Where? Let's break it down, shall we? The Old Testament, even taken as far as possible, stops at condemning Jewish men who have sex with men -- to death, no less. Not homosexuality: there was no word for homosexuality. And even then, I don't know why people (like you) keep bringing up the Old Testament in a Christian moral argument: Christians are very clearly not
bound by the law. You can keep judging on moral issues, that's fine, and back it up with Leviticus, but then it's not going to be on the authority of the Scripture, it's going to be on your own authority and that of some churches. Yeah, it's a popular opinion, a catholic even, but not in any way scriptural.
Where else? Paul? We are closer to home now,
since Paul is condemning a practice and he says that it is immoral. What is this practice, exactly? Is it "men having sex with men" in biological terms, or is it "keeping boy toys"?
I think it's the latter, but whatever the case,
it is not "homosexuality", which
is a very loaded term which comes with a lot of
culture behind it, our very contemporary Western culture.
I don't think you're going to hell, as long as you're nice
Then you are not a Christian. See Matthew 25:41.
Repeat after me: there is no word "hell" in the
Bible, there is no word "hell" in the Bible... In the passage above, a parable mentions some kind of "everlasting fire". There is no indication that a human being will last in the fire. Fallen angels might, and they are the ones for whom the fire is prepared.
I think gays are perfect just the way God made them
Then you are not a Christian. See 1 Corinthians 6:9
Buzz, miss again! Just a few verses down we read: "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." I think, what the holy writer is trying to say is, being overcome by your passions is bad. Being gay is bad if you are being a dick to your partner. Or if you pay cash to shag young boys, with their smooth skin and that innocent look in their eyes..., anyway, like they used to do in good old Corinth! I'll give you a simple analogy to what you are trying to say: if you think that stealing food for your hungry baby is OK, you are not a Christian. Why? See 1 Cor 6:10.
You don't have to be a scientist to grow crops or breed dogs.
What about Agronomy?
A modern farmer does not have to be a research
scientist, but many of them actually do go to a community college and
study this stuff. I've see a college in Morgan Hill, and
it has orchards and cows on campus.
And even if a farmer picks it up from his dad, is he not still
studying a scientific discipline? And does it not take years to
become a good farmer? Ditto for dogs.
The basis of evolution is extremely simple. You can communicate the idea to people and have them understand it within minutes.
That is the heart of the problem: they can understand it alright,
but why should they believe it??? Why should they believe you or any other one man?
Should they go and repeat the experiments?
That would take lifetimes. Should they study the scientific literature?
That is the way we all do it, and it takes years. Should they just believe you
because you have a paper that says "PhD in Biology"? I know, I am going ad hominem,
but do you, sir, have such a paper? I suspect not. Why should anyone believe
you? And even if you do have a degree, how is it better than believing a man with a paper
that says "PhD in Divinity"? Unlike you, he is certified by a god. At face
value, his opinion dwarfs that of any secular department.
To answer your other comment, this also shows why science is by
nature an elitist endeuvour. It takes years to understand stuff in a way
that a university deems "understanding" -- that is, knowing not just the
facts, but also the theory and the full body of evidence.
Only a few people can afford to study so much, because if everyone
goes into the research, no one is going to be left to make pies.
And you do NOT want to live in a world without pies.
Religion describes the spiritual. Some religions, for example, describe
the nature of a perfect friendship. Do a mind experiment, speak
to a neurophysiologist [sic] from the future and ask him to
explain what friendship is. Even if you can understand all the
scientific mumbo jumbo that he gives you, would that help you to
become a good friend, if you willed so? This is the difference between
spirit and matter.
Again: science may tell you what happens in your brain when
you act out what is called "charity". Science does not tell you,
does not teach you how to be charitable. Do you have to be charitable?
No. But if you wanted to, science cannot not help you anyway.
My point is that science cannot be "communicated", it has to be taught.
You cannot "communicate" the theory of evolution and expect people to
believe in it. We are talking about studying the matter for a year
just to scratch the surface. It gets worse. Some things are just unbelievable, regardless of how
many times you studied them and seen them work: even relatively old
ideas like the nature of light and the Euler's formula.
