Och... wish I had the time to find the proper citation, but that little tidbit has been more or less disproven. Basically, the article often bandied about scrambles just the right letters to keep it still readable.
The qsoietun rinmeas, wulod stmhnieg lkie tihs slitl be rdlaebae?
You'd be surprised how quiet they are. They're not bothered to scream or shout - they're mostly trying to breathe. They move very little, splash very little, kick straight down, do dumb, ineffective things with their arms.... The quiet, animalistic panic just before drowning is a little eerie to watch.
I can vouch for that from personal experience. Years back, when I was a child, we used to go to a pool a mile or two down the road from our house. There was a set of stairs on one side and to the left of it was the shallow end and on the right, it started sharply declining. I hadn't learned to swim yet, but I was Ok as long as I was in the shallow end. Well, I got confused one day and jumped off on the right side. Luckily, it was shallow enough still that I could push off of the bottom and just barely reach air. Still, I remember how scary it was because it took pushing off as hard as I could to get up there and there just wasn't enough time to gulp air and still cry out for help. Luckily, someone spotted my flailing (a friend of the family nearby) and helped pull me out. In retrospect, I should have been pushing towards the side of the pool, but I was, of course, kind of panicked at the time.
Oh, and by the by, the list usually bandied about in emails is supposedly that year's survey from Playboy as to the top 10 party schools in the US. They did release such a list. Once. In the 70's. Oh, and UD wasn't on it. Go figure.
Actually, my exposure to it was via an emulator. Father Schoen, my CPS250 professor, started teaching right around when the university switched from drum memory to punch cards. He teaches two classes, 250 and 131. 250 is for CS and ECE students and involved running IBM 370 assembly code on this emulated mainframe, EBCDIC and all. 131 was his "high level programming" course for other engineering students and involved C on the same emulator. While his class was frequently quote frustrating, due to the limitations of the systems we worked on, it was also very educational because a) he took us down to the very basics of how things run and b) as an "old school" programmer, he presented a different view from our other CS professors who preached design-before-code and all kinds of optimization. Father Schoen's point of view was that for most tasks, you just needed something that worked. Optimization and detailed planning were to be reserved for larger projects, where you would actually reap the awards of time spent.
I'm curious as to where you're quoting this from, mainly because I graduated from the University of Dayton which was often quoted as "one of the top ten party schools in the US" but no one knew where the statistic came from. Incidentally, UD really does make a good school for partying, although it also has a strong reputation for turning out quality engineering students. Many students live in the University owned student neighborhood (commonly known as "the Ghetto" if you're one side of campus or "the Darkside" if you're on the other one due to some history behind what the neighborhoods were before they were student housing) which is composed of houses that are so old and run-down that the students can't do much to permanently damage them. As a result, there's a very strong community aspect. Most parties are open to anyone who shows up and finding one is as easy as strolling through the neighborhood. The open setup really leads to a strong community spirit and we've had a very low rate of alcohol-related fatalities because no one drinks alone.
^_^ "University of Dayton: Because the first miracle Jesus ever did was to keep the party going."
The only difference would be (a) whether you can keep what you've won so far, and....
Actually, at least as of a book I read a while ago, written about a decade ago (I know, lousy source...), casinos have every right to refuse to pay out on chips. You have bought chips, but you have never entered into a contract with them to be able to sell them back. Of course, casinos generally don't refuse to pay out on chips, even in cases of card counting, because it would cost them more in bad publicity (you don't want people aware that there is no obligation for the casino to pay out when you hit the triple jackpot on the slot machine). Interestingly enough, casinos also have no real legal recourse for debts. If they loan you $500 in chips and you refuse to pay them that $500 at day's end, the worst they can do is ban you from the casino.
While I'm actually very fond of reading large amounts of text on the computer - I've been making my way through many of the classics via Project Gutenberg - there's nothing that quite replaces the feel and smell of having a book that's over a hundred years old in your hands. At that, I've only had luck with reading books with the print part of it. Illustrations and things often slow to a crawl. So nice that real life has no lag...
Well I don't know about the lions, but you could ride an elephant to work. Just add some cup-holders and you have a nice SUE (Sport Utility Elephant).
My immediate response would be that the SUE leaks a lot more crap than the SUV, but then I thought of my co-workers' auto-repair habits and changed my mind.
Problem is, an SUE would have a top speed of, what, 15 MPH and can only maintain it for so long? On, the other hand, it has killer z-displacement!
