No worries. You're asking all the questions I asked myself. I see no way for it to either be A) Divine intervention B) Coincidence or C) She's lying or remembers the timing wrong, and the power outage happened first. Since I know her and you do not (and even if you do know her, you don't know you know her, ya'know?), you'll have to trust a random/. on the internets that that just isn't her.
Understood. Well, I got this far through it, so why not? The Internet also affords decent obscurity, too:-)
There were no big reasons for the thoughts, just that she had always been spiritual but not religious. A friend talked to her about it, and her church, and so my wife thought that her spirituality might have a place to roost. We've been on good relations with the neighbors the whole time, no basement, no other electrical issues. She was sitting reading, I walked by, went to the bathroom, and while I was in there the power went out. Came out and she was still there and looked a bit shaken. That's when she told me what she had been praying for. Now, she obviously could've walked over and flipped the breaker while I was out of the room, but she wasn't trying to convince me of anything, and we were the only ones there. The bathroom also abuts the breaker box, and is behind the dog leashes, so she couldn't have done it without me hearing and the dogs going nutso.
It was a spring day with moderate weather, and no construction going on anywhere in the neighborhood. She was contemplating joining a church after having fallen out of religion many years before. Because she had so many negative experiences in her past church experiences, she was hesitant to try again. SO she was reading the Bible and trying to figure out what to do. So she prayed, and said to God that even though she knew he didn't do signs, she could really use one to let her know she was doing the right thing. Power goes out. Stays off briefly. Comes back on.
Not saying it was, or wasn't, just that the likelihood of a coincidence happening at that very moment would have to be pretty small I'd think. The only other time we've lost power was during a particularly stormy time, and that was for a couple hours. And that's over almost a decade.
There are many things in this world that happen that cannot be readily explained. My wife was praying to God and asked him for a sign that she was doing the right thing. At that moment all the power int he house went out, and then came back on a minute later. I've been there 9 years and that is one of 2 times that we lsot power. Even if it was just coincidence, the odds against it happening right then, at that question, would be pretty staggering I think. (Especially since it was the only time she asked for a sign!)
I don't know that what he saw was delusional, I don't know that it isn't. But if you're willing to share, I'm willing to listen.
I know personally of at least three people who are dead because they wanted to know and were willing to risk everything to find out. Broken necks, scared to death, completely consumed by fire. While most of them were in Africa, I have first hand accounts.
And those first hand accounts are? C'mon, might as well turn this into a ghost story thread.
Perhaps we would be better served by making the very *concept* of genocide or war simply inconceivable.
And yet they do exist. And came into existence years ago, and came about without little prompting of history. As long as there are schoolyard bullies, people shouting at each other in traffic over a dozen feet of road, and domestic violence, there will be war. Even without the tanks, planes, artillery, and machine guns. As long as Thag can convince a group that Og sucks and needs the tar beat out of him with stickas and/or stones; there will be war.
Ignorance does not eliminate problems, it exacerbates them. Understanding the problem and having the fortitude to fix it, is the only way to truly solve a problem.
The guys tone seems to be that he knows best and that his view is commonly held, and that the people arguing are only doing so for the sole purpose of arguing.
Because that is the commonly held view and the sole reason people are making the argument is to argue. When someone on Xbox live sees a swastica as part of the character's emblam their first thought is not going to be, "Wow, this guy loves Eastern religious symbols." They're going to think he's a Nazi sympathizer. At best.
I don't think that's true at all, and while a company certainly has no obligation to assure free speech to all customers of its service, I would expect it to at least be considered, especially when the arguments have a lot of merit.
The arguments don't have a lot of merit. Just because you feel an argument is valid doesn't automatically make it so. Even on teh internets.
I mean, if his point is that they won't allow things commonly found horribly offensive then he should have simply stated that, without diminishing the people making the argument. All in all, he comes across like a tool.
Actually he comes across as someone giving a far more thoughtful answer than is actually necessary. The tools are the ones making the argument and somehow thinking that obscure references equate to merit. Most of slashdot is educated. We know that the before the Nazi's the Swastika was a symbol of peace (Hell, we even know that the Nazi version is reversed). However, we also know that the Nazi's organized the slaughter of millions of people, and that their racial aggression led to tens of millions of deaths in war. That would be the huge, massively glaring fact that none of your arguments can overcome. And also why none of your arguments have merit.
Though ships of old were typically wooden, there is no requirement at all that a sailing vessel be made of wood (and modern sailing vessels typically aren't).
