No, there are people who live off they system indefinitely. But they live on social security or disability, not welfare. While there is a difference on paper, most people lump them all together under "welfare" unless they are talking about retired people.
One of the keys to debt reduction is focusing on cutting big ticket items first. If you're living beyond your means, chances are it's because of your housing costs. If you are renting a $3,000 apartment, it doesn't make sense to try to balance a $1,500 budget deficit by cutting out 1 $10 cup of coffee every week. And it makes even less sense to cut out your $10 birth control medication or something like that.
Likewise, if your nation is spending $3,000 billion on social programs and military spending, and they've got a $1,500 billion deficit, it doesn't make sense to try to balance it by cutting out $10 billion of pork. And it makes even less sense to cut $10 billion in NASA funding.
You can't only think about getting to tomorrow. The decisions we make today could save our lives on the day after tomorrow. It's ok to make sacrifices today to purchase a sustainable future, even if that means a reduced standard of living today and that some of us might not make it to tomorrow.
The downside is that Newt may cut COTS, since it was Obama's idea. That would be devastating to the future of space flight, it would force NASA to continue using overpriced rockets from ULA, and waste billions of dollars down the next generation launch vehicle.
I’ll note that I think JWST is far enough along to make sure it gets finished and launched, but the funding for it should be added to NASA’s budget, not subtracted from other places.
At a time when our nation is running a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit, it's silly to suggest that any one agency should be immune, much less get additional funding. Of course, it wold be nice if they'd cut entitlements or military spending, but that wasn't seriously an option anyway. Besides, NASA wastes plenty of money. The main thing that's distressing here is they're opting to cut Mars exploration instead of some of the others.
It's obvious that they should have to make budget compromises the same as anybody else. By cutting the next generation space launcher, they could save tens of billions of dollars. It's a program that basically amounts to pork, and they only do it for political reasons.
I'm not sure one way or another if that's possible. It does seem that very young children are likely to do what they're told, but I don't know whether that is a conditioned response. But it does seem like when a child is two or three they will often try to assert their own authority. And perhaps when that happens, if you let the child understand that you respect their boundaries and their ability to make choices for themselves, without simply giving in to whatever they want, perhaps you can teach them that it's ok not to do something if they're not comfortable with it. That would certainly go a long way to preventing abuse, since a child being abused would react very strongly since they are used to having their personal boundaries respected.
Another aspect of it is language. Im many cases, it seems like children would be incapable of reporting abuse because they don't really know what it is or how to describe it. Rather than shielding them from sexual language, it might make more sense to explain sexual concepts to them in simple language that is easy for them to understand. That way you can explain to them that it's bad for an adult to do certain things to them, and if something happens you will know about it and be able to do something about it.
The problem is not a lack of understanding. People make decisions about things they don't understand every day, it's hardly unique to children. Should we prosecute a man for rape because a woman he had sex with did not understand that he would leave afterward and never talk to her again?
The problem is that children naturally assume, or are conditioned to assume that adults have authority over them. They believe that they have to do what an adult tells them. That means that even if they did understand, and did not what to go along with it, they would be compelled to comply anyway. That's the problem we're talking about.
As far as dictatorships go, Saudi Arabia hardly qualifies as one of the worst. Quite the opposite, really. The pragmatic approach to diplomacy taken by the leadership there has been stabilizing force in the region. It's rare you see a government on good terms with both the West and the East, but Saudi Arabia clearly is. Also, they have a relatively liberal attitude on personal freedoms, when compared to neighboring countries. I'm not saying it's all happy fluffy bunnies and pretty rainbows over there, but you've got to give them some credit.
Ok, but in the middle east it's a lot more common for people to say someone should be killed when what the really mean is that the person has done something really bad. I know it's also more common for them to actually kill the person as well, but the point is that it's not good to take these things to literally when we have similar figures of speech today.
If Jesus really advocated stoning people, he would have done it rather than saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". So let's be reasonable about this.
As an aside, when they say "Anyone who curses their father or mother." they are also saying something different than what we think of today. It's important to understand the historical context.
The word in greek you're referring to is "theopneustos" Strong's concordance number 2315. This is the only place it appears in the Bible, and the only place we know of where it has ever even been written. It seems to be a term coined by Paul. The basis of the translation "God-Breathed" comes from the greek words "Theós" meaning God, and "pnéo" meaning to breathe.
Most scholars think it should be taken to mean that all scriptures are inspired by God. But there are some who believe that it means to refer only to those scriptures that were inspired by God (as in the translation I showed you above).
In any case there is a lot of room here for the reader to interpret the text. But, the idea that Paul could have been referring to the Bible itself (and the entire Bible at that) is silly because parts of it hadn't even been written, and it hadn't been complied into a single book. If Paul himself had complied the Bible, maybe you'd have something (something resembling Mormonism, anyway) but he didn't, so your interpretation is reaching well beyond what Paul actually could have meant by it.
What's the take away from all this? You need to stop holding up the Bible as an idol. I actually agree with Paul that all scripture is useful, but that includes the parts where it warns against idolatry.
