all three scriptures have the same basic source. The God they write about is the same God
Can't be the same [G/g]od since there are contradictions between the beliefs. Sure, each believes that they follow the one true God. If God exists, how can God be the source of all three when there are contradictions?
There is a difference between the religion's perception of truth and The One Real Truth. Their perceptions of truth differ, but The One Real Truth can not 100% agree with all three religions. But one of the religions can be The One Real Truth.
So you are correct, in that Islam does not acknowledge Jesus as God's Child, but they do acknowledge and venerate him.
Exactly. When you said that Islam teaches that God "has a 'son' called Jesus", I assumed you meant that Jesus was divine.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all teach that there is the One True God, and that his word is law. Where they differ is what that word is, what it means, and so on.
Indeed. And of course these three religions are not the only ones that teach a One True God and that his word is law. And the differences in the three are major (I would consider how to get to heaven a "high point"). Thus my disagreement when you stated "All three religions agree on the high points" in an earlier post.
Islam and Judaism do NOT teach this. In fact that is what separated Christianity and Judaism.
What they differ in is interpretation and emphasis.
Interpretation and emphasis of what? Judaism rejects the biblical New Testament. Islam adheres to the Koran. It's not that all three use the same scripture and differ in interpretation and emphasis. The scripture they use is different.
As you stated in your post, the method of salvation is different. And that is a major difference.
Here are some other differences. I have limited time since I am at work, so I will compare Christianity and Islam, showing a few differences.
Christianity states Jesus Christ died on a cross. Islam states Judas took his place. (This may look like a minor point at first, but according to Christianity, if Jesus did not die on the cross, we are still in our sins and NOBODY goes to heaven.)
Christianity states that Jesus is the Son of God. Islam states that Jesus was a prophet, not the Son of God.
Christianity states that the Koran is not inspired. Islam states that it is. (A major point since the Koran is a/the cornerstone for Islam).
And there is other stuff, such as Original Sin (Christianity: exists; Islam: no such thing) and Satan (Christianity: former angel; Islam: was not an angel).
Theology means the study of God and of God's relation to the world. Since all three study God and God's relation to the world, it can be said they all have the same theology.
Using the same definition/logic, since a "car" is a device used for transportation, and I have a device for transportation and you (assuming here) have a device for transportation, does that mean we have the same car? Of course not. In the same way, each has a theology, but they don't have the same theology.
This is exactly the type of nitpicking of specific entries I made referance to.
Is that nitpicking, or is that directly what the Bible says? I have supported my statement directly from a foundational source for Christianity. If you can support your statement in a similar way, please do so. If not, please realize that your statement (i.e., we are all The Creator's children) can't stand on its own. Otherwise anybody could make any statement and say that this is what Christianity teaches.
Judaism, Islam & Christianity all share, and were derived from, the same theology
Uh, no. They share some similar historical background, but they vastly differ in their theology.
2. We are all The Creator's children and should co-exist peacefully.
Christianity does NOT state that we are all The Creator's children. In fact it states the opposite. Because of sin we are enemies of God (Romans 5:10). But through Jesus Christ we can become adopted (Ephesians 1:5).
Depends on what you call the high points. Christianity's method of salvation is a high point (one could say it is its main point) yet it differs from Judaism and Islam.
Even though there is some similar basis for these three, there are distinctions, and major ones at that. And like I said, when you have distinctions, you have mutually exclusive points. Thus you can't believe in all three (or two).
which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in
How can a person believe in all three religions?
I mean, a religion addresses every issue, even if it is, "We can't understand that now, only an infinite [G/g]od can" or some type of metaphysical "such a question is meaningless since there is no reality blah blah blah".
But in order to have three religions there has to be some distinction, and that distinction would lie in how these issues are addressed. And a person can't believe in two or more distinct/separate "answers" to the same issue since one would negate the other.
Technically, a patent does not give you the right to produce what you patent. It just prevents others from doing so. It is possible to have a patent on something you are not allowed to produce.
if your patent is overly broad (or just plain stupid) it should be revoked
By what criteria? This is where you have to be careful. Although there are a lot of "stupid" patents, the USPTO should not judge which ones are "stupid" and which are not. The "stupid" ones will not make any money. The "smart" ones will.
And yes, I know what I am talking about. I am on 3 patents myself.
Just a word to the wise, it ain't exactly light reading. Its practically the ME equivalent of the Bible, and reads similiarly in terms of style.
Just to be a little more specific, it is more like the Old Testament of the Bible.
The New Testament narratives are usually easier to read for the modern English reader. Many people compare The Hobbit and LoTR to the New Testament, especially in the light of prophecy being fulfilled.