Reminds me of that old joke about two lions escaping from the zoo. They met up a few weeks later. The first lion was gaunt, ribs showing, a hunted look in his eyes. The second was fat, sleek, and glossy. The first lion said, "It's horrible out there! I tried to eat one person and I've had men with guns and nets chasing me for weeks. How are you doing so well?" The second lion said, "I just sit outside of IBM and eat managers. So far no one's missed them."
I wish I had time to find an article on it, but I remember a few years ago, this guy was making headlines because he would pick up a girl from a bar, get her out to a secluded area, calmly explain to her that were he a murderer or rapist, there was no one to stop him, then drive her back. The police were trying to find something to charge him with, but could never find anything.
Actually, "issues" was the word I was looking for. I've met many people who've had a bad experience with Christianity (many of which were sons or daughters of holy rollers of the worst type, especially the sons and daughters of ministers) and it had turned you bitter on it. Now, I see that you're more in tune with Niesztche. {shakes head} People have twisted him all around. When he said "God is dead," he added that it was because his worshippers had killed him. I guess I would just urge you to consider Christians on their own rather than judging them by our more abberrant examples or as members of a power-lusting cult. I know. That last bit weren't your actual words, but I'm drawing a blank as to how to properly describe it. I just feel that you've picked up a viewpoint on Christianity and it has flavoured your view since.
To address a few peripheral points, like I said I've mixed views on war, similarly with violence. One of these days I'm going to have to dig up that paper I wrote about Christian martial arts... Basically, I argued that while we were told to not pursue "an eye for an eye," neither are we meant to not resist at all when we find evil in the world. Maybe I'm misreading you again, but I'm unsure as to whether you are condemning violence in general, or just condemning those who make excuses of religion when really they just want the violence.
So, in a general conclusion, I am not bothered at all by your continued argument. I too like to be right and tell everyone about it. And I know that the moment I stop sincerely listening to other people and considering their arguments, I will be a zealot of the worst sort. The only exception I make to always welcoming religious debate is that I avoid it with friends and co-workers, but that's because religion is one of those issues that makes most people see red. Whether you're a fundamentalist Christian trying to save the souls of your co-workers whether they like it or not, an atheist who is bound and determined to make sure everyone realizes there is no God, or someone (I want to say agnostic or deist but I know that's not quite right) who believes that religion happens in all kinds of forms and no one should espouse their particular viewpoint as the truth, people tend to get empassioned when it comes to religion. Which, really, is good. I'd be really scared if the religious people around me were apathetic. "If you are not hot or cold, I will spit you out" all of that.
Ah, and the last peripheral point I was planning on addressing before... you are frequently quoting "science" in a manner which seems like you feel it opposes religion. Me, I've always been a big believer that science proves God's existence and that the ability to reason is one of the greater gifts we have been given. It makes life hard sometimes, as it leads us to questions like when life begins, what the quality or price of a human life is, etc. To me, that's all good as it is only when we have questions that we can find answers. And, quite frankly, it also shows repeatedly that the world is such a complex and wonderful thing that we will likely never truly understand it. Every light we cast creates more shadows.
Anyhow, I have places I must be today, so I bid you good day. Thanks for the argument.
It sounds like you've got some definite issues with religion. Unfortunately, I'm not a rhetorical genius and I've got a lousy track record of trying to convince people. I know what I know and a lot of it comes down to personally knowing God is out there, being able to feel it. *sigh* Which doesn't make a very convincing argument to people who can't feel him out there. It's like trying to describe the difference in red and green to a color-blind person sometimes.
Ultimately, look at Jesus. He was a popular, revolutionary figure, not to mention allegedly omnipotent. He could have led a revolution of Jews against the Romans, but instead of getting violent, he let them kill him.
You choose an interesting example. That has been a hot topic ever since Jesus started preaching. If he were the Son of God, why did he let us kill him? The pat and documented answer was that something in his sacrifice opened the gates of Heaven to us. I think also it's a recognition that violent actions often don't have a lasting consequence. Revolutions tend to go 360 degrees, etc. It is interesting that you compare the spread of Christianity to cancer, as in a way, it fits in in its method. Some diseases ravage their way through a population and a months later, they no longer exist. Cancer tends to work subtly, changing cells one by one, only showing itself when it has staying power. Similarly, Christianity has often been a very subtle religion. Most of us don't bomb clinics or stand on street corners preaching. Rather, we spread a message of love and acceptance through a quiet and religious life. *wry grin* Now you and I seem to disagree as to whether the end result is a good thing... *shrug* I really don't know that there's anything I can say to quell your venom there.
