Why would it matter to you what most Christians believe? Are they God? Do they decide who will go to Hell and who won't?
It doesn't matter what most Christians believe. A true Christian will follow the Christ, and will take the Bible as the source for his beliefs, not church traditions. I think we agree on this.
I see you have assembled a good collection of scriptures which refer to destruction by fire. The question is, do they really mean that God tortures people forever in literal fire?
Hell is mentioned throughout the Bible as a place where people burn:
Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Mark 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
As I am sure you are aware, in the original text Jesus said Gehenna (literally a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem), not Hell. Your interpretation is that he meant an afterlife of eternal torment. Others interpret this more literally as a shameful end on a burning pile of garbage.
One thing is certain: the soul does not survive in Gehenna: Matthew 10:28.
In Matthew as well (although it's a furnace here):
Matthew 13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Weeds do not last long in a furnace. This does not suggest that the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" is anything close to eternal.
In Revelation, we find this:
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
The fact that Death and Hell are cast into the Lake of Fire means that Adamic Death will case to be and that Hell (the common grave where the dead await resurrection) will be emptied.
If Hell is cast into the Lake of Fire, then the Lake of Fire cannot be Hell. What then is the Lake of Fire? It says right here: the second death. Things, persons, and abstract concepts thrown into it forever cease to exist.
I think you would like to argue that the Lake of Fire is literal. You will have difficultly explaining how abstract concepts (such as Death and Hell) are thrown into a literal lake.
Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
This is your best proof text. Though you have to overcome the apparent figurative nature of the Lake of Fire if you want to prove that the torment is bodily.
It seems pretty specific, no?
These scriptures specifically state that certain persons and abstract things will be destroyed forever. That is what fire does. Persons thrown into fire do not suffer for long.
Do you honestly believe God purposely tricks us by writing one thing in the Bible while *meaning* something else? The Bible ascribes such trickery to Satan, not to God.
Do you honestly believe that anyone in the course of a finite human lifespan can sin so grievously that searing pain for all eternity could be a just punishment? Do you suppose that our God of love would impose infinite punishment for finite sins howsoever great? Does not such an idea slander God? Who would like to trick us into believing so vile a slander if not his enemy Satan?
Not Prior Art if it uses electronics, diodes etc. This is purely mechanical.
I think it's the most brilliant thing Microsoft has ever come up with.
Patent worthy? Quite possibly in my mind.
I am not so sure. Isn't the requirement that the solution not be obvious to a practitioner of average skills in the relevant field? As soon as I heard the problem stated, I decided to put a center plus contact and two side minus contacts at each end of each battery holder. If the fit is tight enough, they will not short and the cell may be inserted either way.
I am now going to go see whether or not that is Microsoft's solution. If it is, it is not patentable. The need to solve the problem is non-obvious, but my solution is blindingly obvious.
So you think gays will be punished by God or "natural consequence"? Well which is it?
I am not taking sides on this question. I am simply speculating about the possible views of those who knocked on your door.
You're a smart guy that seems to be able to argue a point very well, but I am just not buying your inability to differentiate between a proven bad decision and holding different beliefs. I don't have time to convince you any further.
I am glad you think I am a smart guy. I think you are too. I do not think we disagree as much as you think. I think we are simply having trouble understanding one another.
It does not matter whether homosexuality is a proven bad decision or not. The point is that those who knocked on your door probably sincerely believe that it is. They feel that they have a duty to warn others against it. I would hesitate to describe someone who was trying to warn me as intolerant, even if the danger exists only in his mind.
You are probably right that we have spent more time on this than it is worth. Let's let it drop.
According to christians, Jesus died and then came back to life. Sounds zombie like to me, would he need to eat human brains for you to agree with the comparison?
A zombie is a reanimated corpse with no will of its own. I would have to see at least some evidence of zombie behavior. Instead the Gospels describe the post-resurrection Jesus as a forceful personality. Resurrection and zombification are related but wildly different concepts.
Anyhow the definition (and the existance) of hell is disputed among the denominations, so it would be better to skip it entirely, otherwise this is going to be a long and worthless debate.
Why? It's *clearly* described in the Bible as a lake of fire. It's where unbelievers, adulterers, etc go. There are lots of specifics on what it's like, who will go there and why.
Be careful. You have accused others of going beyond what Bible verses actually say.
I believe you are referring to the Lake of Fire in Revelation chapters 19, 20, and 21. Many, maybe even most Christians interpret this as a description of Hell, but nowhere does the text say that the Lake of Fire is Hell, clearly or otherwise.
Remember that each of us sees the text through the lens of his own beliefs. In order to have a rational discussion with those who believe differently, we need to be able to step outside of our own beliefs long enough to determine what any particular verse does or down not say. Often we will find that a verse, while compatible with our beliefs, does not actually prove them.
Perhaps I am obtuse. I am finding it hard to follow your reasoning.