They're hoping you'll go look it up, so that maybe you'll go read beyond what they've cited. In a way it's better than simply quoting the verse, since it forces the reader to view the verse in context.
There's a difference between saying that something is God breathed, and that it is the word of God. There is also a difference between saying that the scriptures are God breathed and saying the Bible is God breathed (after all, it's not like Paul would have thought his letter would be considered scriptural). Moreover, there is a really big difference between saying that something is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness" and saying that it is completely accurate and literally true.
So in reality you are just doing what I was saying. Taking a small part of the Bible out of context, and adding your own claims to it.
First of all, none of these verses were written before the Bible was compiled. So it's a bit silly to say that any verse in the Bible is referring to the Bible itself.
2 Timothy 3:16: Does saying something is God breathed mean that it is the true word of God? Is Paul really trying to set the Bible (which was not compiled) as an infallible text? Or are you taking him out of context?
Psalm 19:7-9: Is it reasonable to say that the Law and the Testimony of God refers to the Bible? Or are you talking this out of context as well?
Deuteronomy 4:2: This is a commandment, not a claim.
Revelation 22:19: Is it referring to the Bible? Or the Book or Revelation? Or the prophecy itself?
The Bible describes this as idolatry. Basically, if you can take a concept and put it into a box, you can gain authority over the idea in people's minds and substitute your own voice for the idea. The Bible is actually a good example of this itself. Even though the Bible never actually claims to be the word of God (in fact, it never claims to be true or accurate either) pastors have an easy time holding it up as a physical manifestation of such ideas. Form there it's a fairly simple matter to pick and choose through it, adding their own words here and there, and presto! Suddenly they've got their own words accepted by people as being from God.
The principle is easily applied elsewhere, and you see it all the time.
Yes, though the closest analogue is probably electrodialysis reversal. The difference is that no existing technology has been able to economically remove salt in concentrations as high as seawater (though they have been used for brackish water).
Many of these areas in Idaho (where I'm from) are actually too rugged to be used for logging. Why anyone would think they need 3G coverage is beyond me.
Slashdot Mirror
No, there are people who live off they system indefinitely. But they live on social security or disability, not welfare. While there is a difference on paper, most people lump them all together under "welfare" unless they are talking about retired people.
One of the keys to debt reduction is focusing on cutting big ticket items first. If you're living beyond your means, chances are it's because of your housing costs. If you are renting a $3,000 apartment, it doesn't make sense to try to balance a $1,500 budget deficit by cutting out 1 $10 cup of coffee every week. And it makes even less sense to cut out your $10 birth control medication or something like that.
Likewise, if your nation is spending $3,000 billion on social programs and military spending, and they've got a $1,500 billion deficit, it doesn't make sense to try to balance it by cutting out $10 billion of pork. And it makes even less sense to cut $10 billion in NASA funding.
You can't only think about getting to tomorrow. The decisions we make today could save our lives on the day after tomorrow. It's ok to make sacrifices today to purchase a sustainable future, even if that means a reduced standard of living today and that some of us might not make it to tomorrow.
The downside is that Newt may cut COTS, since it was Obama's idea. That would be devastating to the future of space flight, it would force NASA to continue using overpriced rockets from ULA, and waste billions of dollars down the next generation launch vehicle.
At a time when our nation is running a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit, it's silly to suggest that any one agency should be immune, much less get additional funding. Of course, it wold be nice if they'd cut entitlements or military spending, but that wasn't seriously an option anyway. Besides, NASA wastes plenty of money. The main thing that's distressing here is they're opting to cut Mars exploration instead of some of the others.
It's obvious that they should have to make budget compromises the same as anybody else. By cutting the next generation space launcher, they could save tens of billions of dollars. It's a program that basically amounts to pork, and they only do it for political reasons.
Yes, I'm sure this will be better.
I'm not sure one way or another if that's possible. It does seem that very young children are likely to do what they're told, but I don't know whether that is a conditioned response. But it does seem like when a child is two or three they will often try to assert their own authority. And perhaps when that happens, if you let the child understand that you respect their boundaries and their ability to make choices for themselves, without simply giving in to whatever they want, perhaps you can teach them that it's ok not to do something if they're not comfortable with it. That would certainly go a long way to preventing abuse, since a child being abused would react very strongly since they are used to having their personal boundaries respected.
Another aspect of it is language. Im many cases, it seems like children would be incapable of reporting abuse because they don't really know what it is or how to describe it. Rather than shielding them from sexual language, it might make more sense to explain sexual concepts to them in simple language that is easy for them to understand. That way you can explain to them that it's bad for an adult to do certain things to them, and if something happens you will know about it and be able to do something about it.
The problem is not a lack of understanding. People make decisions about things they don't understand every day, it's hardly unique to children. Should we prosecute a man for rape because a woman he had sex with did not understand that he would leave afterward and never talk to her again?