As for your examples of "cancer in Christian philosophy," I think what you're seeing there is more that in any given group, there will be unbalanced individuals and those who are seeking to use the group for their own purpose. It all comes down to that pesky free will which lets us all decide what path we decide to take.
FWIW, I'm not talking about picketers at abortion clinics - I'm talking about shooters, who don't "hide the gun" (not sure what that means), but pull the gun and shoot it.
While, as I said, I am not a supporter of violence and neither is my church, it's an interesting moral question there too. You'd jump to the defense of someone who was about to be killed, right? Possibly killing or maiming the attacker if it saved their victims and you had no other choice? {shakes head} Thing is, these people don't understand that they're killing people (or they don't care, which I find even more scary) and in the end, there's a negative end result. In some ways, it's like Churchhill and Coventry. Sometimes you must refrain from acting directly to save more lives.
Smoking is bad for the smoker, regardless of one's faith. Homosexuality is not, any more than heterosexuality, which can break your heart or infect you with the same diseases.
*crooked grin* And how long ago was it that people didn't believe smoking was bad for you? Besides which, as I said, this is from the perspective of caring for someone's immortal soul. If you truly believe that an action is morally wrong and you do not warn your fellow man against it, you are morally complicit in his sin.
Since you're talking about confronting sin, or be complicit, I wonder what you think is the appropriate reaction to our invasion of Iraq, killing many people, without it being the threat it was claimed (which might justify killing, in "self defense", to some). Or the torture being practiced in the name of American national security in prisons like Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, or those of the tyrannies to which we're "rendering" prisoners, knowing they'll be tortured by the likes of Syria, Egypt and other "allies".
I have mixed feelings about the war. *wry grin* I have mixed feelings about war in general. Sometimes it is necessary to fight to defend yourself, others, and ideals. I do think this war was inspired more by oil, industry, and political expediency than by any moral outrage, but once we decided to get into it, I feel we were obliged to stay as long as the Iragi populace wanted help. One of the most terrible things done in the first Gulf War was that the Iraqi people who helped the American soldiers were promised protection, then were left behind to be executed by the government, which stayed in place. As for the Abu Gharib situation, the soldiers were definitely in the wrong and should be punished as should any superiors who were aware of the situation and did not stop it. On the other hand, I have friends in the military and when you're surrounded by people trying to hurt you, it can drive you a little crazy. It happened in Vietnam. It happened in the World Wars. It happened in the Revolutionary War. It doesn't help that they're pretty terminally understaffed out there. So while the actions cannot be condoned, it must be recognized also that the soliders were likely not entirely in their right minds at the time. Definitely the ones who were proud of it should be strung up by their toenails.
Unfortunately, there's some backlash in that you have a lot of people cruising the Wikipedia pages and putting up for VfD any site which mentions a commercially available product that they're not familiar with. Just look at the VfD for Zillions of Games... Although, in that case, at least Ril was feeling suspicious due to some problems with a frequent contributor to the article also doing link-spamming to it.
And yes, I think the page is significant, although moreso if you're into abstract board game theory, chess variants, or artificial intelligence.
Yeah, or the toilet paper rolls advertising "lasts 30% longer!" when they're using single-ply instead of double-ply. I'm just waiting for someone to start advertising food having, "less fat per serving than our competitor" and we find that they're advertising "a serving" as being half a chip.
(Luke 26:36) "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
We could be quoting scripture all night at this rate.
Quite honestly, when you get to Protestant churches, there are about as many teachings as there are churches. There's a core value structure, but positions on things like homosexuality and artificial contraception will vary. Catholic churches have a central authority, which means they have a definite position.
And yes, after an event like an abortion shooting, it is very common for a priest to speak about it, warning us that violence only begets violence, to love our neighbours, and such.
And as for "[prioritizing] those Christian ideals, above ideals against homosexuality and reproductive freedom," you sound like you're assuming the two are incompatible. Quite honestly, the injunction to love one's neighbour insists that we speak against such activities if we believe them wrong. Doing anything else is damning our neighbours through indifference. It is in fact specifically stated in the Bible that if someone is living in a sinful manner and you do not try to guide them back to the proper path, the sin is yours as well. That said, I can state that Cahtolicism does not support force. We will counsel. We will attempt to work within the legal structure to help people. We do not use violence or force. It's one of those core ideals which, when strayed from, is a key indication of someone trying to play God.