Do the people knocking on your door really believe that whether you suffer or not depends on your private opinion of homosexuality? In this case, it would fit the "volcano will kill non-believers" pattern.
I would think it more likely that they believe that homosexuals will be punished (either by God or as a natural consequence of their lifestyle). In that case, it would fit my "those who do not believe the volcano will erupt will make bad decisions" pattern.
These are Christians in India, not Hindus. There's a difference: one believes a magical zombie died so they can live forever but that if they don't follow the zombie's teachings very closely, they'll burn in a lake of fire forever...
This is supposed to be a description of Christianity, right? At least it fits more than the one about cows. What I would like to know is why people on Slashdot keep referring to Jesus of Nazareth as a "zombie". Is this a reference to those church paintings in which he appears to be drugged? I can't think of anything else since the Jesus of the Gospels is not zombie-like at all.
So, who started the Zombie thing and what is it all about?
Interesting. Can you explain further? I looked up the first paragraph and it's this:
"Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:"
It doesn't say anything about using symbolic language. Also not in subsequent paragraphs.
As others have already pointed out, to signify means to convey by signs. Bible translations differ in the weight to which they give the choice of words here. Some translators seem to think it is simply a figure of speech not requiring translation. Some say "signify". Some say "in signs".
Secondly, you are confusing Hell with Sheol, the place where all the souls of the dead go. However amusing the idea may be, the Bible most definitely does not claim that Jesus went to Hell.
The writer isn't actually confused. He is referring to Acts 2:31 as rendered in the King James Bible: He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
The speaker in Acts 2:31 is paraphrasing Psalms 16:10: For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
At Psalms 16:10 "hell" is a translation of "Sheol". At Acts 2:31 it is a translation of "Hades".
Thirdly, your claim that the mark is not a physical mark is easily refuted by Rev. 13:16, which even mentions the *location* of this mark.
"Revelation 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:"
As others here have already pointed out, the location of the mark could itself be symbolic. It has been interpreted as an analogy with the branding of slaves or with the wearing of marks of allegiance to a particular religion or to a military general.
What if they walk around telling everyone they will die if they don't believe what they do? What if they do that to young children, as young as 2 or 3? Yeah, it isn't the same as when they Crusaded, but they still attempt to force you into their way of thinking through fear. Violence invokes fear *right now*, but when they leave the fear is gone. The fear of eternal punishment never goes away.
You are being silly. According to this reasoning, if I knock on your door and tell you that the nearby volcano will erupt in the next few days and that when it does you will probably die if you do not evacuate, I am attempting to force you into my way of thinking through fear? I am intolerant because I am trying to save you from an danger which you believe is imaginary? This is absurd, whether I am right nor not.
That those objecting to the assignment of unique IDs are uneducated is simple speculation. Fear of being too easily tracked by the government is common among persons of all education backgrounds.
The belief that the number of the beast is a unique ID number or an injected RFID tag is not uncommon among Christians. However, I find it unpersuasive. It simply does not fit well with the context.
First of all, the beast is pretty clearly an international political organization. (The beast is not Satan himself because in this context he is "the dragon" and in 13:2 it says that the dragon gave the beast its power.) The beast wears multiple crowns (verse one) symbolizing political power.
Second, the number of the beast is not a set of numbers identifying persons, it is a single stated integer: 666 (verse 18). It cannot distinguish the wearers one from another as a national identification number would. Instead, it identifies the wearers collectively as the slaves of the political beast.
The whole chapter is about events on the world political stage. A reasonable interpretation of verse 17 is that those who refuse to acknowledge the authority of an international political organization will be subject to trade sanctions.
If you can be tolerant of gays, and tolerant of people speaking ideas you disagree with, why can't you be tolerant of Muslims, Jews, and Christians too? They have as much right to "pursue happiness" as anybody else, even if you disagree with their religious philosophy.
Maybe it's because gays just want to enjoy the same rights that you enjoy; whereas Muslims, Jews and Christians want to remove the rights they feel disagree with their beliefs.
I for one welcome our rabbinic overlords...
Seriously though, we all would _like_ to remove those rights which disagree with our beliefs. Some of us realize that if we did that then others could remove our rights which disagree with their beliefs. I think it is a mistake to generalize and suggest that there is something special here about religious beliefs.
This does not mean that no religious person will ever express an idea which you dislike. Nor does it mean that he will never petition for the redress of what he (possibly mistakenly) sees as a wrong. A person's philosophy (whether religious or not) will influence his ethical judgments and may cause him to view something you call a right as a crime.
For example, in almost all ethical systems it is considered wrong to end the life of another person in order to advance one's own interests. Thus, I may not murder my grandfather even if I need his money to pay off my debts. But what if a pregnant woman wants to end the life of her unborn child because caring for a child would interfere with her education? Is it wrong because she is depriving another human being of life for personal advantage or is it acceptable because he is still in a sense a part of her body and she has a right to decide what will be done to her body? This is a question on which reasonable persons may disagree. It all depends on the relative weights which one's ethical framework assigns to these two competing interests.
