Then what is it? It certainly isn't owning a piece of paper or a CD. Copyright refers to control and ownership over something non-material. If that doesn't refer to ideas, then pray tell, what category would we file the abstractions of songs, books, etc. under? Spirit?
I would beg to differ with you, even if I wouldn't go about things the same way he did. What makes free speech valuable is that it allows the free interchange of information. People are allowed to say and publish whatever they think is profitable without fear of reprisal. This uninhibited exchange of information, whether technical, artistic, political, or whatever, inevitably generates new ideas and furthers the progress of society.
Copyright, however, is the assertion that someone may own an idea, a sort of artificial monopoly, and use this power to coerce others into using it only on their terms and in the method they prescribe. I say it is artificial, because unlike other monopolies, it can't be enforced without prisons or guns in any natural means, in contrast to regular property. If I say something, or I publish something, or write a song, then the idea may be freely replicated beyond my control. Had I never said anything, then the idea would remain firmly within the confines of my mind, and thus, I would retain total control. Likewise, if I produced a better automobile, then until I sold one to someone else, the property remains in my possession, and the idea firmly locked away in my head. Once I release it, then naturally, I release the idea.
This stands in contrast to material possessions where monopolies such as this are natural. If I own a mine with a rare mineral, and that mine is the sole source of the mineral, then I control the supply of the entire mineral. If I release a quantity of it, then the mineral supply still remains in my possession and cannot be replicated. Nature herself protects this sort of monopoly.
Nor can we say that copyright ownership arises from the natural bent of man. Material property is recognized by every culture. Our oldest distinctly human burials are people buried with their things. Children from an early age fight over whose toy it is. There is, in fact, no real evidence this is unnatural. It is present in all ages and in all cultures. Copyright, on the other hand, was created a few hundred years ago and was far more limited when it was created. It only exists in cultures that borrow the concept from western civilization. It isn't present in children; I've yet to see a toddler say, "She can't say that! Those are my words!" Ancient texts were bandied about and edited rather commonly, and the authors never really demonstrated any concept of ownership over their works beyond, "I didn't say that!" which is natural.
Copyright is a question of free speech then. It is a question of whether people can freely exchange the information they have received without government reciprocation over an unnatural regulation (and private individuals in court is government reciprocation because it could not otherwise exist). It raises the question, "Is it ethical to own and control information?" If you answer in the affirmative, then you have also provided the logical basis for justifying other free speech issues. The "artist's right to receive payment from everyone who uses it," can just as readily be exchanged for the "good of society" or other such good-sounding premises and fully justify censorship in ways that none of our previous states could hope to do: the people in question have no right to use the information.
Now I don't believe the parallels he draws are anywhere near the same level, but core question is the same. The fact that they are two different levels of extremity doesn't change the premises in qustion.
I was thinking when I posted that "downloadable," since I'm on a dial in and reading on Perseus can be a pain in the rumpside, but now that I'm thinking about it, it probably won't be downloadable.
Maybe they'll put the Loebs up! No more $20 a pop when you live in a really obscure town.
Re:Corps will continue to rule, people are sheep..
on
Amateur Revolution?
·
· Score: 1
All the above can use, and have used, their percussions with other things
and thus participate in a musical piece with more than just rhythm, so yes
they are musicians, and very skilled ones. However, for a solo percussion
piece, no I won't grant that.
They're bigger than me, this is true, but music was around before their great
grandparents were ever a thought. It'll be around when they, you, and me have
long been forgotten. I'm not one to say "Hey, that sounds real nice. I know
it only has rhythm and that traditionally isn't music anywhere, but hey, I'm
going to call it music anyway."
You can call it that, but it's still redefining the concept and denigrates it.
Our society's willingness to do this is testified by the fact that we can have
a dramatic poetry reading be called music. It takes a great amount of skill to
do either one of those, but skill alone isn't the qualifier for music.
Likewise, it has rhythm and is pleasing to the ear, but that alone doesn't
qualify as music. If I read a simply recital of a poem, it has rhythm and is
pleasing to the ear, but it isn't music. That requires skill and rhythm, and
it is pleasing to the ear. As such, the same counter-argument it makes against
rap applies to solo percussion.
Poetry doesn't constitute music (as in rap), but it can be a part of music if
it's incorporated, and in either case, it's very pleasing to hear, and it takes
a load of skill to write well. Percussion, likewise, is pleasing to hear, and
it takes skill, but it is made music only by incorporation into something else.
I listen to both as solo, but I'll call neither music alone.
Re:Corps will continue to rule, people are sheep..
on
Amateur Revolution?
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry for misunderstanding you to be claiming that the elements were
something new.
Lyrics, what we say, isn't harmony. Harmony is the melding of two notes
or sounds to produce a new sound from them. When two people sing, each
on different notes, so that the resulting sound is different from the
first sounds, then we have harmony. The same can be done with
instruments and things like that. It cannot be done by speaking, rhythm,
or the like. It requires variation in pitch and two separate sounds or
pitches to interact, and lyrics cannot do that.
