So true. My eye-opening experience was when my realtor was showing me a home down the street from a similar house that had a "for sale by owner" sign in front of it. I asked my realtor why she hadn't shown me that one. She kindly agreed to go look at it with me, and when I expressed interest in purchasing it, she told me that I would have to pay her 3% fee. To her credit, she also said that I could come back and purchase it without her. She was a respectable person. But she works in a non-respectable business. They don't show you the best house for you, they show you the best house that they have control over.
There are only two reasons to ever have a realtor:
1. You know nothing about homes and need someone to take you through the steps of inspection and purchasing
2. The market is extremely hot and homes sell too quickly for you to get one on your own
Even more simply stayed home. The biggest thing on the ballot for the primaries was a property tax amendment which was especially a big draw for elderly voters who owned their own homes. The democratic primary vote here was deeply flawed
Haha, to summarize: The Democrat vote is flawed because they stayed home:) Al Gore should have tried that argument back in the day.
Calling them "academics" as if they are tenured professors is a bit much. The summary of the story paints a picture of distinguished individuals researching for the good of humanity. This wasn't such a person, it was a 22 year old student. I wouldn't defend the UK government's actions, but I can certainly understand why suspicion might be raised when two early 20-somethings are downloading al-qaeda material and one of whom, quite frankly, fits the profile.
You wouldn't tell your child, "give up that which you are most attached to or I'll disown you."
I'm not so sure disown is the right word. Clearly you have a long life with many chances before he disowns you. I would think if your child was really attached to drugs and knives, you would try to get him to stop that too. The only difference is that you've chosen your own value system, and have rejected the possibility that greed and money could be bad to you. Your entire post is a classic "I've decided what is valuable, and God should then agree that it is valuable" argument. It's flawed because you're kind of missing the point as to what and who a GOD actually is and means.
You do realize that today's translations of the Old Testament come from the original Hebrew? "Their own language" was Hebrew. And just in the past 50 years we have discovered older and older copies of the original Hebrew. Sure enough, the copies are remarkably accurate.
The "it's just a translation" argument may have worked back in the 1800's, but modern history and language advances now allow us to be certain of current translations. Or in the very least, we have the original language and can debate amongst ourselves what is and what is not ambiguous. Don't just sit back and accept it when someone tells you our current translations are bad... please take the time and check for yourself.
Don't bother arguing, Jean. He's basically quoting from the Mormon "how to convert Christian" handbook. Unfortunately for him, you actually know your stuff and the handbook doesn't have a follow up question after their "jews argued monotheism" is debunked.
It is not google's place to determine what laws are "just" and "unjust".
Your moral relativism must make your head explode at night. Sure, there are grey areas where that statement is true, but surely you don't think laws about murder and child abuse are simply culture-specific.
I'll add to your post. Those who have actually read the Book of Mormon. And there are those who have actually read about where the LDS texts came from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham might be a good starting place if you want to know more.
The Book of Abraham is especially enlightening because Joseph Smith translated Egyptian glyphs to write it. Of course, at the time, nobody knew how to read the language, and so he could claim he was given the ability from God. What is so nice about today is that we do know how to translate that original language, the original texts that Joseph used were found in 1966, and historians and linguists everywhere have shown that what Joseph translated is totally and utterly incorrect.
I encourage you to read about the history of the book of mormon, in addition to just reading it.
Yes I am hanging my hat there. I don't really feel like going into why I believe that decision was true and correct, as it's not relevant to this conversation.
I'm assuming you are Mormon, as this is one of their arguments for their faith. I think you are missing my point. My point is that Mormons don't actually follow the Bible, and so they are dishonest when they say they do, and they are *not* Christian in the sense that we define Christians as those who follow the Bible. See my point? This document shows that their faith and rules are based on the book of mormon, not the bible. Hence, not Christian.
Now you can try to redefine Christianity to include other books... fine. But if we agree that "those who follow the bible" are Christian, then you must see that Mormons are not Christians.
Actually there's an easier more obvious answer as to why they aren't Christians.