To describe religious persons as "crazies" or tramplers on rights just because they say something should be against the law is an example of intolerance.
To prosecute means to institute and follow through on an action, especially to carry it out with vigor. (Examples: To prosecute a war. To prosecute a claim. To prosecute a lawsuit.) Thus, the prosecute a DDOS attack would mean to carry one out.
I think the person who wrote the summary mean to ask if the perpetrators of DDOS attacks have ever been prosecuted. This a shorthand way if asking whether legal cases ever been prosecuted against them.
Yes, at a time when it was not considered strange to be both a Scientist and a serious Christian scholar at the same time.
However, I doubt those behind these textbook changes would like his work in the area of Christian scholarship. He had the annoying habit of applying scholarly rigor to questions of doctrine. His concluded that the views of the Church on several important subjects contradicted both the Bible text and the views of the church fathers.
Then as now, many regarded his views on the Trinity and immortality of the human soul as a rejection of Christianity, as heresy. He in turn regarded these doctrines as heretical.
When I said that the sense of urgency is destroyed when too much time is spent in the classroom, I was not referring to the fear of poverty. I meant that teachers lose their sense of urgency, the feeling that they need to make each day count.
I have seen this with my own eyes. When I was in the eighth grade the teachers had 180 days per year to teach. They spent more than half of the time chatting with the students and telling war stories. When I was in the ninth grade I attended a technical high school where the teachers had 90 days per year to teach the same material. The time wasting dropped to almost zero.
I strongly suspect that if the school day or the school year were lengthened, less teaching would be done, not more. The additional time was simply be wasted.
Well put. Stretching out high school to eight years helps no one and puts a burden on our economy. Unfortunately, there seems to be no shortage of people who think that lengthening the school day, the school year, and then sending everyone to college will fix what ails our educational system.
In reality all it does is reduce the quality of education even further by destroying all sense of urgency.
Using his example, you don't need to know anything about math, science, literature, etc, to cut down trees.
You need to know what they train you to do on the job. Therefore, an elementary student graduate could do the job, short of the physical requirements. So make him a dish washer until he's big enough to work a chain saw.
Nope, this isn't a slippery slope...
I think you misunderstood his example. Cutting down trees is not an unskilled job. Trees can be very, very heavy and hence it is dangerous to make them fall down. At least some understanding of math and physics is required to do it safely. Modern tree felling also requires the ability to use and maintain some fairly complicated equipment. But, it does not require one to be a competent historian.
If someone wants to cut trees for a living, he should learn basic physics and mathematics, electrical theory, how hydrolic (however one spells that) systems work, basic botany, and first aid.
The problem as I see it is the attitude that since education broadens the mind and teaches one how to learn, it does not much matter what one studies, so we will just put everyone through a liberal arts education. Not only is this inefficient, but education is also more effective if the student believes that he will use his new knowledge after the final exam.
So, rather than teaching people some random stuff which they may never use, let them learn how to learn by learning some skills for their first job.
>Many of the "txt speek" words and grammar constructs are either oversimplified to the point where a word has many possible meanings or, in the case of grammar, is mangled to the point where it is either extremely context-sensitive or simply unreadable.
Well put.
Many do not see a lack of good grammar as a problem. They frequently see proper grammar as simply a matter of putting commas in the correct places and not confusing similar-sounding words. Good English grammar is seen as analogous to good English spelling: conformance to a set of arbitrary rules. They do not see good grammar as useful except as a basis to sneer at those less educated.
Those who scorn good grammar fail to understand that incorrect grammar and poor grammar destroy meaning. Putting commas in the correct places is only the beginning. Good technical writing requires an ability to use grammatical constructs which clearly indicate the relationship between the parts of a device or a computer program. If the writer's grammar skills are weak, he will fall back on vague expressions which suggest that things are related to one another without explaining how.
Poor grammar is holding back many interesting software projects. The writers tell us what settings and command are, not what they do. I suspect the reason is that the writers lack the sufficient command of grammar.
Here is an example:
This is the port number of the LPR server.
Notice the use of the word "is" and the vague word "of". Ask yourself, "what will happen if I change this value?" Will an LPR server be reconfigured to listen on the port of my choosing? Or perhaps this setting will be used when connecting to an LPR server, in which case we must determine the one and only correct port number and enter it here.
Depending on the intended meaning, better field descriptions include:
Port on which LPR server should accept connections:
or
Port on which remote LPR server is excepting connections:
Of course, someone who clearly understand the operation of the devices in question will be able to infer the intended meaning from context. But, we frequently do not know what an unfamiliar program does. Grammar is required to explain its purpose and operation. If people do not understand how a program works, they may not use it.
If ignorance of the law is no defense, why do the police have to read you your Miranda rights?