Granted, not all music has harmony (e.g., acapella), but my claim is that rap
has abandoned almost all the other tenets of music besides rhythm, and this
disqualifies it from being music. There is no melody, pitch is limited to the
way we speak, and so on. It isn't music. It is freeform poetry being
dramatically performed.
Also, if what people say isn't as important as their tone or feeling, then
poetry still fits the classification. That's exactly what poetry is supposed
to do: the words are supposed to take a person and make them feel what the
poet feels and something beyond that. This is exactly why, up until relatively
recently, poetry recitals were about as popular as musical performances; they
could do the same thing.
As an aside, you should try and sing any classical piece with lyrics like
Handel's The Messiah (with others, of course, because it requires it).
Not only do they have a harmony of sounds, but also of rhythems. One person
is singing with a long, drawn out rhythem, while another person may be singing
in a very fast, staccato pattern by comparison, and there may be still others
doing different rhythms. In the end, there's something very complex
rhythmatically. In truth, popular music simplifies the rhythm in
comparison to these.
Re:Corps will continue to rule, people are sheep..
on
Amateur Revolution?
·
· Score: 1
I have no clue about Techno, having not really listened to it, but Rap has
abandoned almost every element of music except rhythm, harmony being just
one element (which was never universal).
Rhythm has been there a long time. Our language lost many distinctions in
vowel length (at least in America). Naturally, lyrics became more
stress-based, as the old vowel-length conventions were destroyed by the
language. It's just a mutation in rhythm; it's a stress and beat based
rhythm now. It doesn't constitute a reason to abandon all the other
attributes of music to emphasise one little thing.
Here's an example of rhythm from the opening lines of the Iliad. It was an
oral song recorded in the 8th century BC that had been passed down for about
half a millenneum. l means a long vowel, s a short vowel, and | a foot
separater. A new line equals the end of a verse.
And so on. Each line is composed of six feet, with only two options available
for the first five feet of the verse (lss or ll) and two available for the last
foot (ll or ls). This quite clearly has rhythm, even though it's not based on a
beat or word stress, and it's also between 2700 and 3300 years old. There's
also no question that it was performed with instruments, as bards from the era
are depicted as carrying a five-stringed harp.
If we start something new, we can't just declare it something. If it doesn't
have the required attributes, we shouldn't classify it as something that has
those attributes. If it doesn't walk like a duck, quack like a duck, or swim
like a duck, then it isn't a duck. It doesn't matter how much we like it, we
shouldn't call it what it isn't.
Re:Corps will continue to rule, people are sheep..
on
Amateur Revolution?
·
· Score: 1
And it has now become the same money-hungry scheme that the rest of music
is. Silver teeth, 80 gram bling, expensive cars, big houses, hoes,
problems with the law, etc. I don t see the difference between rap stars
and more traditional music. I give this one 0/100.
You're being way to generous by calling it music. IMO, something that lacks
little elements like harmony isn't real music. It is the only thing calling
itself music that's nothing more than reciting poetry. Maybe someday they'll
be honest and call it trendy free-form poetry.
While I wait for that day, I'm going to listen to some music.
I think that "We want to bombard (the Republican sites) with so much traffic
that nobody can get in" says it all. Intent is not hard to get when they
announce it.
I first thought of Forrest Gump, because I hate that movie about as much as I
can hate a movie, but then I thought about the 1970's Spider-man movies.
Unlike the recent ones, there was simply no redeeming factors, and I've never
seen Spidey more butchered. Being a Spidey fan, it really vexed me.
Even if it is supported solely by the political establishment, it is still a
peaceful country. I don't see the Mexican people taking up arms and attacking
the U.S. either. One does not have to love his neighbor to be at peace with
him. He need only not attack.
Hostile relations with the people also do not change the fact that the border
acts as a shield either.
Then we disagree on whether it will stop once their demands are met. I don't beleive it will, and I firmly believe history validates that. Why do I believe it won't happen?
1). The overwhelming majority of conflicts in the world involve Muslims against someone else. That cannot be said so firmly of any other religious identity.
2). Setting aside Turkey, there is no Muslim country even close to a functioning democracy and liberty. Even Turkey has "acheived" that so recently, it can hardly be considered stable. They aren't fighting for freedom to remove despotic regimes, but for setting up their own, a la Iran, and this is whether the fighters are Wahabbist (who consider Wahabbist Saudi to be too lax), Sunni, Sufi, or whatever.
3). Those terrorist actions of attacking the infidel are prescribed specifically in the Q'ran.
4). It is still the common practice in Muslim countries to rabidly persecute other religions, including the "people of the Book," Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (the latter being by far the most tragic). Other religions in the world have moved away from that being the norm.
On the Christians, "starting" the Crusades, first it is specically the Roman Catholic Church. Neither the non-Chalcedonians nor the Eastern Orthodox sent troops. In fact, these were raped and plundered by the Crusaders.