And that said, it's an interesting theological question as to what kind of activity one can do. If a friend pulled out a gun and stuck it to their head, you'd try to talk them down or wrestle the gun away, right? It's a matter of immediate life and death, you care about their life, and most cases of attempted suicide involve someone who hasn't thought the situation through. If one believes in an afterlife, should we not value our friend's eternal life as high if not higher than their mortal life? And with the ideals of Christian love, are we not all brothers? Similarly, one can see the viewpoint of picketers at an abortion clinic, hindering those who are planning on commiting spiritual suicide. They "hide the gun" by attempting to make abortions more difficult to get, sometimes by laws getting passed requiring some degree of counseling or at least parental involvement and sometimes by just standing there at the gates, praying, forcing people to think about what they're doing.
The case regarding artificial contraception and homosexual behavior gets even more interesting. Here we have something less immediate in its damage and more generally acceptable to society. Homosexuality is often viewed kind of like how smoking is in secular society. You're not about to rip that cigarette out of a smoker's mouth, but you feel obligated to inform them of the dangers and to make it more difficult to obtain their poisons through taxes and tarrifs. You're not likely to stop being friends with someone if they start smoking, but you ask them not to do it in your presence and you never stop gently encouraging them to give it up. And above all, you recognize it as a battle which you may never lose, but in the spirit of love, you must keep fighting.
*shrug* And I'm heavily digressing, but I think that it's an interesting thing to consider. If we are Christians in spirit as well as in name, we must speak up regarding what we believe is wrong.
But Christianity is defined by what's in "the book."
*harrumph* You may wish to clarify that statement. As a Catholic, I believe in both word and tradition. Quite honestly, given the Bible was written almost 2 millenia ago, I don't really know how one can go entirely off of what's printed there, particularly as most of us are dealing with a work that has been translated multiple times. (Personally, I use RSV, which is one of the better translations for saying in English what was originally stated in Aramaic. Many of the people who quote sola scriptura, or reliance only on what's in "the Book" are often quoting from KJV which was not only a translation of a translation, but was also commissioned by King James, who had a politcal agenda.) I'll be honest. I don't read Latin, let alone Aramaic or Greek, so I'm one of those dealing with a translation, although I try to pick intelligent ones.
And yes, a fundamental in all main branches of Christianity is that nothing that we can do will guarentee entrance to Heaven. Whether you've done good needs all of your life, lived your life without commiting one sin (as mentioned above, practically impossible) or even if you've "been saved" and "accepted Jesus into your heart," there is no guarentee of Heaven. Heaven is only reached by the grace of God as none of us are fit to go. *shrug* So those people who say we're all damned and going to Hell are more or less right, except that God has promised that he will grant mercy on us. Depending on which section of the gospel you read, it's either reported that it is either through faith or by faith and good works that we make ourselves worthy.
Go ahead and just get a desktop computer. It's cheaper and your kid can learn how computers work by upgrading it.
Besides which, why does everyone keep insisting that laptops are ubiquitous in classes? Most engineering students I knew found paper and pencil to be faster and more flexible for jotting down notes.
honestly, the cell phone "service" looks a lot like inkjet ink. way out of proportion to what it actually costs and what they foist on people to pay. what the market will bear... well this market should stand up and tell them they won't bear it anymore.... well dreams are all we have in these troubling times.
Quite frankly, I found cell phone prices to be competitive with those of landlines. I'm paying less to maintain a cell phone than I was to have the phone company maintain my phone which only worked in my house.
Now if I can only get my cell phone to work inside my house... darn Sprint communication coverage which coincidentally covers their stores, but not the rest of town...
If God wanted the day to start earlier, he'd just change the roation of the Earth like he did for Elijah when he needed an extra day! These durned politicans are trying to play god, wreaking havoc on natural processes! God created seasons and trying to live by some artificial schedule is thumbing your nose at him, saying "I don't need your seasons and I don't need you!"</RANT>
Ok, so that argument is a little silly, but I'm sure someone out there would advance it. ^_^ But seriously, in terms of morality, it's been proven that DST results in more accidents due to sleepy drivers and joggers who no longer have daylight during their normal exercise hours. The increased fatalities caused by this arbitrary change in time could be seen as a moral issue. *shrug* Or some might see it as Darwinian selection. Those who are fool enough to jog without lights and reflectors (Och... and don't even get me started on people on designated bike paths who are jogging or walking in pitch darkness with no reflectors or lights...) are eliminated. ^_^ And the computer geeks will survive. The benefits of a sendentary lifestyle...