To make it harder for the police to break the law which says that the can't force you to confess or prevent you from consulting with an attourney. It has nothing to do with ignorance of the law an an excuse.
In my experience the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" standpoint holds up whether or not you have a good excuse for your ignorance. The police once copied down my address incorrectly on a ticket (they ignored my correct address on the copy of the ticket I mailed in) causing a summons to court, a notice of default judgement against me, a notice that my ticket was unpaid and a notice that my license had been suspended to be sent to the wrong address. I was later charged with driving with a suspended license after an accident a few months later. I discovered what had happened after some digging at the bureau of public records. I explained what had happened to the judge and he told me the ignorance of the law is ones own fault period. The fact that the state had tried to contact me was sufficient on their part. It is always your responsibility to become informed of the law regardless of any difficulties you have.
Though it sounds like you were treated unfairly, this is not a true example of the "ignorance of the law" principle in operation. (As a side note, the IRS lost a similar case a few years ago. The court did not buy the argument that they had informed the citizen by sending notices to the wrong address.)
Despite what know-it-alls say, the "ignorance of the law" principle is not absolute. It is a compromise which favors the state against the citizen. In most cases the citizen is assumed to know about any law which has been properly published. Without it, those who wanted to break the law would deliberately avoid learning about it. With it, citizens can be victimized when they are punished for violating laws about which they might not have known. This is considered a necessary trade-off in order to preserve the state's ability to punish the truly guilty.
There is controversy about when ignorance of the law becomes an excluse. The state's case is strongest when the citizen is engaged in an activity which is far outside the scope of what normal people do, such as if he is operating a nuclear power plant. It is expected that he will know that special laws will apply and will perform the necessary research.
Factors which weaken the government's case: the citizen is engaged in an ordinary activity, the law is new, the citizen can show that he made a good faith effort to learn about the law (especially if a government official mis-informed him), access to the text of the law is obstructed.
If I am operating a nuclear power plant, it is reasonable for me to pay $200 for access to the thousands of pages of laws and regulations involved. If I am planting a shrub in my front yard, it is not reasonable to pay $200 for a copy of the city ordinances on CD. At a time when electronic publication is replacing display in public buildings, it is reasonable to ask whether artificial barriers to access, such as high fees, impair the right of cities to enforce their laws.
Again, owning up does not stop it being a crime. I could send a letter to the bank saying they have problems with their security set up, come back a few days later, rob them, send a letter telling them I had indeed robbed them. Do you really think I wouldn't get arrested? Even if I went back a few days and gave them their money back I'd still be arrested.
Yes, but stopping before a crime has been committed does stop it from being a crime. Here is a better anology: He goes into a bank and makes out a withdrawal slip for $1,000,000 when he has only $100 in his account. He takes it up to the teller who gets $1,000,000 out of the safe and puts it on the counter. He then turns to everyone in the room, loudly says, "wow these people are gullible" and leaves without touching the money.
They might be able to get him under a computer crime statute (not that they should), but suggesting intent to fraud when it was he who made sure they would never send him the money is not rational.
Also the guy who posted this is an idiot for placing a $100,000 transaction which would result in a $2,000 payment, and then bragging about it. His two $1 transactions proved the vulnerability and the $0.06 payment generated is easily ignored. The $100k transaction with $2k payment is just flat out wire fraud asking for federal PMITA prison.
It would presumably be necessary to prove intent to commit wire fraud. Cashing the check is generally considered good proof of intent. By publishing the results of his experiment before any check was even issued, he has rendered a possible prosecution frivolous.
It IS a crime. If they had control access to the botnet, then for the duration of time that they had control, they were responsible for what the botnet did during that time. Think of it as timeshare cracking.
I think you are confusing two similiar ideas. The ability to control and responsibility are two different things.
It would only be a crime if they did control it and command it to commit a crime. It is not a crime to be able to commit a crime.
Here is an illustration. Imagine that a criminal organization mistakenly gives its operatives your phone number and tell them to call it once a week, report their progress, and ask for new orders. You start receiving calls that go something like this:
Caller: I am John Smith. I stole 10 televisions. I have stashed them at 123 Main Street, Anytown. Do you have new orders for me? (You write this down and pass it on to the police.)
You: No, no new orders. Goodbye.
The case here is a little different, but not much. It is as if the researchers noticed that the criminals had been told to start using a new telephone number next month and managed to get it assigned to themselves because they were currious about what the criminals were up to.
you have to be carefull comparing old prices in the uk because of the change in the value of the pound though decimalisation
How did decimilizing the pound change its value? It seems to me that only the value of the pence changed.
(Under the pre-decimal system, there are 20 shillings in a pound and 12 pence in a shilling which makes 240 pence in a pound. After decimilization, there are 100 new pence in a pound.)
Slashdot Mirror
Why would it matter to you what most Christians believe? Are they God? Do they decide who will go to Hell and who won't?
