In addition skype (possibly not the latest version) can open listening ports on 80 and 443.
I was seriously pissed off when I discovered this, not just because I'd spent an hour or so tracking down why the IIS demo laptop had stopped working (so shoot me for working with windows).
It doesn't say when the persecution will come (aside from armageddon) and it doesn't outline what being blessed means - aside from that you get to go to heaven.
Same god, different prophets. Fighting ensues for milennia.
For every problem there is a solution that is both simple and wrong. That pretty much sums up that comment.
Hindu has the same God? I though Hindu said there were multiple Gods? Surely if there was one God, He/She/It could ensure that the prophets say the same things? At least you'd hope that what is said is substantially similar.
How is the parent post insightful? As far as I can tell, the superparent does not make reference to anything perpetrated by The DaVinci Code. Furthermore, alluding to the book attempts to negate the fact that the early Catholic Church performed heavy editing, ignoring entire books that were very popular, had great information, and would sway one away from organized religion. Think of it as forced selective reading of the Bible for 1500 years.
Oh FFS learn some history. Your post is classic history as told by the Da Vinci code.
The Catholic church only came into existance ~1000 AD. It was effectively a splinter from the Byzantine church.
In addition the formation of the Canon of scripture (~300AD), did not write the books of the bible. It largely affirmed what was accepted at the time.
And, in particular, the Gospel of Mary which exalts Mary Magdalene over Jesus' male disciples, and The Gospel of Mary Magdalene are both left out of the bible as if they were unimportant.
You forgot to include say the Gospel of Thomas.
There is a reason that these gospels are not included because they are not considered to the written by the supposed authors. They are also less well authenticated (early manuscripts etc).
The bible basically promises you only one thing - that if you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, that you will go to heaven.
It makes no other promises about what will happen to you along the way. It says that God will help you, but that's completely arbitrary and it's contradictory to the concept that God has a plan for us all. That's not helping me, that's telling me what to do and it's diametrically opposed to the very concept of free will.
No. It actually does promise some things. It promises that people will be persecuted. It promises that people will be blessed in this life.
The problem with that (mentioned in the article), is why don't you just use the solar power?
Every time you do a conversion you lose energy (to be more precise the energy "lost" is that can't be used). So using your structure: solar -> hydrogen -> foo
You would be better off with just: solar -> foo
The only reason you might convert to an intermediate form of energy is to "store" it when solar enegry is not available.
That is what I thought the Illiad was about, but not having read it I was disinclined to comment on something I have not read.
You make a very valid point.
There are a couple of things that I think are worth taking into account. One is my understanding is that Illiad is written hundreds of years after the events it portrays. Most of the bible is considered to have been written close to the events it describes (obviously Gen 1-12 is written some time after the events).
The other point to consider is that the bible and the Illiad should be considered in the context of the culture in which they were written. Again I am not scholar in these areas, so I am hesitant to comment on this too much.
Wow, just wow. How much proof do you need? Seriously.
Some would be good. You still haven't provided any.
Nice work twisting my words. I am saying that people should not question what they believe to be true based on fiction.
Well, you're saying they should not question what they believe based on facts either. Logically, it follows that you believe people shouldn't question their beliefs.
No I am not saying that.
Look I can't be bothered to read the rest of your comment. You are not arguing based on facts, you are arguing on emotion. I see no point in aruging any further. Go argue with your strawman, that seems to be what you really want to do.
Which really does nothing to address my point. The Bible is inaccurate.
This is a claim for which you have provided no proof.
Wow, that's truly dizzying. People should question their fictional fantasies, but not do it on the basis of fiction.
Nice work twisting my words. I am saying that people should not question what they believe to be true based on fiction.
Wow, amazing. It's like never before have stories circulated in the world. It's almost as if the biblical flood story wasn't a blatant ripoff of Gilgamesh.
What does that have to do with anything? There is a lot in the Genesis that is similar to contemporary stories. The Geneis creation story is very similar (with important changes, largely the removal of muliple gods and the replacement with one God).
Perhaps you should look into the origin of those myths and how they predate the supposed birth of Jesus by a century. Seriously now. A *little* bit of research would do you good. Repeating half truths and flat out lies is just silly.
And once again you think I have not done that research.
