can be considered hard evidence that the Bible is contradictory, and is an intellectually dishonest approach to criticizing the Bible.
You cannot completely reject the Bible's consistency on the meager evidence you provide. You are taking bits and pieces out of context and using them to demonstrate the invalidity of the whole. There is nothing scientific or rational about this approach. If you took the time, read the entire thing, considered alternative interpretations by people who disagree with you, and then concluded that it was inconsistent, you might have an honest case. But what you are doing now amounts to blindly rejecting something that you understand very little of, and this is no better than being a blind follower.
I would even accept you having a hypothesis that the Bible was contradictory, but to state it as a fact with so little evidence, is just foolishness. I think the burden of proof is on you and the Bible has to remain innocent until proven guilty.
More fun with contradictions: Is pride a sin? Is God proud, or humble? Is God a sinner? Is He welcome in His own presence? The mind boggles...
This is a great example of how you can judge God by your own personal standards, and come to the wrong conclusions. God ultimately wants to bring glory to himself. But the fact is, this goal is beneficial to us who love God. Here's a good quote about the subject:
Here is the answer of which I want to persuade you. Since God is unique as the most glorious of all beings and totally self-sufficient, he must be for himself if he is to be for us. If he were to abandon the goal of his own self-exaltation we would be the losers. His aim to bring praise to himself, and his aim to bring pleasure to his people, are one aim. They stand or fall together.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/gods_pas sion/god_us_himself.html
So, yes, we are all second fiddle to God, and that is exactly the way that it should be. The problem is, we all want to be our own gods, and this is the fundamental sin problem we have all had since Adam. God does hate pride and it does not contradict his self-glorifying aim, because to be more specific, he hates pride in us, when we try to glorify ourselves.
Go ahead! Completely ignore the fact that with one counterexample I've demonstrated your claim regarding God NEVER commanding evil deeds to be false, and type out 300 words of theological boilerplate on an irrelevant disgression. I won't mind at all.
I think the fundamental problem, with all of your responses to my posts on this subject, is that you seem to be making a fundamental assumption about the definition of evil. What is the standard by which you are defining evil? Ultimately, the Biblical standard for good and evil is absolute, and it is based on what God says is good and evil. Your definition is entirely human and based on your own personal standards of what evil is. You have every right to use that standard, but you have to realize it is relative to your own beliefs and does not necessarily line up with what God says in the Bible is good and what is evil. So, when you see something in the Bible that is contradictory (by your standard), you shouldn't automatically assume that it is, simply because it appears to be so to you. It is hardly an unbiased approach to interpreting the Bible.
Why are you so angry? What are you trying to prove?
The sacrifice of Isaac, which you seem to be referring to, is an interesting story, primarily because of its relationship to the sacrifice of Jesus. There is not time enough for me to go into the great many details (google it, though, there is a lot of good reading elsewhere). I will point at that this was a major faith issue for Abraham. He believed God's promise that God would make a great nation of the offspring of Abraham (and Sarah). His faith in God overrode his head knowledge that by killing his son, this would be impossible. This is a good example of how important faith is to God.
It is interesting that in God's eyes, it was enough that Abraham 'almost' killed Isaac. It was accepted as the actual sacrifice. There is a similarity to this and how God accepts the sacrifice of Jesus in place of us.
I think there may be a legal issue here as well. God somehow needed an equivalency between Abraham and himself regarding the sacrifice of Jesus. By not withholding Abraham's son Isaac, it allowed God to somehow legally reciprocate.
Additionally, it is also a very very special case. I challenge you to find some other place in the Bible where God commands the sacrifice of children or any humans to him (excepting Jesus himself, of course).
Finally, I think there are some things in the Bible that serve as stumbling blocks for those whose eyes are shut to the truth, and this is probably one of them.
No external evidence is needed to disprove something which is self-contradictory. And the thought-pattern of "God is just, so he punishes sin, but he makes an exception if you love Him, which isn't just" is a simple contradiction:
I think you have failed to prove any contradiction at all. The biblical answer to your argument for contradiction is that it is possible to make a substitution -- Jesus takes our punishment on himself. In this way we are justified -- made just in the eyes of God. You may disagree with this form of justice, but according to the God of the Bible, this is justice (and mercy at the same time).
I want to address something else. As I have said in other places in this thread, God does not require us to love him in order to be saved. Salvation is by faith. Without regeneration, we are incapable of loving him. Only after we receive salvation does God change our hearts so that we can love him, it is a response on our part, to the love he has shown us.
well, it was wrong what he did to her, but seeing as how he's a personal friend of mine, and I've already spent 3 nights in jail, I am going to let him off without any punishment.