It doesn't matter what most Christians believe. A true Christian will follow the Christ, and will take the Bible as the source for his beliefs, not church traditions. I think we agree on this.
I see you have assembled a good collection of scriptures which refer to destruction by fire. The question is, do they really mean that God tortures people forever in literal fire?
Hell is mentioned throughout the Bible as a place where people burn:
Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Mark 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
As I am sure you are aware, in the original text Jesus said Gehenna (literally a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem), not Hell. Your interpretation is that he meant an afterlife of eternal torment. Others interpret this more literally as a shameful end on a burning pile of garbage.
One thing is certain: the soul does not survive in Gehenna: Matthew 10:28.
In Matthew as well (although it's a furnace here):
Matthew 13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Weeds do not last long in a furnace. This does not suggest that the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" is anything close to eternal.
In Revelation, we find this:
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
The fact that Death and Hell are cast into the Lake of Fire means that Adamic Death will case to be and that Hell (the common grave where the dead await resurrection) will be emptied.
If Hell is cast into the Lake of Fire, then the Lake of Fire cannot be Hell. What then is the Lake of Fire? It says right here: the second death. Things, persons, and abstract concepts thrown into it forever cease to exist.
I think you would like to argue that the Lake of Fire is literal. You will have difficultly explaining how abstract concepts (such as Death and Hell) are thrown into a literal lake.
Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
This is your best proof text. Though you have to overcome the apparent figurative nature of the Lake of Fire if you want to prove that the torment is bodily.
It seems pretty specific, no?
These scriptures specifically state that certain persons and abstract things will be destroyed forever. That is what fire does. Persons thrown into fire do not suffer for long.
Do you honestly believe God purposely tricks us by writing one thing in the Bible while *meaning* something else? The Bible ascribes such trickery to Satan, not to God.
Do you honestly believe that anyone in the course of a finite human lifespan can sin so grievously that searing pain for all eternity could be a just punishment? Do you suppose that our God of love would impose infinite punishment for finite sins howsoever great? Does not such an idea slander God? Who would like to trick us into believing so vile a slander if not his enemy Satan?
Not Prior Art if it uses electronics, diodes etc. This is purely mechanical.
I think it's the most brilliant thing Microsoft has ever come up with.
Patent worthy? Quite possibly in my mind.
I am not so sure. Isn't the requirement that the solution not be obvious to a practitioner of average skills in the relevant field? As soon as I heard the problem stated, I decided to put a center plus contact and two side minus contacts at each end of each battery holder. If the fit is tight enough, they will not short and the cell may be inserted either way.
I am now going to go see whether or not that is Microsoft's solution. If it is, it is not patentable. The need to solve the problem is non-obvious, but my solution is blindingly obvious.
It's equally reasonable that the Beast was an idea shared by 7 rulers (an idea like communism, or some other great evil).
Yes, the phrase I chose (political organization) is probably too specific.
So you think gays will be punished by God or "natural consequence"? Well which is it?
I am not taking sides on this question. I am simply speculating about the possible views of those who knocked on your door.
You're a smart guy that seems to be able to argue a point very well, but I am just not buying your inability to differentiate between a proven bad decision and holding different beliefs. I don't have time to convince you any further.
I am glad you think I am a smart guy. I think you are too. I do not think we disagree as much as you think. I think we are simply having trouble understanding one another.
It does not matter whether homosexuality is a proven bad decision or not. The point is that those who knocked on your door probably sincerely believe that it is. They feel that they have a duty to warn others against it. I would hesitate to describe someone who was trying to warn me as intolerant, even if the danger exists only in his mind.
You are probably right that we have spent more time on this than it is worth. Let's let it drop.
According to christians, Jesus died and then came back to life. Sounds zombie like to me, would he need to eat human brains for you to agree with the comparison?
A zombie is a reanimated corpse with no will of its own. I would have to see at least some evidence of zombie behavior. Instead the Gospels describe the post-resurrection Jesus as a forceful personality. Resurrection and zombification are related but wildly different concepts.
Why? It's *clearly* described in the Bible as a lake of fire. It's where unbelievers, adulterers, etc go. There are lots of specifics on what it's like, who will go there and why.
Be careful. You have accused others of going beyond what Bible verses actually say.
I believe you are referring to the Lake of Fire in Revelation chapters 19, 20, and 21. Many, maybe even most Christians interpret this as a description of Hell, but nowhere does the text say that the Lake of Fire is Hell, clearly or otherwise.
Remember that each of us sees the text through the lens of his own beliefs. In order to have a rational discussion with those who believe differently, we need to be able to step outside of our own beliefs long enough to determine what any particular verse does or down not say. Often we will find that a verse, while compatible with our beliefs, does not actually prove them.
Perhaps I am obtuse. I am finding it hard to follow your reasoning.