The problem is that children naturally assume, or are conditioned to assume that adults have authority over them. They believe that they have to do what an adult tells them. That means that even if they did understand, and did not what to go along with it, they would be compelled to comply anyway. That's the problem we're talking about.
As far as dictatorships go, Saudi Arabia hardly qualifies as one of the worst. Quite the opposite, really. The pragmatic approach to diplomacy taken by the leadership there has been stabilizing force in the region. It's rare you see a government on good terms with both the West and the East, but Saudi Arabia clearly is. Also, they have a relatively liberal attitude on personal freedoms, when compared to neighboring countries. I'm not saying it's all happy fluffy bunnies and pretty rainbows over there, but you've got to give them some credit.
Nope, they simply hold up different idols.
It's hard to say. It depends whether the person I'm replying to has enough curiosity to investigate my claims. It's worth a try anyway.
Haha, obviously I meant "all of these verses were written before the Bible was compiled" saying it the other way makes no sense at all.
Ok, but in the middle east it's a lot more common for people to say someone should be killed when what the really mean is that the person has done something really bad. I know it's also more common for them to actually kill the person as well, but the point is that it's not good to take these things to literally when we have similar figures of speech today.
If Jesus really advocated stoning people, he would have done it rather than saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". So let's be reasonable about this.
As an aside, when they say "Anyone who curses their father or mother." they are also saying something different than what we think of today. It's important to understand the historical context.
This is the only place this word has ever been used that we know of. How the hell do you know what it means?
Here is the passage in another translation:
The word in greek you're referring to is "theopneustos" Strong's concordance number 2315. This is the only place it appears in the Bible, and the only place we know of where it has ever even been written. It seems to be a term coined by Paul. The basis of the translation "God-Breathed" comes from the greek words "Theós" meaning God, and "pnéo" meaning to breathe.
Most scholars think it should be taken to mean that all scriptures are inspired by God. But there are some who believe that it means to refer only to those scriptures that were inspired by God (as in the translation I showed you above).
In any case there is a lot of room here for the reader to interpret the text. But, the idea that Paul could have been referring to the Bible itself (and the entire Bible at that) is silly because parts of it hadn't even been written, and it hadn't been complied into a single book. If Paul himself had complied the Bible, maybe you'd have something (something resembling Mormonism, anyway) but he didn't, so your interpretation is reaching well beyond what Paul actually could have meant by it.
What's the take away from all this? You need to stop holding up the Bible as an idol. I actually agree with Paul that all scripture is useful, but that includes the parts where it warns against idolatry.
They're hoping you'll go look it up, so that maybe you'll go read beyond what they've cited. In a way it's better than simply quoting the verse, since it forces the reader to view the verse in context.
I've had coworkers like that, though not when there was such a thing as the Soviet Union, so maybe attitudes have changed?
There's a difference between saying that something is God breathed, and that it is the word of God. There is also a difference between saying that the scriptures are God breathed and saying the Bible is God breathed (after all, it's not like Paul would have thought his letter would be considered scriptural). Moreover, there is a really big difference between saying that something is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness" and saying that it is completely accurate and literally true.
So in reality you are just doing what I was saying. Taking a small part of the Bible out of context, and adding your own claims to it.
First of all, none of these verses were written before the Bible was compiled. So it's a bit silly to say that any verse in the Bible is referring to the Bible itself.
2 Timothy 3:16: Does saying something is God breathed mean that it is the true word of God? Is Paul really trying to set the Bible (which was not compiled) as an infallible text? Or are you taking him out of context?
Psalm 19:7-9: Is it reasonable to say that the Law and the Testimony of God refers to the Bible? Or are you talking this out of context as well?
Deuteronomy 4:2: This is a commandment, not a claim.
Revelation 22:19: Is it referring to the Bible? Or the Book or Revelation? Or the prophecy itself?
The Bible describes this as idolatry. Basically, if you can take a concept and put it into a box, you can gain authority over the idea in people's minds and substitute your own voice for the idea. The Bible is actually a good example of this itself. Even though the Bible never actually claims to be the word of God (in fact, it never claims to be true or accurate either) pastors have an easy time holding it up as a physical manifestation of such ideas. Form there it's a fairly simple matter to pick and choose through it, adding their own words here and there, and presto! Suddenly they've got their own words accepted by people as being from God.
The principle is easily applied elsewhere, and you see it all the time.
It's important to understand that peace doesn't mean the same thing to everybody.
Just to clarify, are you saying his tweet was despicable, or that arresting him over it was?
The tweet was made on Muhammad's birthday. He was accused of apostasy as a result, an offense punishable by death in the muslim tradition.
Sure. They didn't end poverty or provide medical care for everyone. And they're rapidly going bankrupt. Other than that, they're totally successful.
Yes, though the closest analogue is probably electrodialysis reversal. The difference is that no existing technology has been able to economically remove salt in concentrations as high as seawater (though they have been used for brackish water).
Ever heard of satellite phones?
Many of these areas in Idaho (where I'm from) are actually too rugged to be used for logging. Why anyone would think they need 3G coverage is beyond me.