Take a look at the document and you'll see that all the scripture referenced in the document are from the Book of Mormon. I admittedly didn't have time to read all 198 pages, but flipping through and scanning just for citations, I saw mostly D&C (book of mormon) and other non-bible references. That's why it is not Christian, and perhaps why the LDS is up in arms over it. It's more evidence that they do *not* believe the Bible. I'm not judging them for not believing the Bible, or criticizing the book of mormon, but it is definitely one of their "missionary" tactics to quote from the Bible and say they believe it. This document reveals that the underbelly isn't actually rooted in it.
Wow, you read all 198 pages in the past 30 minutes that this was posted?
I'm assuming your opinion that this is evidence that LDS is "normal" is based on the snippets from the wikileaks page. Try giving the actual document a read, and then come to your conclusion.
I've skimmed it and already found interesting tidbits that weren't pasted on the wikileaks page. Have a look at the "temple clothing and garments" page and you'll quickly find interesting differences. In fact, all the temple sections will surprise you. I knew they had a cult-like obsession with their temples where only certain people could go in, and this document seems to affirm that.
Perhaps the most enlightening part of the document, and perhaps why the LDS wants to keep it secret, is that the scriptures they quote throughout the document appear to be 90+% from the book of mormon. If you've ever had a Mormon talk to you about their faith, they always quote the Bible and say that they believe the Bible too. I've always thought it was a gimmick to try and get you to listen to them, and this document seems to back that opinion up. If this document is the official rules that the current LDS church gives to its leaders, then the references and motivation listed reveal what they truly believe. I see very few (in fact, none, although i didn't give a full look) Bible references. It's mostly D&C references (book of mormon).
Yes, they do actually parse the text. They use an HPSG-like grammar, and as far as I understand it, the parser is not probabilistic. I've talked to a few people who work there. It's not pattern or keyword matching, yes, it's actually parsing. Once they have parse trees, they then have patterns over the syntax to pull out different types of higher level relations. The question answering then determines what type of object your question is looking for (e.g. who -> person/company), and then uses the relations to try and match.
Now I don't know for sure about this last part, but I imagine they must have some keyword backoff model when the relations fail to find any results.
The depressing thing is, as a man I can't really think of why we should be allowed to stick around.
Really? Nothing? What kind of a depressing lazy man are you? I was about to list some reasons for you, but it sounds like you've been utterly brainwashed into hating yourself already. And, ahem, the "many women" you speak of is less than 1 in 15, most likely less than 1 in 40.
It just goes to show that small amounts of money speak louder than millions of angry citizens. The latter hasn't ended one wiretap, the former halted it immediately.
Step 1: Wait for everyone to sell their stock.
Step 2: Buy up the remains for yourself
Step 3: Laugh when the negative publicity that has nothing to do with business wears off
Step 4: Profit!
And don't forget the greatest movie ever, Life Free or Die Hard. Evil villain Thomas Gabriel took his mobile deluxe bus of high tech awesomeness and drove all over D.C. to avoid the Feds, causing madness and hysteria like only a portable server farm could do.
They identified a problem. Then they addressed it. Then the problem became less severe. Yeah, they must have been making it up.
No, the problem is not less severe. No offense, but you've just confirmed my original point. The "problem" of the hole is exactly the same size as it was 10 years ago. If you RTFA, you'll see they think the hole is artificially small right now too, so it will go back to being as big as the biggest point before.
Don't you see? You seem to honestly think the problem is gone. Some others have posted similar comments. Why do you think this? The hole is hardly smaller! You've been duped (sorry for the negative connotation) because all the alarmists have jumped ship to global warming. So the question then becomes... are these really problems? And if yes, how do we have an honest conversation when the vocal minority has little sincerity?
Slashdot Mirror
So true. My eye-opening experience was when my realtor was showing me a home down the street from a similar house that had a "for sale by owner" sign in front of it. I asked my realtor why she hadn't shown me that one. She kindly agreed to go look at it with me, and when I expressed interest in purchasing it, she told me that I would have to pay her 3% fee. To her credit, she also said that I could come back and purchase it without her. She was a respectable person. But she works in a non-respectable business. They don't show you the best house for you, they show you the best house that they have control over.