The current patent problems are just a symptom of a fundemental flaw in humanity.
>GOD: *sigh* Never should have given those monkeys sentience... messed it all up to Hell.
*shrug* Heck, ask any religious person and they'll admit that free will is one of the greatest barriers to Heaven possible. We're given free reign to sin to our heart's content and all God will do is plead for us to return to the fold. It's both the greatest asset and the greatest flaw that humanity has. Interestingly enough, the concept of "free will" is a fairly modern one, within the last few centuries.
But I digress. I agree that most people cannot take proper care of themselves. If we collapsed civilization back into roving bands of foragers, we wouldn't need government, but one of the prices of advanced civilization is that it becomes something greater than any one human can handle. *wry grin* And quite honestly, I think people have gotten so used to the general high standard of living owed to civilization that they start to assume that with things so good, they don't really need their fellow man, or at least not so much of him.
^_^ And that said, I'm starting to consider this whole patent business. Heck, we need some people who know what they're talking about regarding computers in there refusing the silly patents, right?
*shrug* Because when they started allowing people to write in the Star Wars universe, they decided that novels had to be canon. To publish one, you have to submit it back to the Lucas Industries where they'll check it against established history. That way, whenever you read a Star Wars novel, you know that what you're reading is actually part of the history and you won't have to juggle a half-dozen alternate realities in your head, trying to remember if in the current book, Leia's mother was an alien or not. I highly appreciate the idea, although the insistence of fans on having Jedi has led to a lot of silly plot devices for why these Jedi were not sensed by Vader in the movies.
That said, the recent prequels don't entirely jibe with the books. *sigh* Lucas, Lucas, Lucas...
"The bee's knees" is an expression of coolness, one of the few which survived among a group which also included "The elephant's adenoids." "Ods bodkins" is a minced oath which stands for "God's Body."
*sigh* Kids and their attempts to be cool by imitating slang...
Slashdot Mirror
The qsoietun rinmeas, wulod stmhnieg lkie tihs slitl be rdlaebae?
I can vouch for that from personal experience. Years back, when I was a child, we used to go to a pool a mile or two down the road from our house. There was a set of stairs on one side and to the left of it was the shallow end and on the right, it started sharply declining. I hadn't learned to swim yet, but I was Ok as long as I was in the shallow end. Well, I got confused one day and jumped off on the right side. Luckily, it was shallow enough still that I could push off of the bottom and just barely reach air. Still, I remember how scary it was because it took pushing off as hard as I could to get up there and there just wasn't enough time to gulp air and still cry out for help. Luckily, someone spotted my flailing (a friend of the family nearby) and helped pull me out. In retrospect, I should have been pushing towards the side of the pool, but I was, of course, kind of panicked at the time.
Oh, and by the by, the list usually bandied about in emails is supposedly that year's survey from Playboy as to the top 10 party schools in the US. They did release such a list. Once. In the 70's. Oh, and UD wasn't on it. Go figure.
Actually, my exposure to it was via an emulator. Father Schoen, my CPS250 professor, started teaching right around when the university switched from drum memory to punch cards. He teaches two classes, 250 and 131. 250 is for CS and ECE students and involved running IBM 370 assembly code on this emulated mainframe, EBCDIC and all. 131 was his "high level programming" course for other engineering students and involved C on the same emulator. While his class was frequently quote frustrating, due to the limitations of the systems we worked on, it was also very educational because a) he took us down to the very basics of how things run and b) as an "old school" programmer, he presented a different view from our other CS professors who preached design-before-code and all kinds of optimization. Father Schoen's point of view was that for most tasks, you just needed something that worked. Optimization and detailed planning were to be reserved for larger projects, where you would actually reap the awards of time spent.
^_^ "University of Dayton: Because the first miracle Jesus ever did was to keep the party going."
The only difference would be (a) whether you can keep what you've won so far, and ....