Do the people knocking on your door really believe that whether you suffer or not depends on your private opinion of homosexuality? In this case, it would fit the "volcano will kill non-believers" pattern.
I would think it more likely that they believe that homosexuals will be punished (either by God or as a natural consequence of their lifestyle). In that case, it would fit my "those who do not believe the volcano will erupt will make bad decisions" pattern.
These are Christians in India, not Hindus. There's a difference: one believes a magical zombie died so they can live forever but that if they don't follow the zombie's teachings very closely, they'll burn in a lake of fire forever...
This is supposed to be a description of Christianity, right? At least it fits more than the one about cows. What I would like to know is why people on Slashdot keep referring to Jesus of Nazareth as a "zombie". Is this a reference to those church paintings in which he appears to be drugged? I can't think of anything else since the Jesus of the Gospels is not zombie-like at all.
So, who started the Zombie thing and what is it all about?
Interesting. Can you explain further? I looked up the first paragraph and it's this:
"Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:"
It doesn't say anything about using symbolic language. Also not in subsequent paragraphs.
As others have already pointed out, to signify means to convey by signs. Bible translations differ in the weight to which they give the choice of words here. Some translators seem to think it is simply a figure of speech not requiring translation. Some say "signify". Some say "in signs".
Secondly, you are confusing Hell with Sheol, the place where all the souls of the dead go. However amusing the idea may be, the Bible most definitely does not claim that Jesus went to Hell.
The writer isn't actually confused. He is referring to Acts 2:31 as rendered in the King James Bible: He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
The speaker in Acts 2:31 is paraphrasing Psalms 16:10: For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
At Psalms 16:10 "hell" is a translation of "Sheol". At Acts 2:31 it is a translation of "Hades".
Thirdly, your claim that the mark is not a physical mark is easily refuted by Rev. 13:16, which even mentions the *location* of this mark.
"Revelation 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:"
As others here have already pointed out, the location of the mark could itself be symbolic. It has been interpreted as an analogy with the branding of slaves or with the wearing of marks of allegiance to a particular religion or to a military general.
What if they walk around telling everyone they will die if they don't believe what they do? What if they do that to young children, as young as 2 or 3? Yeah, it isn't the same as when they Crusaded, but they still attempt to force you into their way of thinking through fear. Violence invokes fear *right now*, but when they leave the fear is gone. The fear of eternal punishment never goes away.
You are being silly. According to this reasoning, if I knock on your door and tell you that the nearby volcano will erupt in the next few days and that when it does you will probably die if you do not evacuate, I am attempting to force you into my way of thinking through fear? I am intolerant because I am trying to save you from an danger which you believe is imaginary? This is absurd, whether I am right nor not.
That those objecting to the assignment of unique IDs are uneducated is simple speculation. Fear of being too easily tracked by the government is common among persons of all education backgrounds.
The belief that the number of the beast is a unique ID number or an injected RFID tag is not uncommon among Christians. However, I find it unpersuasive. It simply does not fit well with the context.
First of all, the beast is pretty clearly an international political organization. (The beast is not Satan himself because in this context he is "the dragon" and in 13:2 it says that the dragon gave the beast its power.) The beast wears multiple crowns (verse one) symbolizing political power.
Second, the number of the beast is not a set of numbers identifying persons, it is a single stated integer: 666 (verse 18). It cannot distinguish the wearers one from another as a national identification number would. Instead, it identifies the wearers collectively as the slaves of the political beast.
The whole chapter is about events on the world political stage. A reasonable interpretation of verse 17 is that those who refuse to acknowledge the authority of an international political organization will be subject to trade sanctions.
If you can be tolerant of gays, and tolerant of people speaking ideas you disagree with, why can't you be tolerant of Muslims, Jews, and Christians too? They have as much right to "pursue happiness" as anybody else, even if you disagree with their religious philosophy.
Maybe it's because gays just want to enjoy the same rights that you enjoy; whereas Muslims, Jews and Christians want to remove the rights they feel disagree with their beliefs.
I for one welcome our rabbinic overlords...
Seriously though, we all would _like_ to remove those rights which disagree with our beliefs. Some of us realize that if we did that then others could remove our rights which disagree with their beliefs. I think it is a mistake to generalize and suggest that there is something special here about religious beliefs.
This does not mean that no religious person will ever express an idea which you dislike. Nor does it mean that he will never petition for the redress of what he (possibly mistakenly) sees as a wrong. A person's philosophy (whether religious or not) will influence his ethical judgments and may cause him to view something you call a right as a crime.
For example, in almost all ethical systems it is considered wrong to end the life of another person in order to advance one's own interests. Thus, I may not murder my grandfather even if I need his money to pay off my debts. But what if a pregnant woman wants to end the life of her unborn child because caring for a child would interfere with her education? Is it wrong because she is depriving another human being of life for personal advantage or is it acceptable because he is still in a sense a part of her body and she has a right to decide what will be done to her body? This is a question on which reasonable persons may disagree. It all depends on the relative weights which one's ethical framework assigns to these two competing interests.