So I ask for *credible* evidence and you respond with a circular argument and then this. In the first place, there is nothing from "historians". There is one item from one historian "Josephus" as you said, but had you done any research whatsoever (no, checking fundie sites obviously does not count as they are pathological liars) you would know that the passage from the Josephus document is a thoroughly debunked forgery.
Why is this a circular argument? There are strong reasons why the gospels have credibility. One is that there are early manuscripts (which I mentioned), and manuscripts up til today that satisfy historians that the gospels we have today are original or very close to. In other words the "church" has not doctored them.
Secondly there are methods historians apply to texts such as these to test the authenticity. I'd list them out but I don't think you are really listening.
As for the Josephus quote, could you substantiate that please.
Look, it's obvious that you do not know a damn thing about the subject. You have a belief and you want to try to justify it. I understand that you desperately need for this to be true, but sorry, reality does not need to bend itself to be what you want it to be.
What's clear is that you will buy into whatever allows you to keep your delusions. I have no preconcieved notions, and no need to prove or disprove anything. The facts are all on my side though.
When you repeat silly lies like the Josephus nonsense, you demonstrate that you don't care one bit for what's actually true and just seek to prop up your delusional needs.
Sorry to have to break it to you.
Hey thanks. I love being called an idiot and a liar by someone who claims in the face of all historical evidence and all credible historians that the person of Jesus never existed.
On that note, Christians are often called closed minded and unwilling to listen to facts. They are sometimes said to be insulting and condesending in the way they express themselves. Throughout these comments you have been insulting, closed minded and pretty much everything Christians are accused of. Even if you are right (and I accept the possibility) your manner makes me disinclined to continue the discussion. You don't think you have to argue "fair" with Christians? Ad hom and unsubstantiated claims are fair game because Christians deserve it?
I'm well aware of that fact. The Da Vinci code did more to back up Christianity than to hurt it anyhow, which is pretty funny.
I'd disagree with that. An anecdote, my sister in law read the Da Vinci code and her immediate comment was this it made her doubt the accuracy of the bible. The Da Vinci code is written in the style of historical fiction, where the facts of the book are correct, however an event or person is inserted into the context. The Da Vinci code is fiction on fiction, but people read it as fact. FWIW I think everyone should test their beliefs however they should no test it on the basis of fiction.
Perhaps if you're such a history expert, you'd care to point me to one single credible scrap of historical evidence that there ever even was such a person as Jesus?
No? Thought not.
This is slashdot, but I believe it is customary let others answer the questions you ask. Also I never said I was an expert. Anway...
First off the gospels are credible historical evidence for the existance of Jesus. They are 4 independant accounts of his existance. In addition there are surviving fragments or full copies of the gospels dating from the 2nd and 3rd centuries (example). You'll have to excuse the web reference, I've just spent half an hour hunting for a book on this.
In addition there is corroborating historical evidence from contemporary historians (eg Josephus).
Back to the original point, perhaps you can name some other group than the Catholic Church that creeated Christianity?
This is a difficult question to answer, equally your question about who created the "christian faith". Which christian faith? What do you mean by Christianity? Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant?
I'd certainly say that the Catholic church has had a larger influence on the church institutions we have today.
They selected and edited the books that would become the New Testament to push political goals. What more do you need to invent a religion?
Ha ha, so you do get your historical evidence from the Da Vinci code.
Quick history lesson. The catholic church was a splinter formed from the Byzantine church, now the orthodox church. This occurred in 1054. The canon of scripture was formalised around 300AD. So the Catholic church had nothing to do with it. In addition the religion existed before 300AD.
If you really want to learn about why we have the bible as it stands today, read "The Canon of Scripture". However from your comment it appears you would prefer to keep your current views, regardless of the evidence.
True, my misreading of his comment, thanks for the correction.
However...
There are also many parts that conflict with accepted history which can be found easily with google.
Sure, but can you produce conflicts from reputable sources? You can google the flat earth society. FWIW, I don't believe in 7 day creation if that is where you are going with this.
Yes, the Bible includes much important historical information that historians use (and argue about). But using historical and archaeological sources to argue that the Bible is accurate in many of its historical assertions does absolutely nothing to support or renounce its supernatural claims. Historians have, for instance, long accepted that Jesus was a real historical figure. But that acknowledgement can offer nothing to the argument over whether or not he performed miracles, or was the "Son of God."