Actually, at least as of a book I read a while ago, written about a decade ago (I know, lousy source...), casinos have every right to refuse to pay out on chips. You have bought chips, but you have never entered into a contract with them to be able to sell them back. Of course, casinos generally don't refuse to pay out on chips, even in cases of card counting, because it would cost them more in bad publicity (you don't want people aware that there is no obligation for the casino to pay out when you hit the triple jackpot on the slot machine). Interestingly enough, casinos also have no real legal recourse for debts. If they loan you $500 in chips and you refuse to pay them that $500 at day's end, the worst they can do is ban you from the casino.
While I'm actually very fond of reading large amounts of text on the computer - I've been making my way through many of the classics via Project Gutenberg - there's nothing that quite replaces the feel and smell of having a book that's over a hundred years old in your hands. At that, I've only had luck with reading books with the print part of it. Illustrations and things often slow to a crawl. So nice that real life has no lag...
Well I don't know about the lions, but you could ride an elephant to work. Just add some cup-holders and you have a nice SUE (Sport Utility Elephant).
My immediate response would be that the SUE leaks a lot more crap than the SUV, but then I thought of my co-workers' auto-repair habits and changed my mind.
Problem is, an SUE would have a top speed of, what, 15 MPH and can only maintain it for so long? On, the other hand, it has killer z-displacement!
Reminds me of that old joke about two lions escaping from the zoo. They met up a few weeks later. The first lion was gaunt, ribs showing, a hunted look in his eyes. The second was fat, sleek, and glossy. The first lion said, "It's horrible out there! I tried to eat one person and I've had men with guns and nets chasing me for weeks. How are you doing so well?" The second lion said, "I just sit outside of IBM and eat managers. So far no one's missed them."
I wish I had time to find an article on it, but I remember a few years ago, this guy was making headlines because he would pick up a girl from a bar, get her out to a secluded area, calmly explain to her that were he a murderer or rapist, there was no one to stop him, then drive her back. The police were trying to find something to charge him with, but could never find anything.
To address a few peripheral points, like I said I've mixed views on war, similarly with violence. One of these days I'm going to have to dig up that paper I wrote about Christian martial arts... Basically, I argued that while we were told to not pursue "an eye for an eye," neither are we meant to not resist at all when we find evil in the world. Maybe I'm misreading you again, but I'm unsure as to whether you are condemning violence in general, or just condemning those who make excuses of religion when really they just want the violence.
So, in a general conclusion, I am not bothered at all by your continued argument. I too like to be right and tell everyone about it. And I know that the moment I stop sincerely listening to other people and considering their arguments, I will be a zealot of the worst sort. The only exception I make to always welcoming religious debate is that I avoid it with friends and co-workers, but that's because religion is one of those issues that makes most people see red. Whether you're a fundamentalist Christian trying to save the souls of your co-workers whether they like it or not, an atheist who is bound and determined to make sure everyone realizes there is no God, or someone (I want to say agnostic or deist but I know that's not quite right) who believes that religion happens in all kinds of forms and no one should espouse their particular viewpoint as the truth, people tend to get empassioned when it comes to religion. Which, really, is good. I'd be really scared if the religious people around me were apathetic. "If you are not hot or cold, I will spit you out" all of that.
Ah, and the last peripheral point I was planning on addressing before... you are frequently quoting "science" in a manner which seems like you feel it opposes religion. Me, I've always been a big believer that science proves God's existence and that the ability to reason is one of the greater gifts we have been given. It makes life hard sometimes, as it leads us to questions like when life begins, what the quality or price of a human life is, etc. To me, that's all good as it is only when we have questions that we can find answers. And, quite frankly, it also shows repeatedly that the world is such a complex and wonderful thing that we will likely never truly understand it. Every light we cast creates more shadows.
Anyhow, I have places I must be today, so I bid you good day. Thanks for the argument.
Ultimately, look at Jesus. He was a popular, revolutionary figure, not to mention allegedly omnipotent. He could have led a revolution of Jews against the Romans, but instead of getting violent, he let them kill him.