As a side note, you may want to look into the books of Luke and Acts in the New Testament, which are two narratives that are relatively easy to read and are based on manuscripts with excellent Greek style (IIRC). And these two flow together, sort of like a part 1 and part 2.
Re:I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
That makes the assumption that the anti-evolutionists are logical people.
This broad generalization is not an accurate statement, assuming you mean "anti-evolutionists" are the same people as "creationists".
I am a creationist, yet I am an electrical engineer working on my thesis and I consider myself *very* logical (too much for my wife sometimes). Yet I also believe that there is evolution since it is obviously apparent (and I am not talking about "theistic evolution" either). But how I can believe both and the implications of this go beyond the scope of this medium.
But please be aware that there are more than two types of people: those who believe in evolution and look down upon creationists, and those who are creationists and believe there is no evolution at all.
Now, the encoding scheme is complicated, but it just so happens that "0101" if treated as data on the left hand side would decode to the digit "6".
It appears that the encoding is Gray Code, where successive numbers only differ by one bit. Hence: 0000 = 0 0001 = 1 0011 = 2 0010 = 3 0110 = 4 0111 = 5 0101 = 6
...with their online email. They pay attention to how much you pay attention to different types of email and then tries to put most of the spam in a "Bulk Mail" folder.
I highly recommend the book "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud. Actually it is not a book but a graphic novel, except it is not a novel since it is non-fiction.
It is very well written and is one of the few books that I think EVERYBODY should read (even if you aren't into graphic novels/comics).
Slashdot Mirror
all three scriptures have the same basic source. The God they write about is the same God
Can't be the same [G/g]od since there are contradictions between the beliefs. Sure, each believes that they follow the one true God. If God exists, how can God be the source of all three when there are contradictions?
There is a difference between the religion's perception of truth and The One Real Truth. Their perceptions of truth differ, but The One Real Truth can not 100% agree with all three religions. But one of the religions can be The One Real Truth.
So you are correct, in that Islam does not acknowledge Jesus as God's Child, but they do acknowledge and venerate him.
Exactly. When you said that Islam teaches that God "has a 'son' called Jesus", I assumed you meant that Jesus was divine.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all teach that there is the One True God, and that his word is law. Where they differ is what that word is, what it means, and so on.
Indeed. And of course these three religions are not the only ones that teach a One True God and that his word is law. And the differences in the three are major (I would consider how to get to heaven a "high point"). Thus my disagreement when you stated "All three religions agree on the high points" in an earlier post.
that he has a 'son' called Jesus
Islam and Judaism do NOT teach this. In fact that is what separated Christianity and Judaism.
What they differ in is interpretation and emphasis.
Interpretation and emphasis of what? Judaism rejects the biblical New Testament. Islam adheres to the Koran. It's not that all three use the same scripture and differ in interpretation and emphasis. The scripture they use is different.
As you stated in your post, the method of salvation is different. And that is a major difference.
Here are some other differences. I have limited time since I am at work, so I will compare Christianity and Islam, showing a few differences.
Christianity states Jesus Christ died on a cross. Islam states Judas took his place. (This may look like a minor point at first, but according to Christianity, if Jesus did not die on the cross, we are still in our sins and NOBODY goes to heaven.)
Christianity states that Jesus is the Son of God. Islam states that Jesus was a prophet, not the Son of God.
Christianity states that the Koran is not inspired. Islam states that it is. (A major point since the Koran is a/the cornerstone for Islam).
And there is other stuff, such as Original Sin (Christianity: exists; Islam: no such thing) and Satan (Christianity: former angel; Islam: was not an angel).
Theology means the study of God and of God's relation to the world. Since all three study God and God's relation to the world, it can be said they all have the same theology.
Using the same definition/logic, since a "car" is a device used for transportation, and I have a device for transportation and you (assuming here) have a device for transportation, does that mean we have the same car? Of course not. In the same way, each has a theology, but they don't have the same theology.
This is exactly the type of nitpicking of specific entries I made referance to.
Is that nitpicking, or is that directly what the Bible says? I have supported my statement directly from a foundational source for Christianity. If you can support your statement in a similar way, please do so. If not, please realize that your statement (i.e., we are all The Creator's children) can't stand on its own. Otherwise anybody could make any statement and say that this is what Christianity teaches.
Judaism, Islam & Christianity all share, and were derived from, the same theology
Uh, no. They share some similar historical background, but they vastly differ in their theology.
2. We are all The Creator's children and should co-exist peacefully.
Christianity does NOT state that we are all The Creator's children. In fact it states the opposite. Because of sin we are enemies of God (Romans 5:10). But through Jesus Christ we can become adopted (Ephesians 1:5).