This does not follow. If the bible is seen to be an accurate historical document and it documents "supernatural" events, why are the "supernatural" events treated differently to the other events.
I think we can eliminate C++. There is no way they want to expose that kind of complexity. You may see a subset of C++, but not the whole echilada. C3 is a good candidate. VB.Net is a dead man walking.
What's different between a "blue flame wall heater" and a regular one?
Well without knowing the exact difference, burning a blue flame means a more efficient flame. The flame is burning without any excess carbon/soot being produced (the yellow in the flame). That is there is a good conversion from propane to heat + C02 + H20. A less efficient heater would produce more C0 and some other more Carbon heavy compounds. I'd be surprised if it is 100% efficient though.
Fixed that for you: Christianity does, because the Bible says the earth is 6500 years old (don't argue with me about interpretation; that's the interpretation that some Christians believe in).
As a practical example, matricies (which are an abstract concept anyway) have *two* ways of being multiplied, dot multiplication and cross multiplication. As it turns out both a useful and have real world applications. However I could equally define a third method, however it is unlikely that the method would be useful.
As a young a impressionable uni student doing 1st year maths I once tried to develop a number theory for/0. At the time I reasoned that if someone had done it for -1^1/2 then there probably could be one for/0. Eventually (several pages of scribbled notes) I came up with something similar to what he is suggesting except that I concluded n/0 was a point, not a line, that was outside our frame of reference. So, you bastard, you stole my work. Admittedly I never published anything but... (joke)
Also this doesn't actually solve the problem. It just puts a spin on it. It provides a conceptual way of understanding it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you pay me to say it, I'll eventually end up lying.
But if you provide me with no means or hope of being payed for what I say then I may never say it.
In addition skype (possibly not the latest version) can open listening ports on 80 and 443.
I was seriously pissed off when I discovered this, not just because I'd spent an hour or so tracking down why the IIS demo laptop had stopped working (so shoot me for working with windows).
That would only be equivalent if the printer cartridges were only made by one manufacturer, no matter which printer you bought.
It doesn't say when the persecution will come (aside from armageddon) and it doesn't outline what being blessed means - aside from that you get to go to heaven.
It does provide some information.
It still makes no testable predictions and thus cannot be tested scientifically.
I'd agree that the predictions are not testable.
This is okay, since religion is about faith anyway.
This is roughly equivalent to saying all science is about gut feeling.
Same god, different prophets. Fighting ensues for milennia.
For every problem there is a solution that is both simple and wrong. That pretty much sums up that comment.
Hindu has the same God? I though Hindu said there were multiple Gods? Surely if there was one God, He/She/It could ensure that the prophets say the same things? At least you'd hope that what is said is substantially similar.
How is the parent post insightful? As far as I can tell, the superparent does not make reference to anything perpetrated by The DaVinci Code. Furthermore, alluding to the book attempts to negate the fact that the early Catholic Church performed heavy editing, ignoring entire books that were very popular, had great information, and would sway one away from organized religion. Think of it as forced selective reading of the Bible for 1500 years.
Oh FFS learn some history. Your post is classic history as told by the Da Vinci code.
The Catholic church only came into existance ~1000 AD. It was effectively a splinter from the Byzantine church.
In addition the formation of the Canon of scripture (~300AD), did not write the books of the bible. It largely affirmed what was accepted at the time.
And, in particular, the Gospel of Mary which exalts Mary Magdalene over Jesus' male disciples, and The Gospel of Mary Magdalene are both left out of the bible as if they were unimportant.
You forgot to include say the Gospel of Thomas.
There is a reason that these gospels are not included because they are not considered to the written by the supposed authors. They are also less well authenticated (early manuscripts etc).
The bible basically promises you only one thing - that if you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, that you will go to heaven.
It makes no other promises about what will happen to you along the way. It says that God will help you, but that's completely arbitrary and it's contradictory to the concept that God has a plan for us all. That's not helping me, that's telling me what to do and it's diametrically opposed to the very concept of free will.
No. It actually does promise some things. It promises that people will be persecuted. It promises that people will be blessed in this life.