There are only two reasons to ever have a realtor:
1. You know nothing about homes and need someone to take you through the steps of inspection and purchasing
2. The market is extremely hot and homes sell too quickly for you to get one on your own
Even more simply stayed home. The biggest thing on the ballot for the primaries was a property tax amendment which was especially a big draw for elderly voters who owned their own homes. The democratic primary vote here was deeply flawed
Haha, to summarize: The Democrat vote is flawed because they stayed home :) Al Gore should have tried that argument back in the day.
Calling them "academics" as if they are tenured professors is a bit much. The summary of the story paints a picture of distinguished individuals researching for the good of humanity. This wasn't such a person, it was a 22 year old student. I wouldn't defend the UK government's actions, but I can certainly understand why suspicion might be raised when two early 20-somethings are downloading al-qaeda material and one of whom, quite frankly, fits the profile.
5. Have a scientist father who does the work
There's no way that kid did this.
You wouldn't tell your child, "give up that which you are most attached to or I'll disown you."
I'm not so sure disown is the right word. Clearly you have a long life with many chances before he disowns you. I would think if your child was really attached to drugs and knives, you would try to get him to stop that too. The only difference is that you've chosen your own value system, and have rejected the possibility that greed and money could be bad to you. Your entire post is a classic "I've decided what is valuable, and God should then agree that it is valuable" argument. It's flawed because you're kind of missing the point as to what and who a GOD actually is and means.
Just because it says "Holy Bible" doesn't mean it is. You'll want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible
You do realize that today's translations of the Old Testament come from the original Hebrew? "Their own language" was Hebrew. And just in the past 50 years we have discovered older and older copies of the original Hebrew. Sure enough, the copies are remarkably accurate.
The "it's just a translation" argument may have worked back in the 1800's, but modern history and language advances now allow us to be certain of current translations. Or in the very least, we have the original language and can debate amongst ourselves what is and what is not ambiguous. Don't just sit back and accept it when someone tells you our current translations are bad ... please take the time and check for yourself.
Don't bother arguing, Jean. He's basically quoting from the Mormon "how to convert Christian" handbook. Unfortunately for him, you actually know your stuff and the handbook doesn't have a follow up question after their "jews argued monotheism" is debunked.
It is not google's place to determine what laws are "just" and "unjust".
Your moral relativism must make your head explode at night. Sure, there are grey areas where that statement is true, but surely you don't think laws about murder and child abuse are simply culture-specific.
Actually, the Apostles did follow the Bible. At least, very much so the Old Testament. They did not believe it was an incorrect translation.
You're right that those who follow Christ, the one and only God, is a better definition.
I'll add to your post. Those who have actually read the Book of Mormon. And there are those who have actually read about where the LDS texts came from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham might be a good starting place if you want to know more.
The Book of Abraham is especially enlightening because Joseph Smith translated Egyptian glyphs to write it. Of course, at the time, nobody knew how to read the language, and so he could claim he was given the ability from God. What is so nice about today is that we do know how to translate that original language, the original texts that Joseph used were found in 1966, and historians and linguists everywhere have shown that what Joseph translated is totally and utterly incorrect.
I encourage you to read about the history of the book of mormon, in addition to just reading it.
Yes I am hanging my hat there. I don't really feel like going into why I believe that decision was true and correct, as it's not relevant to this conversation.
I'm assuming you are Mormon, as this is one of their arguments for their faith. I think you are missing my point. My point is that Mormons don't actually follow the Bible, and so they are dishonest when they say they do, and they are *not* Christian in the sense that we define Christians as those who follow the Bible. See my point? This document shows that their faith and rules are based on the book of mormon, not the bible. Hence, not Christian.
Now you can try to redefine Christianity to include other books ... fine. But if we agree that "those who follow the bible" are Christian, then you must see that Mormons are not Christians.
Actually there's an easier more obvious answer as to why they aren't Christians.