To describe religious persons as "crazies" or tramplers on rights just because they say something should be against the law is an example of intolerance.
To prosecute means to institute and follow through on an action, especially to carry it out with vigor. (Examples: To prosecute a war. To prosecute a claim. To prosecute a lawsuit.) Thus, the prosecute a DDOS attack would mean to carry one out.
I think the person who wrote the summary mean to ask if the perpetrators of DDOS attacks have ever been prosecuted. This a shorthand way if asking whether legal cases ever been prosecuted against them.
You mean the popup menu in the complicated language-specific tool? Thought so.
he was a scientist, right?
Yes, at a time when it was not considered strange to be both a Scientist and a serious Christian scholar at the same time.
However, I doubt those behind these textbook changes would like his work in the area of Christian scholarship. He had the annoying habit of applying scholarly rigor to questions of doctrine. His concluded that the views of the Church on several important subjects contradicted both the Bible text and the views of the church fathers.
Then as now, many regarded his views on the Trinity and immortality of the human soul as a rejection of Christianity, as heresy. He in turn regarded these doctrines as heretical.
When I said that the sense of urgency is destroyed when too much time is spent in the classroom, I was not referring to the fear of poverty. I meant that teachers lose their sense of urgency, the feeling that they need to make each day count.
I have seen this with my own eyes. When I was in the eighth grade the teachers had 180 days per year to teach. They spent more than half of the time chatting with the students and telling war stories. When I was in the ninth grade I attended a technical high school where the teachers had 90 days per year to teach the same material. The time wasting dropped to almost zero.
I strongly suspect that if the school day or the school year were lengthened, less teaching would be done, not more. The additional time was simply be wasted.
Well put. Stretching out high school to eight years helps no one and puts a burden on our economy. Unfortunately, there seems to be no shortage of people who think that lengthening the school day, the school year, and then sending everyone to college will fix what ails our educational system.
In reality all it does is reduce the quality of education even further by destroying all sense of urgency.
Using his example, you don't need to know anything about math, science, literature, etc, to cut down trees.
You need to know what they train you to do on the job. Therefore, an elementary student graduate could do the job, short of the physical requirements. So make him a dish washer until he's big enough to work a chain saw.
Nope, this isn't a slippery slope...
I think you misunderstood his example. Cutting down trees is not an unskilled job. Trees can be very, very heavy and hence it is dangerous to make them fall down. At least some understanding of math and physics is required to do it safely. Modern tree felling also requires the ability to use and maintain some fairly complicated equipment. But, it does not require one to be a competent historian.
If someone wants to cut trees for a living, he should learn basic physics and mathematics, electrical theory, how hydrolic (however one spells that) systems work, basic botany, and first aid.
The problem as I see it is the attitude that since education broadens the mind and teaches one how to learn, it does not much matter what one studies, so we will just put everyone through a liberal arts education. Not only is this inefficient, but education is also more effective if the student believes that he will use his new knowledge after the final exam.
So, rather than teaching people some random stuff which they may never use, let them learn how to learn by learning some skills for their first job.
>Many of the "txt speek" words and grammar constructs are either oversimplified to the point where a word has many possible meanings or, in the case of grammar, is mangled to the point where it is either extremely context-sensitive or simply unreadable.
Well put.
Many do not see a lack of good grammar as a problem. They frequently see proper grammar as simply a matter of putting commas in the correct places and not confusing similar-sounding words. Good English grammar is seen as analogous to good English spelling: conformance to a set of arbitrary rules. They do not see good grammar as useful except as a basis to sneer at those less educated.
Those who scorn good grammar fail to understand that incorrect grammar and poor grammar destroy meaning. Putting commas in the correct places is only the beginning. Good technical writing requires an ability to use grammatical constructs which clearly indicate the relationship between the parts of a device or a computer program. If the writer's grammar skills are weak, he will fall back on vague expressions which suggest that things are related to one another without explaining how.
Poor grammar is holding back many interesting software projects. The writers tell us what settings and command are, not what they do. I suspect the reason is that the writers lack the sufficient command of grammar.
Here is an example:
This is the port number of the LPR server.
Notice the use of the word "is" and the vague word "of". Ask yourself, "what will happen if I change this value?" Will an LPR server be reconfigured to listen on the port of my choosing? Or perhaps this setting will be used when connecting to an LPR server, in which case we must determine the one and only correct port number and enter it here.
Depending on the intended meaning, better field descriptions include:
Port on which LPR server should accept connections:
or
Port on which remote LPR server is excepting connections:
Of course, someone who clearly understand the operation of the devices in question will be able to infer the intended meaning from context. But, we frequently do not know what an unfamiliar program does. Grammar is required to explain its purpose and operation. If people do not understand how a program works, they may not use it.
If ignorance of the law is no defense, why do the police have to read you your Miranda rights?