We know that the only things that float are wood, ducks, witches, and the occasional very small pebble. If not wood than what, ducks? A duck can't even carry a coconut without sinking. Small pebble can't carry very much, and witches are incredibely difficult to work with. So tehre you have it: wood. So sayeth the Ways of Science.
When I think, been around here for a while, I don't think of 1520545. I'd say you've been around for awhile, since over half a million separate us, but I don't know about those in the million, million and a half range.
Now if you'll excuse me, there's someone on a lawn that needs yelling at!
I greatly appreciate the response, actually. I'm just sorry it took so long to get back to you...
The Song of Songs I really just read as ancient erotica. I didn't think it was a bad thing though, I thought it helped to give the Bible more completeness. Love and intimacy are as much a part of life as any of the other larger social things discussed. In addition to my Liberal Arts background, I've also spent the last decade in the legal field. So I place as much emphasis on weight as I do on validity. (I might have written that already: yesterday was a long time ago:-) So Song of Songs, even if it is nothing more than early erotica, is still wholly valid, it just doesn't receive as much weight.
What bothers me is that I think many, many people weight the passages of the Bible that agree with their own perspective. Especially when it comes to homosexuality. It seems odd that they give so much greater weight to that commandment, but all the stuff about shrimp, and putting to death a women if she re-marries her husband are given a shrug and a, "meh."
The core of my philosophy, or belief, is that religions are akin to different languages. If a Catholic, Mormon, Islamic, or any other missionary goes to a foreign country to teach their "Word," they tend to do so in that country's native tongue. I see no reason why Religions cannot be thought of as different languages. God is, assume, fluent in them all. Just as 10 people witnessing the same event see it 10 different ways, each of which is true, even though they conflict; so to is it with religions. I don't think any one can ever claim "The Truth." But, they can see a part of it. And, if we look at them as an aggregate, I think there are a lot of amazing lessons to be learned.
Even an Atheist would have to admit to the value of philosophy being taught by Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Even if he's just a charlatan, his philosophy about kindness and decency are worth listening to.
Does that help? Or was it too much of a late night tangent?:-)
I appreciate the more detailed response. I am curious though your thoughts on how the affects a particular book in the Bible might have on a reader's faith influences the interpretations. I am more Agnostic than anything else, so whether the Song of Songs is ancient erotica or a deep, metaphysical testament to God's Love doesn't affect my faith one way or another. To, say, a Puritan, it does. So a Puritan reading it has a vested interest in what the interpretation actually is. You could argue as well that the great unwashed masses of Slashdot want it to be erotica for similar, if opposite, reasons.
So it seems that for every learned scholar who supports it being a metaphysical testament, one for whom I would thoughtfully defer (I really like that thought BTW), there would be at least one other equally learned scholar who says that it simply is what it is: early erotica. So how do you think experts should be weighed?
I should also tell you that I already know my interpretations of the Bible and the other religious works I've read, Book of Mormon, Science and health, and the Koran being the most identifiable; my interpretations are not necessarily those of the masses. Part of that is because in addition to Liberal Arts degree, I've spent a decade as a litigation paralegal. So I've come to add not just the validiaty of a work's entries, but weight as well. Even if everything in the Bible is absolute Truth, I would still think that greater weight for a Christian must be given to Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.
So, based on the thoughtfulness of your response, I'm surious if you have any thoughts about the adding weight to the discussion? Could Song of Song really just be erotica, but as such given little to no weight as opposed to other portions of the Bible?
or is one expected to have some learning and experience with the context of the text?
Let's assume learning and experience are requisite to understanding the Bible. That still doesn't answer the question of What learning you think is required. I just have a measly Liberal Arts bachelors. Does that disqualify me? How about Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church? Since he has specific learning and experience with the Bible, should I defer to his views?
It would only be porn to people who assume that the ability to read is sufficient for understanding an ancient metaphysical love-song analogy for the love of God for Israel
So what is "sufficient" for understanding the Bible? Why is simply reading it not good enough?
Slashdot Mirror
No worries. You're asking all the questions I asked myself. I see no way for it to either be A) Divine intervention B) Coincidence or C) She's lying or remembers the timing wrong, and the power outage happened first. Since I know her and you do not (and even if you do know her, you don't know you know her, ya'know?), you'll have to trust a random /. on the internets that that just isn't her.