Take a look at the document and you'll see that all the scripture referenced in the document are from the Book of Mormon. I admittedly didn't have time to read all 198 pages, but flipping through and scanning just for citations, I saw mostly D&C (book of mormon) and other non-bible references. That's why it is not Christian, and perhaps why the LDS is up in arms over it. It's more evidence that they do *not* believe the Bible. I'm not judging them for not believing the Bible, or criticizing the book of mormon, but it is definitely one of their "missionary" tactics to quote from the Bible and say they believe it. This document reveals that the underbelly isn't actually rooted in it.
Wow, you read all 198 pages in the past 30 minutes that this was posted?
I'm assuming your opinion that this is evidence that LDS is "normal" is based on the snippets from the wikileaks page. Try giving the actual document a read, and then come to your conclusion.
I've skimmed it and already found interesting tidbits that weren't pasted on the wikileaks page. Have a look at the "temple clothing and garments" page and you'll quickly find interesting differences. In fact, all the temple sections will surprise you. I knew they had a cult-like obsession with their temples where only certain people could go in, and this document seems to affirm that.
Perhaps the most enlightening part of the document, and perhaps why the LDS wants to keep it secret, is that the scriptures they quote throughout the document appear to be 90+% from the book of mormon. If you've ever had a Mormon talk to you about their faith, they always quote the Bible and say that they believe the Bible too. I've always thought it was a gimmick to try and get you to listen to them, and this document seems to back that opinion up. If this document is the official rules that the current LDS church gives to its leaders, then the references and motivation listed reveal what they truly believe. I see very few (in fact, none, although i didn't give a full look) Bible references. It's mostly D&C references (book of mormon).
Yes, they do actually parse the text. They use an HPSG-like grammar, and as far as I understand it, the parser is not probabilistic. I've talked to a few people who work there. It's not pattern or keyword matching, yes, it's actually parsing. Once they have parse trees, they then have patterns over the syntax to pull out different types of higher level relations. The question answering then determines what type of object your question is looking for (e.g. who -> person/company), and then uses the relations to try and match.
Now I don't know for sure about this last part, but I imagine they must have some keyword backoff model when the relations fail to find any results.
They're different if you have HDAD, probably what the parent is suffering from. Maybe instead of search.yahoo.com, they should name it adhd.yahoo.com
The depressing thing is, as a man I can't really think of why we should be allowed to stick around.
Really? Nothing? What kind of a depressing lazy man are you? I was about to list some reasons for you, but it sounds like you've been utterly brainwashed into hating yourself already. And, ahem, the "many women" you speak of is less than 1 in 15, most likely less than 1 in 40.
And cue the gratuitous Iraq rebuilding zinger, in three, two ...
I just hope that it gets restored quicker than electricity in Bhagdad.
It just goes to show that small amounts of money speak louder than millions of angry citizens. The latter hasn't ended one wiretap, the former halted it immediately.
You're enjoying your day
Everything's going your way
Then along comes Debbie Downer.
Step 1: Wait for everyone to sell their stock.
Step 2: Buy up the remains for yourself
Step 3: Laugh when the negative publicity that has nothing to do with business wears off
Step 4: Profit!
I can name all those, does that mean I get two votes?
My favorite election quote comes from the greatest show ever, Third Rock From The Sun. It's something along the lines of...
"You mean your vote counts the same as mine?!? But I'm smarter than you!"
And don't forget the greatest movie ever, Life Free or Die Hard. Evil villain Thomas Gabriel took his mobile deluxe bus of high tech awesomeness and drove all over D.C. to avoid the Feds, causing madness and hysteria like only a portable server farm could do.
They identified a problem. Then they addressed it. Then the problem became less severe. Yeah, they must have been making it up.
No, the problem is not less severe. No offense, but you've just confirmed my original point. The "problem" of the hole is exactly the same size as it was 10 years ago. If you RTFA, you'll see they think the hole is artificially small right now too, so it will go back to being as big as the biggest point before.
Don't you see? You seem to honestly think the problem is gone. Some others have posted similar comments. Why do you think this? The hole is hardly smaller! You've been duped (sorry for the negative connotation) because all the alarmists have jumped ship to global warming. So the question then becomes ... are these really problems? And if yes, how do we have an honest conversation when the vocal minority has little sincerity?