To make it harder for the police to break the law which says that the can't force you to confess or prevent you from consulting with an attourney. It has nothing to do with ignorance of the law an an excuse.
In my experience the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" standpoint holds up whether or not you have a good excuse for your ignorance. The police once copied down my address incorrectly on a ticket (they ignored my correct address on the copy of the ticket I mailed in) causing a summons to court, a notice of default judgement against me, a notice that my ticket was unpaid and a notice that my license had been suspended to be sent to the wrong address. I was later charged with driving with a suspended license after an accident a few months later. I discovered what had happened after some digging at the bureau of public records. I explained what had happened to the judge and he told me the ignorance of the law is ones own fault period. The fact that the state had tried to contact me was sufficient on their part. It is always your responsibility to become informed of the law regardless of any difficulties you have.
Though it sounds like you were treated unfairly, this is not a true example of the "ignorance of the law" principle in operation. (As a side note, the IRS lost a similar case a few years ago. The court did not buy the argument that they had informed the citizen by sending notices to the wrong address.)
Despite what know-it-alls say, the "ignorance of the law" principle is not absolute. It is a compromise which favors the state against the citizen. In most cases the citizen is assumed to know about any law which has been properly published. Without it, those who wanted to break the law would deliberately avoid learning about it. With it, citizens can be victimized when they are punished for violating laws about which they might not have known. This is considered a necessary trade-off in order to preserve the state's ability to punish the truly guilty.
There is controversy about when ignorance of the law becomes an excluse. The state's case is strongest when the citizen is engaged in an activity which is far outside the scope of what normal people do, such as if he is operating a nuclear power plant. It is expected that he will know that special laws will apply and will perform the necessary research.
Factors which weaken the government's case: the citizen is engaged in an ordinary activity, the law is new, the citizen can show that he made a good faith effort to learn about the law (especially if a government official mis-informed him), access to the text of the law is obstructed.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/13/1310212/City-Laws-Only-Available-Via-200-License?art_pos=1#
If I am operating a nuclear power plant, it is reasonable for me to pay $200 for access to the thousands of pages of laws and regulations involved. If I am planting a shrub in my front yard, it is not reasonable to pay $200 for a copy of the city ordinances on CD. At a time when electronic publication is replacing display in public buildings, it is reasonable to ask whether artificial barriers to access, such as high fees, impair the right of cities to enforce their laws.
Again, owning up does not stop it being a crime. I could send a letter to the bank saying they have problems with their security set up, come back a few days later, rob them, send a letter telling them I had indeed robbed them. Do you really think I wouldn't get arrested? Even if I went back a few days and gave them their money back I'd still be arrested.
Yes, but stopping before a crime has been committed does stop it from being a crime. Here is a better anology: He goes into a bank and makes out a withdrawal slip for $1,000,000 when he has only $100 in his account. He takes it up to the teller who gets $1,000,000 out of the safe and puts it on the counter. He then turns to everyone in the room, loudly says, "wow these people are gullible" and leaves without touching the money.
They might be able to get him under a computer crime statute (not that they should), but suggesting intent to fraud when it was he who made sure they would never send him the money is not rational.
Also the guy who posted this is an idiot for placing a $100,000 transaction which would result in a $2,000 payment, and then bragging about it. His two $1 transactions proved the vulnerability and the $0.06 payment generated is easily ignored. The $100k transaction with $2k payment is just flat out wire fraud asking for federal PMITA prison.
It would presumably be necessary to prove intent to commit wire fraud. Cashing the check is generally considered good proof of intent. By publishing the results of his experiment before any check was even issued, he has rendered a possible prosecution frivolous.
It IS a crime. If they had control access to the botnet, then for the duration of time that they had control, they were responsible for what the botnet did during that time. Think of it as timeshare cracking.
I think you are confusing two similiar ideas. The ability to control and responsibility are two different things.
It would only be a crime if they did control it and command it to commit a crime. It is not a crime to be able to commit a crime.
Here is an illustration. Imagine that a criminal organization mistakenly gives its operatives your phone number and tell them to call it once a week, report their progress, and ask for new orders. You start receiving calls that go something like this:
Caller: I am John Smith. I stole 10 televisions. I have stashed them at 123 Main Street, Anytown. Do you have new orders for me? (You write this down and pass it on to the police.)
You: No, no new orders. Goodbye.
The case here is a little different, but not much. It is as if the researchers noticed that the criminals had been told to start using a new telephone number next month and managed to get it assigned to themselves because they were currious about what the criminals were up to.
you have to be carefull comparing old prices in the uk because of the change in the value of the pound though decimalisation
How did decimilizing the pound change its value? It seems to me that only the value of the pence changed.
(Under the pre-decimal system, there are 20 shillings in a pound and 12 pence in a shilling which makes 240 pence in a pound. After decimilization, there are 100 new pence in a pound.)