Your, or anyone else's uneducated belief in evolution
because of the scientific consensus or whatever, without a proper
understanding of the science behind it, is clearly just what the enlightened crowd calls
"faith", and IMO just as good (or bad, depending on how you look at it).
[...] which causes him to make statements that sometimes woefully misrepresent the religious perspective [...]
Really? Like what?
Don't get me wrong, I think that Dawkins is very peculiar, mainly because of how
hostile he is towards religion, and because of that he may not be the best choice
for a peacemaker. But did you hear him speak and, in particular, refute theological
arguments from the audience? He is a breath of fresh air, and I say that as someone
who is religious, and with some formal and plenty of informal education in
philosophy and religious studies (both Western and Eastern). These are two things
which redeem him IMHO and put him apart from the crowd of all-religion-is-evil dolts:
his philosophy and his (negative) theology are very very good.
Science by its very nature is an extremely elitist kind of human activity.
Communicating science to a polarized public is not an issue,
since communicating it to any kind of public is nearly impossible. The only way
to communicate scientific knowledge it is withing an educational environment,
be it a lecture hall, a seminar, or a private tutoring session. If we want
more science in the state policy, we just need to vote for educated men and women!
We all know that cocaine does not create any chemical dependence.
If you think that it's not addictive, it's probably because you never
even talked to anyone who used it.
Don't feel bad about how short your reply is. Or thin, rather,
since adding more lines would make it thicker. It is not all
about size. Some men can do more with their tiny one-liners
than others with long beefy paragraphs. And when that happens,
other men take notice. Not me, though. I am just a well-wisher,
in that I do not wish you any specific harm.
Does it really feel like there is too much math on Slashdot?
Only reporting the likes of Poincare's Conjecture would be similar to
only reporting "P=NP" and "computer passes full Turing
test" for computer science.
As far as I can tell, the original result provided
a conformal map from a disk onto a polygon. Prof. Crowdy
extended this result to provide a map from a disk with
circular holes poked in it onto a domain with polygonal
holes. Why is it useful? I am sure someone in the applied
camp would know.
The answers to these four questions are Yes, Yes, Whose and Yes, respectively.
How do I know that they are correct? They are just crazy enough to work.
Talking about it all the time just helps you with your cognitive dissonance and makes it okay that you steal music.
When will this foolish drivel have run its course?
You can bring the day closer by defining what you mean by "stealing
music". No, please do not assume that we are smart. No one is smart
enough to figure out a phrase that is intentionally vague and insulting
at the same time.
Do we steal music when we make a copy? When we make
the first copy? An unauthorized copy? An illegal copy?
Do we "steal" music when we perform
it without proper authorization?
Do we "steal" it every time we listen to an illegally
made recording? Every time we listen to a recording without compensating
someone? And if so, who are we supposed to be compensating?
Are we "stealing" it when we make a copy for a friend who would never find
about the artist, if not for us?
Are we "stealing" when we remove DRM? When we digitize?
When we shift formats?
Are we "stealing music" when we replace our stolen CD collection
by getting it off the Pirate Bay (doesn't cost fat cats a dime)?
When we legally download it from a different country? When
we obtain a copy of something that is no longer published?
When the artist is dead? How about when the artist says
that it is OK, even though he does not own the rights? Is it
still "stealing"?
You see, we just don't seem to have a good grasp of the
meaning of the term you insist on using.
If you want to say "stealing music" on Slashdot, out of
all places, even though it makes no legal (or any other kind of) sense,
why won't you bloody define it for us? Or may be just say "infringe
the copyright" instead, if that is all you mean to say?
Slashdot Mirror
The Bible condemns homosexuality.
Where? Let's break it down, shall we? The Old Testament, even taken as far as possible, stops at condemning Jewish men who have sex with men -- to death, no less. Not homosexuality: there was no word for homosexuality. And even then, I don't know why people (like you) keep bringing up the Old Testament in a Christian moral argument: Christians are very clearly not bound by the law. You can keep judging on moral issues, that's fine, and back it up with Leviticus, but then it's not going to be on the authority of the Scripture, it's going to be on your own authority and that of some churches. Yeah, it's a popular opinion, a catholic even, but not in any way scriptural.