Nope. Nothing was happening with the toilet when the power went out. Well, other than making a deposit :-)
Understood. Well, I got this far through it, so why not? The Internet also affords decent obscurity, too :-)
There were no big reasons for the thoughts, just that she had always been spiritual but not religious. A friend talked to her about it, and her church, and so my wife thought that her spirituality might have a place to roost. We've been on good relations with the neighbors the whole time, no basement, no other electrical issues. She was sitting reading, I walked by, went to the bathroom, and while I was in there the power went out. Came out and she was still there and looked a bit shaken. That's when she told me what she had been praying for. Now, she obviously could've walked over and flipped the breaker while I was out of the room, but she wasn't trying to convince me of anything, and we were the only ones there. The bathroom also abuts the breaker box, and is behind the dog leashes, so she couldn't have done it without me hearing and the dogs going nutso.
Is that enough context?
How would more details on the why affect the event? Just curious because to my mind it doesn't change things at all.
It was a spring day with moderate weather, and no construction going on anywhere in the neighborhood. She was contemplating joining a church after having fallen out of religion many years before. Because she had so many negative experiences in her past church experiences, she was hesitant to try again. SO she was reading the Bible and trying to figure out what to do. So she prayed, and said to God that even though she knew he didn't do signs, she could really use one to let her know she was doing the right thing. Power goes out. Stays off briefly. Comes back on.
Not saying it was, or wasn't, just that the likelihood of a coincidence happening at that very moment would have to be pretty small I'd think. The only other time we've lost power was during a particularly stormy time, and that was for a couple hours. And that's over almost a decade.
There are many things in this world that happen that cannot be readily explained. My wife was praying to God and asked him for a sign that she was doing the right thing. At that moment all the power int he house went out, and then came back on a minute later. I've been there 9 years and that is one of 2 times that we lsot power. Even if it was just coincidence, the odds against it happening right then, at that question, would be pretty staggering I think. (Especially since it was the only time she asked for a sign!)
I don't know that what he saw was delusional, I don't know that it isn't. But if you're willing to share, I'm willing to listen.
I know personally of at least three people who are dead because they wanted to know and were willing to risk everything to find out. Broken necks, scared to death, completely consumed by fire. While most of them were in Africa, I have first hand accounts.
And those first hand accounts are? C'mon, might as well turn this into a ghost story thread.
Gullibility,
Not sure who sells that online....
I believe that would be The Drudge Report...
Perhaps we would be better served by making the very *concept* of genocide or war simply inconceivable.
And yet they do exist. And came into existence years ago, and came about without little prompting of history. As long as there are schoolyard bullies, people shouting at each other in traffic over a dozen feet of road, and domestic violence, there will be war. Even without the tanks, planes, artillery, and machine guns. As long as Thag can convince a group that Og sucks and needs the tar beat out of him with stickas and/or stones; there will be war.
Ignorance does not eliminate problems, it exacerbates them. Understanding the problem and having the fortitude to fix it, is the only way to truly solve a problem.
Not to mention that the Cessna would be flying at 70,000 feet.
:-)
What, yours can't?
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack.
Apparently their resistence hit The Wall.
Which, rather obviously, is not the same as its definition.
Yup.
Why do people cling to this archaic only-governments-can-do-it definition of "censorship"?
Because that's the word's connotation.
Forget the commie jokes here, it no longer applies.
For those who rely on facts, you'd be correct. For the average resident of Glennbeckistan though, it's still a Commie morass.
The guys tone seems to be that he knows best and that his view is commonly held, and that the people arguing are only doing so for the sole purpose of arguing.
Because that is the commonly held view and the sole reason people are making the argument is to argue. When someone on Xbox live sees a swastica as part of the character's emblam their first thought is not going to be, "Wow, this guy loves Eastern religious symbols." They're going to think he's a Nazi sympathizer. At best.
I don't think that's true at all, and while a company certainly has no obligation to assure free speech to all customers of its service, I would expect it to at least be considered, especially when the arguments have a lot of merit.
The arguments don't have a lot of merit. Just because you feel an argument is valid doesn't automatically make it so. Even on teh internets.
I mean, if his point is that they won't allow things commonly found horribly offensive then he should have simply stated that, without diminishing the people making the argument. All in all, he comes across like a tool.
Actually he comes across as someone giving a far more thoughtful answer than is actually necessary. The tools are the ones making the argument and somehow thinking that obscure references equate to merit. Most of slashdot is educated. We know that the before the Nazi's the Swastika was a symbol of peace (Hell, we even know that the Nazi version is reversed). However, we also know that the Nazi's organized the slaughter of millions of people, and that their racial aggression led to tens of millions of deaths in war. That would be the huge, massively glaring fact that none of your arguments can overcome. And also why none of your arguments have merit.