The problem with that (mentioned in the article), is why don't you just use the solar power?
Every time you do a conversion you lose energy (to be more precise the energy "lost" is that can't be used). So using your structure:
solar -> hydrogen -> foo
You would be better off with just:
solar -> foo
The only reason you might convert to an intermediate form of energy is to "store" it when solar enegry is not available.
That is what I thought the Illiad was about, but not having read it I was disinclined to comment on something I have not read.
You make a very valid point.
There are a couple of things that I think are worth taking into account. One is my understanding is that Illiad is written hundreds of years after the events it portrays. Most of the bible is considered to have been written close to the events it describes (obviously Gen 1-12 is written some time after the events).
The other point to consider is that the bible and the Illiad should be considered in the context of the culture in which they were written. Again I am not scholar in these areas, so I am hesitant to comment on this too much.
Some would be good. You still haven't provided any.
No I am not saying that.
Look I can't be bothered to read the rest of your comment. You are not arguing based on facts, you are arguing on emotion. I see no point in aruging any further. Go argue with your strawman, that seems to be what you really want to do.
Which really does nothing to address my point. The Bible is inaccurate.
This is a claim for which you have provided no proof.
Wow, that's truly dizzying.
People should question their fictional fantasies, but not do it on the basis of fiction.
Nice work twisting my words. I am saying that people should not question what they believe to be true based on fiction.
Wow, amazing. It's like never before have stories circulated in the world. It's almost as if the biblical flood story wasn't a blatant ripoff of Gilgamesh.
What does that have to do with anything? There is a lot in the Genesis that is similar to contemporary stories. The Geneis creation story is very similar (with important changes, largely the removal of muliple gods and the replacement with one God).
Perhaps you should look into the origin of those myths and how they predate the supposed birth of Jesus by a century.
Seriously now. A *little* bit of research would do you good. Repeating half truths and flat out lies is just silly.
And once again you think I have not done that research.
So I ask for *credible* evidence and you respond with a circular argument and then this. In the first place, there is nothing from "historians". There is one item from one historian "Josephus" as you said, but had you done any research whatsoever (no, checking fundie sites obviously does not count as they are pathological liars) you would know that the passage from the Josephus document is a thoroughly debunked forgery.
Why is this a circular argument? There are strong reasons why the gospels have credibility. One is that there are early manuscripts (which I mentioned), and manuscripts up til today that satisfy historians that the gospels we have today are original or very close to. In other words the "church" has not doctored them.
Secondly there are methods historians apply to texts such as these to test the authenticity. I'd list them out but I don't think you are really listening.
As for the Josephus quote, could you substantiate that please.
Look, it's obvious that you do not know a damn thing about the subject. You have a belief and you want to try to justify it.
I understand that you desperately need for this to be true, but sorry, reality does not need to bend itself to be what you want it to be.
What's clear is that you will buy into whatever allows you to keep your delusions.
I have no preconcieved notions, and no need to prove or disprove anything. The facts are all on my side though.
When you repeat silly lies like the Josephus nonsense, you demonstrate that you don't care one bit for what's actually true and just seek to prop up your delusional needs.
Sorry to have to break it to you.
Hey thanks. I love being called an idiot and a liar by someone who claims in the face of all historical evidence and all credible historians that the person of Jesus never existed.
On that note, Christians are often called closed minded and unwilling to listen to facts. They are sometimes said to be insulting and condesending in the way they express themselves. Throughout these comments you have been insulting, closed minded and pretty much everything Christians are accused of. Even if you are right (and I accept the possibility) your manner makes me disinclined to continue the discussion. You don't think you have to argue "fair" with Christians? Ad hom and unsubstantiated claims are fair game because Christians deserve it?
As the sibling pointed out, I misread OP's comment. I don't actually know the Illiad so I'm afraid I can't comment.
I'm well aware of that fact. The Da Vinci code did more to back up Christianity than to hurt it anyhow, which is pretty funny.
I'd disagree with that. An anecdote, my sister in law read the Da Vinci code and her immediate comment was this it made her doubt the accuracy of the bible. The Da Vinci code is written in the style of historical fiction, where the facts of the book are correct, however an event or person is inserted into the context. The Da Vinci code is fiction on fiction, but people read it as fact. FWIW I think everyone should test their beliefs however they should no test it on the basis of fiction.
