This is very insightful. The corrupt politicians and the corpos that 0wn them want us to be at each others' throats singing "horray for our side", all while they work together to screw us over. It's not about who's Democrat or Republican, it's about corrput power-mad manipulators playing the game -- pulling our strings to keep us fighting among ourselves over issues they care less about, while consolidating their own power to the point where the farce may eventually become unnecessary.
Probably because most other nations that have required such things in the past have been totalitarianregimes that have solidified thier power through such measures.
Riders are basically unethical. Maybe a solution would be to make it so that any citizen who has a law passed that would affect him/her is permitted to file suit against the legislator that originally introduced the bill. If a jury of normal citizens decides that the law has "riders", which would be defined basically the same as your definition -- something that has absolutely nothing to do with the base bill -- the bill would be thrown out, and the legislator would be impeached for ethics violations.
The real problem is that the people they're trying to stop, terrorists, will probably still be able to get them [fake ID's].
Sorry, not one of the 9/11 terrorists would have been stopped by this. They all had real ID's. Clearly, this is not intended to stop terrorists, unless the working definition of "terrorists" is "We the people".
Sorry, the GP was right. You are missing the point. The ID folks believe the complex beings in this Universe require a creator. This does not preclude the existence of realities outside of our Universe that do not follow our same laws (there could presumably be other laws entirely independent of this reality). Because such alien realities would be entirely unbound by the laws that we observe and test here, whether a Creator for such extra-universal (is that a word?) things is necessary cannot be determined from our POV.
That's exactly the way I felt. The icons and the button widgets are especially ugly. This is one area where both Linux and OS X are way ahead of the Redmond camp, IMHO.
I've found that, after eating all the popped ones, you can flatten the bag again, roll up the opening a couple times (so it's like it's sealed again), and give it another 30-45 seconds in the microwave (mileage may vary, don't overpop! It will burn.), and roughly the same percentage will pop up, again. You can keep repeating this process and get almost 100% popped kernels this way.
I want to start off by saying that we are probably more in agreement on several key points than is readily apparent from our previous posts...
So if indeed it IS a metaphor, it can then be readily assumed that any other statement in the bible is also a metaphor, and not to be taken literally.
I agree. There is no way for any modern reader to know when the original author who has been dead for thousands of years was using metaphor (even if fairly common in his/her day) or was being literal, unless God himself tells us what the original author meant. Catholics claim the pope talks to God and does just this. They take interpretation of scripture to one extreme where the pope is the only one qualified to interpret, while the fundies take it to the other, insisting they "don't need no priests" and everybody and their dog can just base themselves on the good ol' bible. Even so, their preachers still liberally interpret to congregations. I believe both are wrong. The Bible clearly is not perfect, as the fundies claim, so that anyone can read and understand. If this were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion. OTOH, if the Catholics believe that they have direct communication from God, why is the pope elected by popular vote among the cardinals? If they truly talk to God, why don't they ask Him to make the selection? I could go on for days about the many other flip-flops God has supposedly made on behalf of the Catholics. You're probably aware of most of this, anyway. Religionists that claim, or imply to have correctly identified where each and every scripture is literal and where it is metaphor either ignorant or lying. It sure doesn't spell it out in the Bible. I did not mean to imply that I know for a fact that metaphor is being used here. It just sure looks like it to me (quite a lot, actually). Take that for what it's worth.
You need to look into biblical inerrancy (According to the bible it is THE word of god, and is never wrong, not even in the smallest detail)
The bible doesn't make the claim of being perfect. In fact, the bible never makes mention of itself, because it didn't exist when the authors were writing the various books that were many centuries later -- in a rather random and haphazard way -- compiled into what we now call "the Bible". I'm quite aware of the dogma (mostly taught by fundies) that the "good book" is perfect. I mentioned earlier that I know the bible has mistakes and contradictions. Your failure to recognize this suggests an intention to "categorize" me into one of the neat packages of beliefs you've successfully dealt with in the past.
Also, it's worth noting it's not described as "The smallest seed you'll have seen", or any other such qualifier. It is described literally as being THE smallest seed.
I don't think it would be necessary to be so specific, but maybe you're right. Maybe this is an error. As I've already stated, I don't believe in the infallibility of the bible. I think it's a ridiculous and ignorant dogma. My world remains unshattered.
There is absolutely no evidence for large populations of giants as described in the bible.
I see someone else already responded to you about the Watusi (tutsi), but I'm a nice guy. I'll provide a link.
KJV is invariably the version I'm requested to refer to in these debates
[emphasis mine]
Maybe our goal should be to have a productive discussion, instead of winning a debate.
Categorizing the ideas of the person with whom you are conversing as the "Translation Error Excuse", or the "Metaphor Excuse", or any other such supposed title is simply a technique taught in debate class to leave your "opponent" in ridicule. Bravo -- good debate skills. Where's the substance?
All biblical dragon references take place in the book of Revelation, where it is clearly poetic / symbolic. All other instances mention serpents or leviathan (crocodile).