All three religions agree on the high points
Depends on what you call the high points. Christianity's method of salvation is a high point (one could say it is its main point) yet it differs from Judaism and Islam.
Even though there is some similar basis for these three, there are distinctions, and major ones at that. And like I said, when you have distinctions, you have mutually exclusive points. Thus you can't believe in all three (or two).
which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in
How can a person believe in all three religions?
I mean, a religion addresses every issue, even if it is, "We can't understand that now, only an infinite [G/g]od can" or some type of metaphysical "such a question is meaningless since there is no reality blah blah blah".
But in order to have three religions there has to be some distinction, and that distinction would lie in how these issues are addressed. And a person can't believe in two or more distinct/separate "answers" to the same issue since one would negate the other.
If you're not going to produce what you patent
Technically, a patent does not give you the right to produce what you patent. It just prevents others from doing so. It is possible to have a patent on something you are not allowed to produce.
if your patent is overly broad (or just plain stupid) it should be revoked
By what criteria? This is where you have to be careful. Although there are a lot of "stupid" patents, the USPTO should not judge which ones are "stupid" and which are not. The "stupid" ones will not make any money. The "smart" ones will.
And yes, I know what I am talking about. I am on 3 patents myself.
Just a word to the wise, it ain't exactly light reading. Its practically the ME equivalent of the Bible, and reads similiarly in terms of style.
Just to be a little more specific, it is more like the Old Testament of the Bible.
The New Testament narratives are usually easier to read for the modern English reader. Many people compare The Hobbit and LoTR to the New Testament, especially in the light of prophecy being fulfilled.
As a side note, you may want to look into the books of Luke and Acts in the New Testament, which are two narratives that are relatively easy to read and are based on manuscripts with excellent Greek style (IIRC). And these two flow together, sort of like a part 1 and part 2.
And Yoko could play Sauron...
That makes the assumption that the anti-evolutionists are logical people.
This broad generalization is not an accurate statement, assuming you mean "anti-evolutionists" are the same people as "creationists".
I am a creationist, yet I am an electrical engineer working on my thesis and I consider myself *very* logical (too much for my wife sometimes). Yet I also believe that there is evolution since it is obviously apparent (and I am not talking about "theistic evolution" either). But how I can believe both and the implications of this go beyond the scope of this medium.
But please be aware that there are more than two types of people: those who believe in evolution and look down upon creationists, and those who are creationists and believe there is no evolution at all.
Never mind. They could sell one song 1,000,000 times, or something like that.
It's not easy being a dork.
From the article:
> the iTunes Music Store sold over one million songs during its first week
> over half of the 200,000 songs offered on the iTunes Music Store were purchased at least once
If there are 200,000 thousand songs and they sold over 1,000,000 wouldn't they have to sell over half of them more than once?
One of my cow-orkers...
;->
Is this on a dairy farm?
And what exactly is an "orker"?
If anime originated in the USA, would it still be considered "cool"?
Somehow I doubt it.
Now, the encoding scheme is complicated, but it just so happens that "0101" if treated as data on the left hand side would decode to the digit "6".
It appears that the encoding is Gray Code, where successive numbers only differ by one bit.
Hence:
0000 = 0
0001 = 1
0011 = 2
0010 = 3
0110 = 4
0111 = 5
0101 = 6
This gives news groups a much longer memory and, in theory, should prevent repetitive posts.
/.?
Like it does on
Both of these quotes are from the article:
Doom:
The first-person shooter that started it all
Pac-Man:
to the videogame that started it all
I wonder what else started it all? And what is "it"?
(.sig not found)
Perhaps NASA should make some type of explosive standard on future probes in case a similar feat is desired. Of course there is the weight issue.
Perhaps just a container of (compressed) gas would be sufficient to cause quite a bit of disturbance?
(insert sig here)
...the French say they will not support such a project. Rather, the UN should send in inspectors to determine if water is on the moon.
(insert sig here)
Could this result in people continuously generating new accounts? This would be a potential nightmare for Netflix.
(insert sig here)
...the MACROwave!
ba da bing!
John
What is the killer app that will make handhelds skyrocket?
This in turn will also determine the handheld OS/platform leader.
After all, isn't this how IBM shutout Apple, with Lotus 123?
John
...with their online email. They pay attention to how much you pay attention to different types of email and then tries to put most of the spam in a "Bulk Mail" folder.
John
I highly recommend the book "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud. Actually it is not a book but a graphic novel, except it is not a novel since it is non-fiction.
It is very well written and is one of the few books that I think EVERYBODY should read (even if you aren't into graphic novels/comics).
John