Where else? Paul? We are closer to home now, since Paul is condemning a practice and he says that it is immoral. What is this practice, exactly? Is it "men having sex with men" in biological terms, or is it "keeping boy toys"? I think it's the latter, but whatever the case, it is not "homosexuality", which is a very loaded term which comes with a lot of culture behind it, our very contemporary Western culture.
I don't think you're going to hell, as long as you're nice
Then you are not a Christian. See Matthew 25:41.
Repeat after me: there is no word "hell" in the Bible, there is no word "hell" in the Bible... In the passage above, a parable mentions some kind of "everlasting fire". There is no indication that a human being will last in the fire. Fallen angels might, and they are the ones for whom the fire is prepared.
I think gays are perfect just the way God made them
Then you are not a Christian. See 1 Corinthians 6:9
Buzz, miss again! Just a few verses down we read: "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." I think, what the holy writer is trying to say is, being overcome by your passions is bad. Being gay is bad if you are being a dick to your partner. Or if you pay cash to shag young boys, with their smooth skin and that innocent look in their eyes..., anyway, like they used to do in good old Corinth! I'll give you a simple analogy to what you are trying to say: if you think that stealing food for your hungry baby is OK, you are not a Christian. Why? See 1 Cor 6:10.
You tell them, man.
I suspect that you are trolling, but I'll bite.
You don't have to be a scientist to grow crops or breed dogs.
What about Agronomy? A modern farmer does not have to be a research scientist, but many of them actually do go to a community college and study this stuff. I've see a college in Morgan Hill, and it has orchards and cows on campus. And even if a farmer picks it up from his dad, is he not still studying a scientific discipline? And does it not take years to become a good farmer? Ditto for dogs.
The basis of evolution is extremely simple. You can communicate the idea to people and have them understand it within minutes.
That is the heart of the problem: they can understand it alright, but why should they believe it??? Why should they believe you or any other one man? Should they go and repeat the experiments? That would take lifetimes. Should they study the scientific literature? That is the way we all do it, and it takes years. Should they just believe you because you have a paper that says "PhD in Biology"? I know, I am going ad hominem, but do you, sir, have such a paper? I suspect not. Why should anyone believe you? And even if you do have a degree, how is it better than believing a man with a paper that says "PhD in Divinity"? Unlike you, he is certified by a god. At face value, his opinion dwarfs that of any secular department.
To answer your other comment, this also shows why science is by nature an elitist endeuvour. It takes years to understand stuff in a way that a university deems "understanding" -- that is, knowing not just the facts, but also the theory and the full body of evidence. Only a few people can afford to study so much, because if everyone goes into the research, no one is going to be left to make pies.
And you do NOT want to live in a world without pies.
cannot help you anyway. Gotta hate it when the meaning is reversed :)
Religion describes the spiritual. Some religions, for example, describe the nature of a perfect friendship. Do a mind experiment, speak to a neurophysiologist [sic] from the future and ask him to explain what friendship is. Even if you can understand all the scientific mumbo jumbo that he gives you, would that help you to become a good friend, if you willed so? This is the difference between spirit and matter.
Again: science may tell you what happens in your brain when you act out what is called "charity". Science does not tell you, does not teach you how to be charitable. Do you have to be charitable? No. But if you wanted to, science cannot not help you anyway.
My point is that science cannot be "communicated", it has to be taught. You cannot "communicate" the theory of evolution and expect people to believe in it. We are talking about studying the matter for a year just to scratch the surface. It gets worse. Some things are just unbelievable, regardless of how many times you studied them and seen them work: even relatively old ideas like the nature of light and the Euler's formula.
Your, or anyone else's uneducated belief in evolution because of the scientific consensus or whatever, without a proper understanding of the science behind it, is clearly just what the enlightened crowd calls "faith", and IMO just as good (or bad, depending on how you look at it).