Though ships of old were typically wooden, there is no requirement at all that a sailing vessel be made of wood (and modern sailing vessels typically aren't).
We know that the only things that float are wood, ducks, witches, and the occasional very small pebble. If not wood than what, ducks? A duck can't even carry a coconut without sinking. Small pebble can't carry very much, and witches are incredibely difficult to work with. So tehre you have it: wood. So sayeth the Ways of Science.
Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things
Glenn Beck?
Well played sir, well played!
When I think, been around here for a while, I don't think of 1520545. I'd say you've been around for awhile, since over half a million separate us, but I don't know about those in the million, million and a half range.
Now if you'll excuse me, there's someone on a lawn that needs yelling at!
My Hardcastle & McCormick reboot will live!
Only editing is blocked, not Wikipedia itself.
But... then how will they change the article to match their paper?
I greatly appreciate the response, actually. I'm just sorry it took so long to get back to you...
:-)
The Song of Songs I really just read as ancient erotica. I didn't think it was a bad thing though, I thought it helped to give the Bible more completeness. Love and intimacy are as much a part of life as any of the other larger social things discussed. In addition to my Liberal Arts background, I've also spent the last decade in the legal field. So I place as much emphasis on weight as I do on validity. (I might have written that already: yesterday was a long time ago:-) So Song of Songs, even if it is nothing more than early erotica, is still wholly valid, it just doesn't receive as much weight.
What bothers me is that I think many, many people weight the passages of the Bible that agree with their own perspective. Especially when it comes to homosexuality. It seems odd that they give so much greater weight to that commandment, but all the stuff about shrimp, and putting to death a women if she re-marries her husband are given a shrug and a, "meh."
The core of my philosophy, or belief, is that religions are akin to different languages. If a Catholic, Mormon, Islamic, or any other missionary goes to a foreign country to teach their "Word," they tend to do so in that country's native tongue. I see no reason why Religions cannot be thought of as different languages. God is, assume, fluent in them all. Just as 10 people witnessing the same event see it 10 different ways, each of which is true, even though they conflict; so to is it with religions. I don't think any one can ever claim "The Truth." But, they can see a part of it. And, if we look at them as an aggregate, I think there are a lot of amazing lessons to be learned.
Even an Atheist would have to admit to the value of philosophy being taught by Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Even if he's just a charlatan, his philosophy about kindness and decency are worth listening to.
Does that help? Or was it too much of a late night tangent?
I appreciate the more detailed response. I am curious though your thoughts on how the affects a particular book in the Bible might have on a reader's faith influences the interpretations. I am more Agnostic than anything else, so whether the Song of Songs is ancient erotica or a deep, metaphysical testament to God's Love doesn't affect my faith one way or another. To, say, a Puritan, it does. So a Puritan reading it has a vested interest in what the interpretation actually is. You could argue as well that the great unwashed masses of Slashdot want it to be erotica for similar, if opposite, reasons.
So it seems that for every learned scholar who supports it being a metaphysical testament, one for whom I would thoughtfully defer (I really like that thought BTW), there would be at least one other equally learned scholar who says that it simply is what it is: early erotica. So how do you think experts should be weighed?
I should also tell you that I already know my interpretations of the Bible and the other religious works I've read, Book of Mormon, Science and health, and the Koran being the most identifiable; my interpretations are not necessarily those of the masses. Part of that is because in addition to Liberal Arts degree, I've spent a decade as a litigation paralegal. So I've come to add not just the validiaty of a work's entries, but weight as well. Even if everything in the Bible is absolute Truth, I would still think that greater weight for a Christian must be given to Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.
So, based on the thoughtfulness of your response, I'm surious if you have any thoughts about the adding weight to the discussion? Could Song of Song really just be erotica, but as such given little to no weight as opposed to other portions of the Bible?
or is one expected to have some learning and experience with the context of the text?
Let's assume learning and experience are requisite to understanding the Bible. That still doesn't answer the question of What learning you think is required. I just have a measly Liberal Arts bachelors. Does that disqualify me? How about Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church? Since he has specific learning and experience with the Bible, should I defer to his views?
It would only be porn to people who assume that the ability to read is sufficient for understanding an ancient metaphysical love-song analogy for the love of God for Israel
So what is "sufficient" for understanding the Bible? Why is simply reading it not good enough?