Perhaps if you're such a history expert, you'd care to point me to one single credible scrap of historical evidence that there ever even was such a person as Jesus?
No? Thought not.
This is slashdot, but I believe it is customary let others answer the questions you ask. Also I never said I was an expert. Anway...
First off the gospels are credible historical evidence for the existance of Jesus. They are 4 independant accounts of his existance. In addition there are surviving fragments or full copies of the gospels dating from the 2nd and 3rd centuries (example). You'll have to excuse the web reference, I've just spent half an hour hunting for a book on this.
In addition there is corroborating historical evidence from contemporary historians (eg Josephus).
Back to the original point, perhaps you can name some other group than the Catholic Church that creeated Christianity?
This is a difficult question to answer, equally your question about who created the "christian faith". Which christian faith? What do you mean by Christianity? Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant?
I'd certainly say that the Catholic church has had a larger influence on the church institutions we have today.
They selected and edited the books that would become the New Testament to push political goals. What more do you need to invent a religion?
Ha ha, so you do get your historical evidence from the Da Vinci code.
Quick history lesson. The catholic church was a splinter formed from the Byzantine church, now the orthodox church. This occurred in 1054. The canon of scripture was formalised around 300AD. So the Catholic church had nothing to do with it. In addition the religion existed before 300AD.
If you really want to learn about why we have the bible as it stands today, read "The Canon of Scripture". However from your comment it appears you would prefer to keep your current views, regardless of the evidence.
True, my misreading of his comment, thanks for the correction.
However...
There are also many parts that conflict with accepted history which can be found easily with google.
Sure, but can you produce conflicts from reputable sources? You can google the flat earth society. FWIW, I don't believe in 7 day creation if that is where you are going with this.
If you actually study the history, the Christian faith was created by the Catholic Church.
Uh? What? Reading the Da Vinci code doesn't count as studying history.
Yes, the Bible includes much important historical information that historians use (and argue about). But using historical and archaeological sources to argue that the Bible is accurate in many of its historical assertions does absolutely nothing to support or renounce its supernatural claims. Historians have, for instance, long accepted that Jesus was a real historical figure. But that acknowledgement can offer nothing to the argument over whether or not he performed miracles, or was the "Son of God."
This does not follow. If the bible is seen to be an accurate historical document and it documents "supernatural" events, why are the "supernatural" events treated differently to the other events.
Neverwinter Nights was like an arrow of Zonk-slaying aimed directly at my gamer heart.
It hit you in the Wii?
I'd wager C++ or C#
I think we can eliminate C++. There is no way they want to expose that kind of complexity. You may see a subset of C++, but not the whole echilada. C3 is a good candidate. VB.Net is a dead man walking.
Yeah. One American life is worth more than 20 non-American lives.
What's different between a "blue flame wall heater" and a regular one?
Well without knowing the exact difference, burning a blue flame means a more efficient flame. The flame is burning without any excess carbon/soot being produced (the yellow in the flame). That is there is a good conversion from propane to heat + C02 + H20. A less efficient heater would produce more C0 and some other more Carbon heavy compounds. I'd be surprised if it is 100% efficient though.
Fixed that for you:
Christianity does, because the Bible says the earth is 6500 years old (don't argue with me about interpretation; that's the interpretation that some Christians believe in).
The sibling comment is right on.
As a practical example, matricies (which are an abstract concept anyway) have *two* ways of being multiplied, dot multiplication and cross multiplication. As it turns out both a useful and have real world applications. However I could equally define a third method, however it is unlikely that the method would be useful.
I'd recommend reading What is Mathematics Really.
As a young a impressionable uni student doing 1st year maths I once tried to develop a number theory for /0. At the time I reasoned that if someone had done it for -1^1/2 then there probably could be one for /0. Eventually (several pages of scribbled notes) I came up with something similar to what he is suggesting except that I concluded n/0 was a point, not a line, that was outside our frame of reference. So, you bastard, you stole my work. Admittedly I never published anything but... (joke)
Also this doesn't actually solve the problem. It just puts a spin on it. It provides a conceptual way of understanding it.
Couldn't they have used another acronym? SLAM is already taken.