You choose an interesting example. That has been a hot topic ever since Jesus started preaching. If he were the Son of God, why did he let us kill him? The pat and documented answer was that something in his sacrifice opened the gates of Heaven to us. I think also it's a recognition that violent actions often don't have a lasting consequence. Revolutions tend to go 360 degrees, etc. It is interesting that you compare the spread of Christianity to cancer, as in a way, it fits in in its method. Some diseases ravage their way through a population and a months later, they no longer exist. Cancer tends to work subtly, changing cells one by one, only showing itself when it has staying power. Similarly, Christianity has often been a very subtle religion. Most of us don't bomb clinics or stand on street corners preaching. Rather, we spread a message of love and acceptance through a quiet and religious life. *wry grin* Now you and I seem to disagree as to whether the end result is a good thing... *shrug* I really don't know that there's anything I can say to quell your venom there.
As for your examples of "cancer in Christian philosophy," I think what you're seeing there is more that in any given group, there will be unbalanced individuals and those who are seeking to use the group for their own purpose. It all comes down to that pesky free will which lets us all decide what path we decide to take.
While, as I said, I am not a supporter of violence and neither is my church, it's an interesting moral question there too. You'd jump to the defense of someone who was about to be killed, right? Possibly killing or maiming the attacker if it saved their victims and you had no other choice? {shakes head} Thing is, these people don't understand that they're killing people (or they don't care, which I find even more scary) and in the end, there's a negative end result. In some ways, it's like Churchhill and Coventry. Sometimes you must refrain from acting directly to save more lives.
Smoking is bad for the smoker, regardless of one's faith. Homosexuality is not, any more than heterosexuality, which can break your heart or infect you with the same diseases.
*crooked grin* And how long ago was it that people didn't believe smoking was bad for you? Besides which, as I said, this is from the perspective of caring for someone's immortal soul. If you truly believe that an action is morally wrong and you do not warn your fellow man against it, you are morally complicit in his sin.
Since you're talking about confronting sin, or be complicit, I wonder what you think is the appropriate reaction to our invasion of Iraq, killing many people, without it being the threat it was claimed (which might justify killing, in "self defense", to some). Or the torture being practiced in the name of American national security in prisons like Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, or those of the tyrannies to which we're "rendering" prisoners, knowing they'll be tortured by the likes of Syria, Egypt and other "allies".
I have mixed feelings about the war. *wry grin* I have mixed feelings about war in general. Sometimes it is necessary to fight to defend yourself, others, and ideals. I do think this war was inspired more by oil, industry, and political expediency than by any moral outrage, but once we decided to get into it, I feel we were obliged to stay as long as the Iragi populace wanted help. One of the most terrible things done in the first Gulf War was that the Iraqi people who helped the American soldiers were promised protection, then were left behind to be executed by the government, which stayed in place. As for the Abu Gharib situation, the soldiers were definitely in the wrong and should be punished as should any superiors who were aware of the situation and did not stop it. On the other hand, I have friends in the military and when you're surrounded by people trying to hurt you, it can drive you a little crazy. It happened in Vietnam. It happened in the World Wars. It happened in the Revolutionary War. It doesn't help that they're pretty terminally understaffed out there. So while the actions cannot be condoned, it must be recognized also that the soliders were likely not entirely in their right minds at the time. Definitely the ones who were proud of it should be strung up by their toenails.
And yes, I think the page is significant, although moreso if you're into abstract board game theory, chess variants, or artificial intelligence.
Slashdot: More healthful than a stick in the eye!
We could be quoting scripture all night at this rate.
And yes, after an event like an abortion shooting, it is very common for a priest to speak about it, warning us that violence only begets violence, to love our neighbours, and such.
And as for "[prioritizing] those Christian ideals, above ideals against homosexuality and reproductive freedom," you sound like you're assuming the two are incompatible. Quite honestly, the injunction to love one's neighbour insists that we speak against such activities if we believe them wrong. Doing anything else is damning our neighbours through indifference. It is in fact specifically stated in the Bible that if someone is living in a sinful manner and you do not try to guide them back to the proper path, the sin is yours as well. That said, I can state that Cahtolicism does not support force. We will counsel. We will attempt to work within the legal structure to help people. We do not use violence or force. It's one of those core ideals which, when strayed from, is a key indication of someone trying to play God.
And that said, it's an interesting theological question as to what kind of activity one can do. If a friend pulled out a gun and stuck it to their head, you'd try to talk them down or wrestle the gun away, right? It's a matter of immediate life and death, you care about their life, and most cases of attempted suicide involve someone who hasn't thought the situation through. If one believes in an afterlife, should we not value our friend's eternal life as high if not higher than their mortal life? And with the ideals of Christian love, are we not all brothers? Similarly, one can see the viewpoint of picketers at an abortion clinic, hindering those who are planning on commiting spiritual suicide. They "hide the gun" by attempting to make abortions more difficult to get, sometimes by laws getting passed requiring some degree of counseling or at least parental involvement and sometimes by just standing there at the gates, praying, forcing people to think about what they're doing.