Second, it was a response. Let's not forget the Arab invasions, where Spain was subjegated and which Charlemagne stopped in 732 at Poitiers, and they were attacking the very gates of Constantinople. Let's not forget also the slaves taken and forced into battle in the name of Allah to spread religion and empire. Then we have the second wave of attacks, that took a large portion of the Eastern Roman Empire's territory in the tenth century. If the destruction of Muslim holy sites is sufficient to warrant terrorism, what of the destruction of the Christians', because they did just that to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. What finally sparked the Crusades? The killing of Christian pilgrems on the way to holy sites.
This list of Muslim aggressions before the Crusades is not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination. However, why is it that Christians initiated it, when Christians never took any religious military action before 1095? There are examples aplenty of Islamic. Christians were patient through three hundred years of said aggression and only initiated Crusades at the second wave of Muslims (Arabs first, then the Ottomans). All this, and the Arab waves nearly destroyed Europe. Saying Christians started it is just telling half the story, just like saying that Hindus began attacking Muslims is just telling half the story.
Considering the above facts, I think that my position is both justified and historical. Again, they aren't exhaustive, but they are sufficient. It will never end, even if we pull out.
That isn't necessarily true. The U.S. is the superpower in the world, not Canada and not New Zealand. No, it doesn't help that we have troops deployed in over a hundred countries, but the terrorists would have attacked us in time without that. I have no doubt that if I looked, I could find the terrorists preaching jihad against Canada or New Zealand. They just aren't as appealing a target.
Also, remember that this has been going on since before either of us were born. There was a jihad against the infidels for three hundred years before the first crusader donned his armor, it has persisted after the Crusades ended, and it will persist after western-style democracies have ceased to exist.
The U.S., since it is the sole superpower in the world, just happens to wear a big, red bullseye, and due to globilisation our natural defences (two oceans and two peaceful nations as borders) are no longer effective. The terrorists are fighting, not for freedom or any of our ideals, but for religion, and they won't be appeased, nor will they stop. Let's stop trying to rationalize their behavior and just get used to an endless stream of terrorists, because it won't end, and they won't give up.
Were there lots of Gospels and Pseudo-Gospels written in the Early Church? You bet. Did they all have an agenda? Again, you bet. Are they all reliable? Not by a long shot. There were all sorts of people making up gospels, ideas, and other whack things in the Early Church.
I'll admit that I haven't read the Da Vinci Code. I found out about it months after it was released, when I kept running across people that were espousing crazy ideas about the Early Church and those Medieval societies. Eventually, I learned where it was from, but still haven't read it. One thing I have noticed, though, is that every person I've seen who's been espousing the conspiratorial nonsense has also not read much, if any, primary source material on Christian history.
That's where this book comes in handy. It was written in the mid-second century in opposition to the movements that spawned most of those extra gospels. The TOC is here.
Other questions are such that, why are the societies that secretly kept the truth all Medieval? The Knights Templar goes back to the twelfth century. The PoS is a twentieth century group trying to claim its way back to the first century (and they aren't the first frauds to try that). This is a strong problem, because Christianity had already suffered two great divisions. In 481, many bishops and their churches seperated from the rest. These churches, the Non-Chalcedonian Churches, stretch from the Middle East to India, and they continue to exist to this day. In the ninth century, St. Photius and the Pope Nicholas II had an outing, which though repaired was made permanent in events in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and they hardly would have trusted Germanic societies like the KT in that era.
Prior to the First Schism, Christianity not only was not centralized, but could not be. The Pope had no universal jurisdiction. Simply put, it is impossible for a large conspiracy to take place to hide the truth so that secret societies had to take place. A non-centralized Christianity's response to these "gospels" was unified from India to Rome; it rejected them, largely because they were outside the normative teachings and practices (such as making Jesus a schoolyard bully) of the Church.
Proponents of conspiracy theories, such as I have found people getting from the Da Vinci Code must be able to explain how such a thing took place given the nature of early Christendom. And it must do so with sources of the era, sources on both sides of the issue. I can say this, because while I have not read the Da Vinci Code, I have read many Gnostic works, works from the Early Church, several Jewish Works from the centuries BC, pagan works from the era, etc. I haven't read them all, but I've read a good number. Likewise, I know several people, both those who are Christian and those who are not, who have. The single denominator I've seen in all of us is that we all laugh at the conspiracy theory nonsense.
I'm not meaning to be offensive, but the Da Vinci Code has about as much credibility as the National Enquirer. No, I haven't read the book, but I have come across many of its ideas repeated. It may be a good story, fiction-wise, but what I've heard repeated is nonsense factually. Will I read it? Maybe, but there are many more important things for me to read, such as books on computers and more early works, Christian, Gnostic, and pagan.
No, actually not. It's taught in some Church Fathers and held in the Orthodox Church. As such, I get it from the Church, and this, I think is defensable. The text does not say that they would never be able to eat from the Tree. It simply says God commanded them not to. We bring that to the text as an assumption.
I think your question is fair. I've heard quite a few different interpretations of this passage. Gen. 1-11 is hardly a simple matter.
Personally, I like the view that they would eventually be allowed to eat from it when they were mature enough. That, of course, is my personal opinion.