A document which asserts the earth is flat, at the centre of the universe,
Catholic dogma. Not biblical.
and rests on pillars,
Ever heard of poetry? I guess I'm asking too much of a Slashdotter.
that the mustard seed is the smallest seed,
Teachers tend to gear their lessons to the understanding of the pupils. If Jesus were to have named some, as of then, undiscovered seed that were smaller, would this have helped in any way the point he was trying to make about faith, or would his botany lesson just get in the way?
that hares and coneys chew the cud,
Haven't seen that one. I do recognize that the Bible contains errors, though. I just think we should focus on the real ones, and not try to pretend the author is an idiot for using accepted poetic techniques.
"Unicorn" was used by the King James and other translators for the original Hebrew word "reh-ame", which means a wild bull.
that bats are birds,
Our modern concept of families, classes, orders, species, etc. Are lines that we have drawn that are most convenient for a scientifically dominated culture. Besides, there are many translation errors in all versions of the Bible. I don't have a greek interlinear (or Hebrew if this is from the OT) on me, but maybe the original word just meant "flying thing", which would be correct -- bats do fly. I would suspect this argument falls apart for the non-anglo readers that use other translations.
that stars are small objects which can fall fromt the sky and be stamped upon,
Again, this is obvious poetry. According to your logic, a poet that says something like "Love is a rose" is a complete moron, but you are the smart one, because you know that love really isn't a rose.
I know that this quote comes out in just about every UFO book I've ever seen, but I don't see much evidence (at least in the biblical account you quote) that these living creatures were from another planet, though. Just my 2 cents.
The Bible doesn't really talk about anything like this, and ou are correct in assuming that fundie's will probably have hissy-fits over something like this. The popular idea that all Christian religious belief falls apart at the discovery of life on other planets, however, isn't entirely accurate. From what I can tell, this is mostly due to the Catholic church's stubborn terra-centricity during the middle ages. Although the existance of life on other planets may be incompatible with many Christian relgions, there do exist others that have accounted for this for quite some time. Interestingly, Mormon scripture (specifically the book of Moses) talks about God showing Moses many other planets He had created and the inhabitants on them:
And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and
there were inhabitants on the face thereof...
And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten...
But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are
many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
[emphasis mine]
...basically Mormons have believed in innumerable amounts of life elsewhere since 1830.
This is exactly the thing that keeps me coming back to Opera. I have a 22" monitor at 1920x1440 resolution. Many websites are unreadable at this resolution unless I zoom to 200%.
Slashdot Mirror
This is very insightful. The corrupt politicians and the corpos that 0wn them want us to be at each others' throats singing "horray for our side", all while they work together to screw us over. It's not about who's Democrat or Republican, it's about corrput power-mad manipulators playing the game -- pulling our strings to keep us fighting among ourselves over issues they care less about, while consolidating their own power to the point where the farce may eventually become unnecessary.
Probably because most other nations that have required such things in the past have been totalitarian regimes that have solidified thier power through such measures.
Riders are basically unethical. Maybe a solution would be to make it so that any citizen who has a law passed that would affect him/her is permitted to file suit against the legislator that originally introduced the bill. If a jury of normal citizens decides that the law has "riders", which would be defined basically the same as your definition -- something that has absolutely nothing to do with the base bill -- the bill would be thrown out, and the legislator would be impeached for ethics violations.
Sorry, not one of the 9/11 terrorists would have been stopped by this. They all had real ID's. Clearly, this is not intended to stop terrorists, unless the working definition of "terrorists" is "We the people".
I'm moving to the Artic circle. Looks like they're solidly in the 'Clean' category :-)
I played the C64 version. I can remember that I got to the Fuzzbomb, but I never beat him.
I absolutely agree with you here. It is not science. It is a matter of faith.
Sorry, the GP was right. You are missing the point. The ID folks believe the complex beings in this Universe require a creator. This does not preclude the existence of realities outside of our Universe that do not follow our same laws (there could presumably be other laws entirely independent of this reality). Because such alien realities would be entirely unbound by the laws that we observe and test here, whether a Creator for such extra-universal (is that a word?) things is necessary cannot be determined from our POV.
Maybe you could configure an out of country proxy to do ssh over the https port, so you can claim you were just doing some online banking?
Where I used to live everything was TELNOR. Are they the same company?
So does this mean we're finally gonna get Bin Laden?
Don't forget that they're also stripping down the much-hyped Next Generation Secure Computing Base (NGSCB). Longhorn is looking more underwhelming with each press release.
That's exactly the way I felt. The icons and the button widgets are especially ugly. This is one area where both Linux and OS X are way ahead of the Redmond camp, IMHO.
If you're implying that people are born gay, I'd like to have a look at your research, because pretty much everything I've ever seen used to support this has been subsequently discredited.
I'm afraid I don't understand. What does Linus' new SCM have to do with this?
For a limited time, you can get a special sneak peek of the new series!
Note to mods: Intended to be humorous.
I don't know about Frist, it but sounds like Howard Dean might have something to do with it.