I think your analogy is a bit off. The Christian version of this would have another character, the son of the judge. Also, the defendant WOULD NOT be a friend of the judge (atleast at the beginning). So, the judge, in his mercy, without any merit on the part of the defendant, punishes his own son instead of the defendant. After the punishment, the defendant can choose to believe this act has cleared him of his guilt, or reject it. If he rejects it, he gets thrown in jail for his original crime.
In a sense (this is totally my thinking now) it is like the defendant is doubly guilty. He carries the guilt of his own crimes, and then he carries the guilt of rejecting the awesome sacrifice (made on his behalf without any surety that he would accept what was done for him).
You might argue that Jesus "washes away" sin, and that God then tolerates them because they have no sin anymore.
I wouldn't make this as an argument, I would say that is exactly what Jesus did with his blood, according to the Bible. If you don't believe what the Bible says, that is fine, you are free to do that, but it is not something that is arguable in the sense that you can prove it by logic or material evidence. Believe it or not, it is up to you!
Happiness & joy! I actually agree with you on this point. GWB is an absolutely miserable representative of Christ in this world. And he does seem to practice a christianity which is completely unbiblical (talk the talk but don't walk the walk) and almost satanic (leading others into deception). But, this doesn't take anything away from the real truth that is in the Bible.
So, what I precisely said, was that Christians, ie followers of Christ and his commandments, have never been ordered to kill unbelievers. I think you need to be careful when it comes to making accusations of falsehoods. More generally, God never has given a blanket commandment to kill those who don't believe in him. If you believe that you are believing a lie.
Contradicts the claim that God is omnipotent, or even highly powerful.
Your right, it is contradictory, or atleast appears to be. Please consider re-reading what I wrote earlier.
Contradicted by the claim that Jesus redeems sinners.
I think you may have some faulty logic. You state that Jesus redeems sinners and this contradicts my statement that God is holy and cannot tolerate sin. If sin weren't the major issue that it is, why would God need to 'redeem' sinners in the first place? (Answer: He wouldn't need to redeem us. What your saying doesn't make sense, and you can't use this as an argument against God's intolerance of sin)
There is no reason for separation from God to imply death, unless God decides to explicitly kill people separate from Him.
I think the meaning of death in the genesis account is a lot deeper than just a physical death. The Bible talks about a second death which is the eternal conscious separation from God in hell.
Slashdot Mirror
Just started doing a bit of drupal development... totally agree :)
"Hi, I really don't like this system and did I mention it really sucks and that it's not pleasant at all to work with? Yeah... I'm going to decide to work with it anyway."
Reminds me of the dolts that call up radio talk shows, all pissed off and offended, and they know the last several shows as well as the host does. Easier to bitch bitch bitch than to do something different, at least for some people. It's as though complaining gives you some sort of perverse satisfaction.
Yeah, trust me, I am only using drupal because I have to for my job. Legacy systems do exist...
Just started doing a bit of drupal development... totally agree :)
I agree about the hacked browser. I think one of the main arguments by Eran against OAuth2 is that it is basically broken for mobile applications (non-web) and this is just another of the ways it is broken.
I was wondering where Kim Stanley Robinson got the idea for moholes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mohole
This law doesn't really pertain to bloggers, but instead to groups like moveon.org which function to stimulate grassroots lobbying of congress by individuals. An example is that some bill comes up which Moveon decides is a bad thing. It then sends an mass email out to its members and provides a way for them to communicate with their representatives, via an automated fax or email campaign for example. Ironically, I think Slashdot, if there was some comment on this post, saying people should oppose the bill and write their representatives, would be covered under the law and be forced to register.
This message has been intercepted by the Ministry of Motherland Security. Your IP address has been logged and we have your DNA. Please stay right where you are. We'll come and pick you up shortly.
At a previous workplace, a favorite break activity was Q3 deathmatches. At first I could only play for a few minutes without getting sick. As the days went by, and I kept playing, I started to not feel so bad. Eventually I adjusted completely and was able to play without any feelings of sickness. The interesting thing is that after I left that job, and left off of regularly playing, I get motion sick when I try to play these types of games again, so the adjustment only seems to last as long as you keep playing.
Do you believe in God? If so, then why is it hard for you to imagine that God could multiply the fish and the loaves? If the (non-)miracle was just that everyone shared the food that they had, then why did the disciples ask Jesus to send the people away so that they could buy food to eat. Furthermore, if it wasn't a miracle, then why did Jesus refer back to it in Matt 16:9, pointing out that it didn't matter if they forgot to bring bread? And why did Jesus in John 6:26 say "Most certainly I tell you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves, and were filled." The only thing insightful about your post is how much it reveals of your ignorance of the Bible.
The reason is that they have a business partnership http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/EJ08Dh01.html
So if an atheist believes there is no god, without knowing there is no god, how is he different than a theist. Is this not just another religion, the null religion?