Nonsense. I used to buy that, but then, I read Church history, read other theological views for their merits, and so on. What I found was not only did the views that works count, but also, that the opposite, that they don't count and only faith counts, cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. In fact, the belief didn't appear until Martin Luther decided to make it up, and he even went so far as to change the text of the Bible to support his novelty (he changed "by faith" in Rom. 3.28 to "by faith alone" to "clarify" the plain meaning of the Greek).
Scriptures discussing the importance of works:
James (the whole book), particularly the famous 2.17. And nowhere in this book does it say that works are just a manifestation of the faith that is present. He actually ridicules his detractors by saying they can show him their faith without works, and he'll show his with works. St. James would laugh at this notion, just as he pokes fun at people with similar notions in the text.
Jesus commands the rich young ruler to sell all he has to get eternal life in Luke 18.18-30, and this is a command not a suggestion. No, Christ probably doesn't mandate that for everyone, but He did for this young man. Christ *does* go on to say that those who abandoned all for His sake will find eternal life in v. 29-30. He makes no statement there on belief.
Jesus, in speaking about the ten virgins in Matthew 25. They all waited for the bridegroom to appear, but only five did the work of getting extra oil, and when the bridegroom appeared, the foolish begged for some of the oil from the wise virgins, but the wise refused it, because there wouldn't be enough oil for the two of them. Clearly, both were looking forward to the bridegroom (faith), but only half had prepared themselves beyond that, and so, only half got in, and the Lord replied at their petitions "I do not know you."
Next comes the parable of the slaves entrusted with talents. They were all given a deposit, but because one did nothing with it, then he was cast out into the darkness. Nevertheless, he had the deposit to start with.
He closes that section with the parable of sheep and goats, in which some cry out "Lord, Lord, did I not..." and He will reply "I never knew you." There, the people were working miracles and casting out demons by the Lord's power and evidently under a confession of His name, but they still didn't get it (remember, this can only be done by the Lord's power, as "Satan cannot cast out Satan."). Christ's criticism was on what they did not do "I was hungry and you gave me no food..." (this is echoed in Matthew 7.22). All these three are emphatic analogies, and rather than having an escape clause for a "only faith" approach, they all have people condemned who had faith, but not works.
Another telling point is tht it took Martin Luther to come up with this. Why didn't the author of the Didache know about it, who learned from the Apostles? What about St. Clement, the companion of Paul, who wrote the book I Clement? Where is it in St. Ignatius in all his epistles, who was taught by the Apostle John? None of these men had any clue about such a belief, and their writings contradict it. It took a monk, who was willing to alter Scripture, arrogant, and quite creative to make it up, but he could supply no historical or liturgical evidence for it from Christianity's history; just his own peculiar interpretation of Scripture (2 Pet. 1.20).
"Thus every good tree produces good fruit, but a rotten tree produces evil fruit. A good tree cannot produce evil fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce good fruit. Every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire. Consequently, by their fruits you shall know them. "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven." -- Jesus Christ in Luke 7.17-21.
"And they were judged, each according to his works" -- Revelation 20.13 in reference to the final judgement.
It'd be funny if it was an old Frankish family cookbook, and they wrote things in code to keep those other people from knowing how to cook fish with their secret sauce:).
>Belief in god is superstition. It's no different >then belief in santa claus, easter bunny or UFOs. >The ideal of science is to discover the truth >using the scientific method. This involves >setting up theories and then testing them with >rigorous experiments and observations that are >repeatable. > >There are lots of people who believe in goofy >stuff and everybody knows you will never get them >to stop believing in them. The fact that so many >people in the world believe in invisible >creatures in the sky is a failure of science, >education and mankind in general.
You consider it a superstition, and that's fine, but science cannot prove it so. Philosophy can be used that way, but not science. It can't falsify what it cannot test. It can no more disprove God than it can Santa Clause or UFO's. Science can't make statements on them, only philosophy using science.
As a second, science cannot prove anything true in reality. As you say, one sets up theories and tests them with "rigorous experiments." These experiments, of course, prove whether its predictions are true or not. It cannot, however, prove the validity of the theory. A witch doctor happens to come upon some leaves that make people feel better. He supposes there are invisible energies contained in it based upon what he sees, and lo, it happens as he predicts. As knowledge expands, his explanation is proven faulty; it was never proven true. Likewise, Newton's Law's, which were once thought to be universal are now understood to break down at certain points. They are wrong, but they are still very useful. Science, thus, has no way to prove something right; it only has a way to prove something wrong.
>The burden of proof lies with those who believe >in this fantastic creature. You can't proove a >negative.
Given the way the topic came up, the burden of proof does lie with you in this instance. Your assertion required that science disprove God. That means imperical evidence would be sufficient. Your terminology and the fact that you made the initial assertion do place the burden of proof on you.
God can also be falsified, but not with science. For Christians, for example, you need only falsify that Christ rose from the dead, which is its weak point. For Muslims, a text which the Q'ran modified to become what it is (a central tenet being that Allah dictated it). Most religions make at least some positive statements about their deitie(s). These statements, in turn, can be falsified. I can't prove there are no Kryptonians like Superman. I can verify that using the strength he uses, that he wouldn't push planets; he would sink in, or that his ability to see the entire electromagnetic spectrum would enable him to see through a lead box. You need only select the deity in question. Nobody but you knows which one you criticized.