I've found that, after eating all the popped ones, you can flatten the bag again, roll up the opening a couple times (so it's like it's sealed again), and give it another 30-45 seconds in the microwave (mileage may vary, don't overpop! It will burn.), and roughly the same percentage will pop up, again. You can keep repeating this process and get almost 100% popped kernels this way.
lol! Good to hear it's working! ;-)
I want to start off by saying that we are probably more in agreement on several key points than is readily apparent from our previous posts...
I agree. There is no way for any modern reader to know when the original author who has been dead for thousands of years was using metaphor (even if fairly common in his/her day) or was being literal, unless God himself tells us what the original author meant. Catholics claim the pope talks to God and does just this. They take interpretation of scripture to one extreme where the pope is the only one qualified to interpret, while the fundies take it to the other, insisting they "don't need no priests" and everybody and their dog can just base themselves on the good ol' bible. Even so, their preachers still liberally interpret to congregations. I believe both are wrong. The Bible clearly is not perfect, as the fundies claim, so that anyone can read and understand. If this were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion. OTOH, if the Catholics believe that they have direct communication from God, why is the pope elected by popular vote among the cardinals? If they truly talk to God, why don't they ask Him to make the selection? I could go on for days about the many other flip-flops God has supposedly made on behalf of the Catholics. You're probably aware of most of this, anyway. Religionists that claim, or imply to have correctly identified where each and every scripture is literal and where it is metaphor either ignorant or lying. It sure doesn't spell it out in the Bible. I did not mean to imply that I know for a fact that metaphor is being used here. It just sure looks like it to me (quite a lot, actually). Take that for what it's worth.
The bible doesn't make the claim of being perfect. In fact, the bible never makes mention of itself, because it didn't exist when the authors were writing the various books that were many centuries later -- in a rather random and haphazard way -- compiled into what we now call "the Bible". I'm quite aware of the dogma (mostly taught by fundies) that the "good book" is perfect. I mentioned earlier that I know the bible has mistakes and contradictions. Your failure to recognize this suggests an intention to "categorize" me into one of the neat packages of beliefs you've successfully dealt with in the past.
I don't think it would be necessary to be so specific, but maybe you're right. Maybe this is an error. As I've already stated, I don't believe in the infallibility of the bible. I think it's a ridiculous and ignorant dogma. My world remains unshattered.
I see someone else already responded to you about the Watusi (tutsi), but I'm a nice guy. I'll provide a link.
[emphasis mine]
Maybe our goal should be to have a productive discussion, instead of winning a debate.
Categorizing the ideas of the person with whom you are conversing as the "Translation Error Excuse", or the "Metaphor Excuse", or any other such supposed title is simply a technique taught in debate class to leave your "opponent" in ridicule. Bravo -- good debate skills. Where's the substance?
So, what's my stance?
Hello again!
I'll bite
All biblical dragon references take place in the book of Revelation, where it is clearly poetic / symbolic. All other instances mention serpents or leviathan (crocodile).
Catholic dogma. Not biblical.
Ever heard of poetry? I guess I'm asking too much of a Slashdotter.
Teachers tend to gear their lessons to the understanding of the pupils. If Jesus were to have named some, as of then, undiscovered seed that were smaller, would this have helped in any way the point he was trying to make about faith, or would his botany lesson just get in the way?
Haven't seen that one. I do recognize that the Bible contains errors, though. I just think we should focus on the real ones, and not try to pretend the author is an idiot for using accepted poetic techniques.
I've got to admit, you've got me on this one. Giants could never really exist.
"Unicorn" was used by the King James and other translators for the original Hebrew word "reh-ame", which means a wild bull.
Our modern concept of families, classes, orders, species, etc. Are lines that we have drawn that are most convenient for a scientifically dominated culture. Besides, there are many translation errors in all versions of the Bible. I don't have a greek interlinear (or Hebrew if this is from the OT) on me, but maybe the original word just meant "flying thing", which would be correct -- bats do fly. I would suspect this argument falls apart for the non-anglo readers that use other translations.
Again, this is obvious poetry. According to your logic, a poet that says something like "Love is a rose" is a complete moron, but you are the smart one, because you know that love really isn't a rose.
I know that this quote comes out in just about every UFO book I've ever seen, but I don't see much evidence (at least in the biblical account you quote) that these living creatures were from another planet, though. Just my 2 cents.
The Bible doesn't really talk about anything like this, and ou are correct in assuming that fundie's will probably have hissy-fits over something like this. The popular idea that all Christian religious belief falls apart at the discovery of life on other planets, however, isn't entirely accurate. From what I can tell, this is mostly due to the Catholic church's stubborn terra-centricity during the middle ages. Although the existance of life on other planets may be incompatible with many Christian relgions, there do exist others that have accounted for this for quite some time. Interestingly, Mormon scripture (specifically the book of Moses) talks about God showing Moses many other planets He had created and the inhabitants on them:
[emphasis mine]
...basically Mormons have believed in innumerable amounts of life elsewhere since 1830.
This is exactly the thing that keeps me coming back to Opera. I have a 22" monitor at 1920x1440 resolution. Many websites are unreadable at this resolution unless I zoom to 200%.