[...] which causes him to make statements that sometimes woefully misrepresent the religious perspective [...]
Really? Like what?
Don't get me wrong, I think that Dawkins is very peculiar, mainly because of how hostile he is towards religion, and because of that he may not be the best choice for a peacemaker. But did you hear him speak and, in particular, refute theological arguments from the audience? He is a breath of fresh air, and I say that as someone who is religious, and with some formal and plenty of informal education in philosophy and religious studies (both Western and Eastern). These are two things which redeem him IMHO and put him apart from the crowd of all-religion-is-evil dolts: his philosophy and his (negative) theology are very very good.
Science by its very nature is an extremely elitist kind of human activity. Communicating science to a polarized public is not an issue, since communicating it to any kind of public is nearly impossible. The only way to communicate scientific knowledge it is withing an educational environment, be it a lecture hall, a seminar, or a private tutoring session. If we want more science in the state policy, we just need to vote for educated men and women!
Penguins flying over mobile platforms. Could these be related?
Very funny, but probably wasted here on /.
Fees... My good friend's parents moved into an expensive, totally out of the way country club just so that they can enjoy the free green.
Aye, even simple things like taking a shit can go waaaaaay beyond satisfying basic needs.
We all know that cocaine does not create any chemical dependence. If you think that it's not addictive, it's probably because you never even talked to anyone who used it.
Don't feel bad about how short your reply is. Or thin, rather, since adding more lines would make it thicker. It is not all about size. Some men can do more with their tiny one-liners than others with long beefy paragraphs. And when that happens, other men take notice. Not me, though. I am just a well-wisher, in that I do not wish you any specific harm.
You know, GGP was right. My meaning would be more like "zombie Stallmans".
Stallman's Zombies
There, fixed it for you. The vision of thousands of identical zombie clones of RMS is something out of an FPS-induced nightmare.
And then, may be, one day, math will finally calculate the exact limit to the Human Pride. Or may be the whole sum of it will just diverge to +00.
Does it really feel like there is too much math on Slashdot? Only reporting the likes of Poincare's Conjecture would be similar to only reporting "P=NP" and "computer passes full Turing test" for computer science.
The article is available at the author's website.
As far as I can tell, the original result provided a conformal map from a disk onto a polygon. Prof. Crowdy extended this result to provide a map from a disk with circular holes poked in it onto a domain with polygonal holes. Why is it useful? I am sure someone in the applied camp would know.
Sheep facing left at sunset, from this search.
The answers to these four questions are Yes, Yes, Whose and Yes, respectively. How do I know that they are correct? They are just crazy enough to work.
+Insightful? How deliciously ironic...
Sometimes I think that I read Slashdot just for the mods.
Talking about it all the time just helps you with your cognitive dissonance and makes it okay that you steal music.
When will this foolish drivel have run its course?
You can bring the day closer by defining what you mean by "stealing music". No, please do not assume that we are smart. No one is smart enough to figure out a phrase that is intentionally vague and insulting at the same time.
Do we steal music when we make a copy? When we make the first copy? An unauthorized copy? An illegal copy?
Do we "steal" music when we perform it without proper authorization?
Do we "steal" it every time we listen to an illegally made recording? Every time we listen to a recording without compensating someone? And if so, who are we supposed to be compensating?
Are we "stealing" it when we make a copy for a friend who would never find about the artist, if not for us?
Are we "stealing" when we remove DRM? When we digitize? When we shift formats?
Are we "stealing music" when we replace our stolen CD collection by getting it off the Pirate Bay (doesn't cost fat cats a dime)? When we legally download it from a different country? When we obtain a copy of something that is no longer published? When the artist is dead? How about when the artist says that it is OK, even though he does not own the rights? Is it still "stealing"?
You see, we just don't seem to have a good grasp of the meaning of the term you insist on using.
If you want to say "stealing music" on Slashdot, out of all places, even though it makes no legal (or any other kind of) sense, why won't you bloody define it for us? Or may be just say "infringe the copyright" instead, if that is all you mean to say?
Wine is great, but will it run Linux? Oh, wait...