Slashdot Mirror
Then what is it? It certainly isn't owning a piece of paper or a CD. Copyright refers to control and ownership over something non-material. If that doesn't refer to ideas, then pray tell, what category would we file the abstractions of songs, books, etc. under? Spirit?
I would beg to differ with you, even if I wouldn't go about things the same way he did. What makes free speech valuable is that it allows the free interchange of information. People are allowed to say and publish whatever they think is profitable without fear of reprisal. This uninhibited exchange of information, whether technical, artistic, political, or whatever, inevitably generates new ideas and furthers the progress of society.
Copyright, however, is the assertion that someone may own an idea, a sort of artificial monopoly, and use this power to coerce others into using it only on their terms and in the method they prescribe. I say it is artificial, because unlike other monopolies, it can't be enforced without prisons or guns in any natural means, in contrast to regular property. If I say something, or I publish something, or write a song, then the idea may be freely replicated beyond my control. Had I never said anything, then the idea would remain firmly within the confines of my mind, and thus, I would retain total control. Likewise, if I produced a better automobile, then until I sold one to someone else, the property remains in my possession, and the idea firmly locked away in my head. Once I release it, then naturally, I release the idea.
This stands in contrast to material possessions where monopolies such as this are natural. If I own a mine with a rare mineral, and that mine is the sole source of the mineral, then I control the supply of the entire mineral. If I release a quantity of it, then the mineral supply still remains in my possession and cannot be replicated. Nature herself protects this sort of monopoly.
Nor can we say that copyright ownership arises from the natural bent of man. Material property is recognized by every culture. Our oldest distinctly human burials are people buried with their things. Children from an early age fight over whose toy it is. There is, in fact, no real evidence this is unnatural. It is present in all ages and in all cultures. Copyright, on the other hand, was created a few hundred years ago and was far more limited when it was created. It only exists in cultures that borrow the concept from western civilization. It isn't present in children; I've yet to see a toddler say, "She can't say that! Those are my words!" Ancient texts were bandied about and edited rather commonly, and the authors never really demonstrated any concept of ownership over their works beyond, "I didn't say that!" which is natural.
Copyright is a question of free speech then. It is a question of whether people can freely exchange the information they have received without government reciprocation over an unnatural regulation (and private individuals in court is government reciprocation because it could not otherwise exist). It raises the question, "Is it ethical to own and control information?" If you answer in the affirmative, then you have also provided the logical basis for justifying other free speech issues. The "artist's right to receive payment from everyone who uses it," can just as readily be exchanged for the "good of society" or other such good-sounding premises and fully justify censorship in ways that none of our previous states could hope to do: the people in question have no right to use the information.
Now I don't believe the parallels he draws are anywhere near the same level, but core question is the same. The fact that they are two different levels of extremity doesn't change the premises in qustion.
If you can't read that, then I certainly hope you didn't vote. How could you ever read one of the lengthier articles out there to inform yourself?
Oh yes, and thanks anyway for mentioning them.
I was thinking when I posted that "downloadable," since I'm on a dial in and
reading on Perseus can be a pain in the rumpside, but now that I'm thinking
about it, it probably won't be downloadable.
Maybe they'll put the Loebs up! No more $20 a pop when you live in a really
obscure town.
All the above can use, and have used, their percussions with other things and thus participate in a musical piece with more than just rhythm, so yes they are musicians, and very skilled ones. However, for a solo percussion piece, no I won't grant that.
They're bigger than me, this is true, but music was around before their great grandparents were ever a thought. It'll be around when they, you, and me have long been forgotten. I'm not one to say "Hey, that sounds real nice. I know it only has rhythm and that traditionally isn't music anywhere, but hey, I'm going to call it music anyway."
You can call it that, but it's still redefining the concept and denigrates it. Our society's willingness to do this is testified by the fact that we can have a dramatic poetry reading be called music. It takes a great amount of skill to do either one of those, but skill alone isn't the qualifier for music. Likewise, it has rhythm and is pleasing to the ear, but that alone doesn't qualify as music. If I read a simply recital of a poem, it has rhythm and is pleasing to the ear, but it isn't music. That requires skill and rhythm, and it is pleasing to the ear. As such, the same counter-argument it makes against rap applies to solo percussion.
Poetry doesn't constitute music (as in rap), but it can be a part of music if it's incorporated, and in either case, it's very pleasing to hear, and it takes a load of skill to write well. Percussion, likewise, is pleasing to hear, and it takes skill, but it is made music only by incorporation into something else. I listen to both as solo, but I'll call neither music alone.
I'm sorry for misunderstanding you to be claiming that the elements were something new.
Lyrics, what we say, isn't harmony. Harmony is the melding of two notes or sounds to produce a new sound from them. When two people sing, each on different notes, so that the resulting sound is different from the first sounds, then we have harmony. The same can be done with instruments and things like that. It cannot be done by speaking, rhythm, or the like. It requires variation in pitch and two separate sounds or pitches to interact, and lyrics cannot do that.