I guess my point is, how can you disbelieve it, any more than you can believe it, if it is theoretically possible? It seems to be a much more rational position to say that you just don't know, one way or another.
I was not suggesting any of the above. I was only referring to considering the hypothetical possibility of our universe, our existence, being created by some higher being. I was not making any suppositions as to who this being is or if/how you should behave with respect to it.
Regarding the chicken and the egg problem, atleast in Christianity, God and his Son are both eternally existent, outside of time, and Jesus is incarnated, ie made flesh, at a certain point within time. So, in a way, he is like the hypothetical traveler that moves from one dimension/universe to another.
This article, among other things, seems to say that a sufficiently advanced civilization, could potentially create entire universes and travel from this universe to these other universes.
So if this is theoretically possible, then is it not theoretically possible that some sufficiently advanced being (or intelligence) created our universe and is able to travel to it? Can it be ruled out?
If not, please explain why.
I am not trying to get you to believe what the Bible says -- I am only trying to make the point that the Bible does not say what you believe it says. I have relied primarily on the Bible for my argument. You have relied primarily on your own gut feelings and selected parts of the Bible, taken out of context. You have judged these parts based on your own limited knowledge of the Bible and external references to human definitions of evil. None of this can be considered hard evidence that the Bible is contradictory, and is an intellectually dishonest approach to criticizing the Bible.
You cannot completely reject the Bible's consistency on the meager evidence you provide. You are taking bits and pieces out of context and using them to demonstrate the invalidity of the whole. There is nothing scientific or rational about this approach. If you took the time, read the entire thing, considered alternative interpretations by people who disagree with you, and then concluded that it was inconsistent, you might have an honest case. But what you are doing now amounts to blindly rejecting something that you understand very little of, and this is no better than being a blind follower.
I would even accept you having a hypothesis that the Bible was contradictory, but to state it as a fact with so little evidence, is just foolishness. I think the burden of proof is on you and the Bible has to remain innocent until proven guilty.
So, yes, we are all second fiddle to God, and that is exactly the way that it should be. The problem is, we all want to be our own gods, and this is the fundamental sin problem we have all had since Adam. God does hate pride and it does not contradict his self-glorifying aim, because to be more specific, he hates pride in us, when we try to glorify ourselves.
Why are you so angry? What are you trying to prove?
It is interesting that in God's eyes, it was enough that Abraham 'almost' killed Isaac. It was accepted as the actual sacrifice. There is a similarity to this and how God accepts the sacrifice of Jesus in place of us.
I think there may be a legal issue here as well. God somehow needed an equivalency between Abraham and himself regarding the sacrifice of Jesus. By not withholding Abraham's son Isaac, it allowed God to somehow legally reciprocate.
Additionally, it is also a very very special case. I challenge you to find some other place in the Bible where God commands the sacrifice of children or any humans to him (excepting Jesus himself, of course).
Finally, I think there are some things in the Bible that serve as stumbling blocks for those whose eyes are shut to the truth, and this is probably one of them.
I want to address something else. As I have said in other places in this thread, God does not require us to love him in order to be saved. Salvation is by faith. Without regeneration, we are incapable of loving him. Only after we receive salvation does God change our hearts so that we can love him, it is a response on our part, to the love he has shown us.
I think your analogy is a bit off. The Christian version of this would have another character, the son of the judge. Also, the defendant WOULD NOT be a friend of the judge (atleast at the beginning). So, the judge, in his mercy, without any merit on the part of the defendant, punishes his own son instead of the defendant. After the punishment, the defendant can choose to believe this act has cleared him of his guilt, or reject it. If he rejects it, he gets thrown in jail for his original crime.
In a sense (this is totally my thinking now) it is like the defendant is doubly guilty. He carries the guilt of his own crimes, and then he carries the guilt of rejecting the awesome sacrifice (made on his behalf without any surety that he would accept what was done for him).
Happiness & joy! I actually agree with you on this point. GWB is an absolutely miserable representative of Christ in this world. And he does seem to practice a christianity which is completely unbiblical (talk the talk but don't walk the walk) and almost satanic (leading others into deception). But, this doesn't take anything away from the real truth that is in the Bible.
To avoid repetition, please see this thread for my response to your points.
Your right, it is contradictory, or atleast appears to be. Please consider re-reading what I wrote earlier.
I think you may have some faulty logic. You state that Jesus redeems sinners and this contradicts my statement that God is holy and cannot tolerate sin. If sin weren't the major issue that it is, why would God need to 'redeem' sinners in the first place? (Answer: He wouldn't need to redeem us. What your saying doesn't make sense, and you can't use this as an argument against God's intolerance of sin)
I think the meaning of death in the genesis account is a lot deeper than just a physical death. The Bible talks about a second death which is the eternal conscious separation from God in hell.