Granted, not all music has harmony (e.g., acapella), but my claim is that rap has abandoned almost all the other tenets of music besides rhythm, and this disqualifies it from being music. There is no melody, pitch is limited to the way we speak, and so on. It isn't music. It is freeform poetry being dramatically performed.
Also, if what people say isn't as important as their tone or feeling, then poetry still fits the classification. That's exactly what poetry is supposed to do: the words are supposed to take a person and make them feel what the poet feels and something beyond that. This is exactly why, up until relatively recently, poetry recitals were about as popular as musical performances; they could do the same thing.
As an aside, you should try and sing any classical piece with lyrics like Handel's The Messiah (with others, of course, because it requires it). Not only do they have a harmony of sounds, but also of rhythems. One person is singing with a long, drawn out rhythem, while another person may be singing in a very fast, staccato pattern by comparison, and there may be still others doing different rhythms. In the end, there's something very complex rhythmatically. In truth, popular music simplifies the rhythm in comparison to these.
I have no clue about Techno, having not really listened to it, but Rap has abandoned almost every element of music except rhythm, harmony being just one element (which was never universal).
Rhythm has been there a long time. Our language lost many distinctions in vowel length (at least in America). Naturally, lyrics became more stress-based, as the old vowel-length conventions were destroyed by the language. It's just a mutation in rhythm; it's a stress and beat based rhythm now. It doesn't constitute a reason to abandon all the other attributes of music to emphasise one little thing.
Here's an example of rhythm from the opening lines of the Iliad. It was an oral song recorded in the 8th century BC that had been passed down for about half a millenneum. l means a long vowel, s a short vowel, and | a foot separater. A new line equals the end of a verse.
lss | lss | ll | lss | lss | lslss | ll | lss | ll | lss | ls
And so on. Each line is composed of six feet, with only two options available for the first five feet of the verse (lss or ll) and two available for the last foot (ll or ls). This quite clearly has rhythm, even though it's not based on a beat or word stress, and it's also between 2700 and 3300 years old. There's also no question that it was performed with instruments, as bards from the era are depicted as carrying a five-stringed harp.
If we start something new, we can't just declare it something. If it doesn't have the required attributes, we shouldn't classify it as something that has those attributes. If it doesn't walk like a duck, quack like a duck, or swim like a duck, then it isn't a duck. It doesn't matter how much we like it, we shouldn't call it what it isn't.
While I wait for that day, I'm going to listen to some music.
I think that "We want to bombard (the Republican sites) with so much traffic that nobody can get in" says it all. Intent is not hard to get when they announce it.
I first thought of Forrest Gump, because I hate that movie about as much as I can hate a movie, but then I thought about the 1970's Spider-man movies. Unlike the recent ones, there was simply no redeeming factors, and I've never seen Spidey more butchered. Being a Spidey fan, it really vexed me.
Even if it is supported solely by the political establishment, it is still a peaceful country. I don't see the Mexican people taking up arms and attacking the U.S. either. One does not have to love his neighbor to be at peace with him. He need only not attack.
Hostile relations with the people also do not change the fact that the border acts as a shield either.
Thank you, I stand corrected. I was typing from memory and got the two mixed up, and I should probably have proofread it.
Then we disagree on whether it will stop once their demands are met. I don't beleive it will, and I firmly believe history validates that. Why do I believe it won't happen?
1). The overwhelming majority of conflicts in the world involve Muslims against someone else. That cannot be said so firmly of any other religious identity.
2). Setting aside Turkey, there is no Muslim country even close to a functioning democracy and liberty. Even Turkey has "acheived" that so recently, it can hardly be considered stable. They aren't fighting for freedom to remove despotic regimes, but for setting up their own, a la Iran, and this is whether the fighters are Wahabbist (who consider Wahabbist Saudi to be too lax), Sunni, Sufi, or whatever.
3). Those terrorist actions of attacking the infidel are prescribed specifically in the Q'ran.
4). It is still the common practice in Muslim countries to rabidly persecute other religions, including the "people of the Book," Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (the latter being by far the most tragic). Other religions in the world have moved away from that being the norm.
On the Christians, "starting" the Crusades, first it is specically the Roman Catholic Church. Neither the non-Chalcedonians nor the Eastern Orthodox sent troops. In fact, these were raped and plundered by the Crusaders.
Second, it was a response. Let's not forget the Arab invasions, where Spain was subjegated and which Charlemagne stopped in 732 at Poitiers, and they were attacking the very gates of Constantinople. Let's not forget also the slaves taken and forced into battle in the name of Allah to spread religion and empire. Then we have the second wave of attacks, that took a large portion of the Eastern Roman Empire's territory in the tenth century. If the destruction of Muslim holy sites is sufficient to warrant terrorism, what of the destruction of the Christians', because they did just that to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. What finally sparked the Crusades? The killing of Christian pilgrems on the way to holy sites.
This list of Muslim aggressions before the Crusades is not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination. However, why is it that Christians initiated it, when Christians never took any religious military action before 1095? There are examples aplenty of Islamic. Christians were patient through three hundred years of said aggression and only initiated Crusades at the second wave of Muslims (Arabs first, then the Ottomans). All this, and the Arab waves nearly destroyed Europe. Saying Christians started it is just telling half the story, just like saying that Hindus began attacking Muslims is just telling half the story.
Considering the above facts, I think that my position is both justified and historical. Again, they aren't exhaustive, but they are sufficient. It will never end, even if we pull out.
That isn't necessarily true. The U.S. is the superpower in the world, not Canada and not New Zealand. No, it doesn't help that we have troops deployed in over a hundred countries, but the terrorists would have attacked us in time without that. I have no doubt that if I looked, I could find the terrorists preaching jihad against Canada or New Zealand. They just aren't as appealing a target.
Also, remember that this has been going on since before either of us were born. There was a jihad against the infidels for three hundred years before the first crusader donned his armor, it has persisted after the Crusades ended, and it will persist after western-style democracies have ceased to exist.
The U.S., since it is the sole superpower in the world, just happens to wear a big, red bullseye, and due to globilisation our natural defences (two oceans and two peaceful nations as borders) are no longer effective. The terrorists are fighting, not for freedom or any of our ideals, but for religion, and they won't be appeased, nor will they stop. Let's stop trying to rationalize their behavior and just get used to an endless stream of terrorists, because it won't end, and they won't give up.
and I still just burn my own custom CD's...
I neglected to give the title of the book but gave the TOC for the whole collection. It is Against Heresies by St. Irenaeus and is located in vol. 1.
Were there lots of Gospels and Pseudo-Gospels written in the Early Church? You bet. Did they all have an agenda? Again, you bet. Are they all reliable? Not by a long shot. There were all sorts of people making up gospels, ideas, and other whack things in the Early Church.
I'll admit that I haven't read the Da Vinci Code. I found out about it months after it was released, when I kept running across people that were espousing crazy ideas about the Early Church and those Medieval societies. Eventually, I learned where it was from, but still haven't read it. One thing I have noticed, though, is that every person I've seen who's been espousing the conspiratorial nonsense has also not read much, if any, primary source material on Christian history.
That's where this book comes in handy. It was written in the mid-second century in opposition to the movements that spawned most of those extra gospels. The TOC is here.
Other questions are such that, why are the societies that secretly kept the truth all Medieval? The Knights Templar goes back to the twelfth century. The PoS is a twentieth century group trying to claim its way back to the first century (and they aren't the first frauds to try that). This is a strong problem, because Christianity had already suffered two great divisions. In 481, many bishops and their churches seperated from the rest. These churches, the Non-Chalcedonian Churches, stretch from the Middle East to India, and they continue to exist to this day. In the ninth century, St. Photius and the Pope Nicholas II had an outing, which though repaired was made permanent in events in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and they hardly would have trusted Germanic societies like the KT in that era.
Prior to the First Schism, Christianity not only was not centralized, but could not be. The Pope had no universal jurisdiction. Simply put, it is impossible for a large conspiracy to take place to hide the truth so that secret societies had to take place. A non-centralized Christianity's response to these "gospels" was unified from India to Rome; it rejected them, largely because they were outside the normative teachings and practices (such as making Jesus a schoolyard bully) of the Church.
Proponents of conspiracy theories, such as I have found people getting from the Da Vinci Code must be able to explain how such a thing took place given the nature of early Christendom. And it must do so with sources of the era, sources on both sides of the issue. I can say this, because while I have not read the Da Vinci Code, I have read many Gnostic works, works from the Early Church, several Jewish Works from the centuries BC, pagan works from the era, etc. I haven't read them all, but I've read a good number. Likewise, I know several people, both those who are Christian and those who are not, who have. The single denominator I've seen in all of us is that we all laugh at the conspiracy theory nonsense.
I'm not meaning to be offensive, but the Da Vinci Code has about as much credibility as the National Enquirer. No, I haven't read the book, but I have come across many of its ideas repeated. It may be a good story, fiction-wise, but what I've heard repeated is nonsense factually. Will I read it? Maybe, but there are many more important things for me to read, such as books on computers and more early works, Christian, Gnostic, and pagan.
To believe half of what we read in print and none in email.
No, actually not. It's taught in some Church Fathers and held in the Orthodox Church. As such, I get it from the Church, and this, I think is defensable. The text does not say that they would never be able to eat from the Tree. It simply says God commanded them not to. We bring that to the text as an assumption.
I think your question is fair. I've heard quite a few different interpretations of this passage. Gen. 1-11 is hardly a simple matter.
Personally, I like the view that they would eventually be allowed to eat from it when they were mature enough. That, of course, is my personal opinion.
Nonsense. I used to buy that, but then, I read Church history, read other theological views for their merits, and so on. What I found was not only did the views that works count, but also, that the opposite, that they don't count and only faith counts, cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. In fact, the belief didn't appear until Martin Luther decided to make it up, and he even went so far as to change the text of the Bible to support his novelty (he changed "by faith" in Rom. 3.28 to "by faith alone" to "clarify" the plain meaning of the Greek).
Scriptures discussing the importance of works:
James (the whole book), particularly the famous 2.17. And nowhere in this book does it say that works are just a manifestation of the faith that is present. He actually ridicules his detractors by saying they can show him their faith without works, and he'll show his with works. St. James would laugh at this notion, just as he pokes fun at people with similar notions in the text.
Jesus commands the rich young ruler to sell all he has to get eternal life in Luke 18.18-30, and this is a command not a suggestion. No, Christ probably doesn't mandate that for everyone, but He did for this young man. Christ *does* go on to say that those who abandoned all for His sake will find eternal life in v. 29-30. He makes no statement there on belief.
Jesus, in speaking about the ten virgins in Matthew 25. They all waited for the bridegroom to appear, but only five did the work of getting extra oil, and when the bridegroom appeared, the foolish begged for some of the oil from the wise virgins, but the wise refused it, because there wouldn't be enough oil for the two of them. Clearly, both were looking forward to the bridegroom (faith), but only half had prepared themselves beyond that, and so, only half got in, and the Lord replied at their petitions "I do not know you."
Next comes the parable of the slaves entrusted with talents. They were all given a deposit, but because one did nothing with it, then he was cast out into the darkness. Nevertheless, he had the deposit to start with.
He closes that section with the parable of sheep and goats, in which some cry out "Lord, Lord, did I not..." and He will reply "I never knew you." There, the people were working miracles and casting out demons by the Lord's power and evidently under a confession of His name, but they still didn't get it (remember, this can only be done by the Lord's power, as "Satan cannot cast out Satan."). Christ's criticism was on what they did not do "I was hungry and you gave me no food..." (this is echoed in Matthew 7.22). All these three are emphatic analogies, and rather than having an escape clause for a "only faith" approach, they all have people condemned who had faith, but not works.
Another telling point is tht it took Martin Luther to come up with this. Why didn't the author of the Didache know about it, who learned from the Apostles? What about St. Clement, the companion of Paul, who wrote the book I Clement? Where is it in St. Ignatius in all his epistles, who was taught by the Apostle John? None of these men had any clue about such a belief, and their writings contradict it. It took a monk, who was willing to alter Scripture, arrogant, and quite creative to make it up, but he could supply no historical or liturgical evidence for it from Christianity's history; just his own peculiar interpretation of Scripture (2 Pet. 1.20).
"Thus every good tree produces good fruit, but a rotten tree produces evil fruit. A good tree cannot produce evil fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce good fruit. Every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire. Consequently, by their fruits you shall know them. "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven." -- Jesus Christ in Luke 7.17-21.
"And they were judged, each according to his works" -- Revelation 20.13 in reference to the final judgement.
It'd be funny if it was an old Frankish family cookbook, and they wrote things in code to keep those other people from knowing how to cook fish with their secret sauce :).
Funny, a course in logic is exactly where I got my arguments about falsifying attributes...
>Belief in god is superstition. It's no different
>then belief in santa claus, easter bunny or UFOs.
>The ideal of science is to discover the truth
>using the scientific method. This involves
>setting up theories and then testing them with
>rigorous experiments and observations that are
>repeatable.
>
>There are lots of people who believe in goofy
>stuff and everybody knows you will never get them
>to stop believing in them. The fact that so many
>people in the world believe in invisible
>creatures in the sky is a failure of science,
>education and mankind in general.
You consider it a superstition, and that's fine, but science cannot prove it so. Philosophy can be used that way, but not science. It can't falsify what it cannot test. It can no more disprove God than it can Santa Clause or UFO's. Science can't make statements on them, only philosophy using science.
As a second, science cannot prove anything true in reality. As you say, one sets up theories and tests them with "rigorous experiments." These experiments, of course, prove whether its predictions are true or not. It cannot, however, prove the validity of the theory. A witch doctor happens to come upon some leaves that make people feel better. He supposes there are invisible energies contained in it based upon what he sees, and lo, it happens as he predicts. As knowledge expands, his explanation is proven faulty; it was never proven true. Likewise, Newton's Law's, which were once thought to be universal are now understood to break down at certain points. They are wrong, but they are still very useful. Science, thus, has no way to prove something right; it only has a way to prove something wrong.
>The burden of proof lies with those who believe
>in this fantastic creature. You can't proove a
>negative.
Given the way the topic came up, the burden of proof does lie with you in this instance. Your assertion required that science disprove God. That means imperical evidence would be sufficient. Your terminology and the fact that you made the initial assertion do place the burden of proof on you.
God can also be falsified, but not with science. For Christians, for example, you need only falsify that Christ rose from the dead, which is its weak point. For Muslims, a text which the Q'ran modified to become what it is (a central tenet being that Allah dictated it). Most religions make at least some positive statements about their deitie(s). These statements, in turn, can be falsified. I can't prove there are no Kryptonians like Superman. I can verify that using the strength he uses, that he wouldn't push planets; he would sink in, or that his ability to see the entire electromagnetic spectrum would enable him to see through a lead box. You need only select the deity in question. Nobody but you knows which one you criticized.