The case regarding artificial contraception and homosexual behavior gets even more interesting. Here we have something less immediate in its damage and more generally acceptable to society. Homosexuality is often viewed kind of like how smoking is in secular society. You're not about to rip that cigarette out of a smoker's mouth, but you feel obligated to inform them of the dangers and to make it more difficult to obtain their poisons through taxes and tarrifs. You're not likely to stop being friends with someone if they start smoking, but you ask them not to do it in your presence and you never stop gently encouraging them to give it up. And above all, you recognize it as a battle which you may never lose, but in the spirit of love, you must keep fighting.
*shrug* And I'm heavily digressing, but I think that it's an interesting thing to consider. If we are Christians in spirit as well as in name, we must speak up regarding what we believe is wrong.
*harrumph* You may wish to clarify that statement. As a Catholic, I believe in both word and tradition. Quite honestly, given the Bible was written almost 2 millenia ago, I don't really know how one can go entirely off of what's printed there, particularly as most of us are dealing with a work that has been translated multiple times. (Personally, I use RSV, which is one of the better translations for saying in English what was originally stated in Aramaic. Many of the people who quote sola scriptura, or reliance only on what's in "the Book" are often quoting from KJV which was not only a translation of a translation, but was also commissioned by King James, who had a politcal agenda.) I'll be honest. I don't read Latin, let alone Aramaic or Greek, so I'm one of those dealing with a translation, although I try to pick intelligent ones.
And yes, a fundamental in all main branches of Christianity is that nothing that we can do will guarentee entrance to Heaven. Whether you've done good needs all of your life, lived your life without commiting one sin (as mentioned above, practically impossible) or even if you've "been saved" and "accepted Jesus into your heart," there is no guarentee of Heaven. Heaven is only reached by the grace of God as none of us are fit to go. *shrug* So those people who say we're all damned and going to Hell are more or less right, except that God has promised that he will grant mercy on us. Depending on which section of the gospel you read, it's either reported that it is either through faith or by faith and good works that we make ourselves worthy.
Besides which, why does everyone keep insisting that laptops are ubiquitous in classes? Most engineering students I knew found paper and pencil to be faster and more flexible for jotting down notes.
Quite frankly, I found cell phone prices to be competitive with those of landlines. I'm paying less to maintain a cell phone than I was to have the phone company maintain my phone which only worked in my house.
Now if I can only get my cell phone to work inside my house... darn Sprint communication coverage which coincidentally covers their stores, but not the rest of town...
Ok, so that argument is a little silly, but I'm sure someone out there would advance it. ^_^ But seriously, in terms of morality, it's been proven that DST results in more accidents due to sleepy drivers and joggers who no longer have daylight during their normal exercise hours. The increased fatalities caused by this arbitrary change in time could be seen as a moral issue. *shrug* Or some might see it as Darwinian selection. Those who are fool enough to jog without lights and reflectors (Och... and don't even get me started on people on designated bike paths who are jogging or walking in pitch darkness with no reflectors or lights...) are eliminated. ^_^ And the computer geeks will survive. The benefits of a sendentary lifestyle...
>GOD: *sigh* Never should have given those monkeys sentience... messed it all up to Hell.
*shrug* Heck, ask any religious person and they'll admit that free will is one of the greatest barriers to Heaven possible. We're given free reign to sin to our heart's content and all God will do is plead for us to return to the fold. It's both the greatest asset and the greatest flaw that humanity has. Interestingly enough, the concept of "free will" is a fairly modern one, within the last few centuries.
But I digress. I agree that most people cannot take proper care of themselves. If we collapsed civilization back into roving bands of foragers, we wouldn't need government, but one of the prices of advanced civilization is that it becomes something greater than any one human can handle. *wry grin* And quite honestly, I think people have gotten so used to the general high standard of living owed to civilization that they start to assume that with things so good, they don't really need their fellow man, or at least not so much of him.
^_^ And that said, I'm starting to consider this whole patent business. Heck, we need some people who know what they're talking about regarding computers in there refusing the silly patents, right?
That said, the recent prequels don't entirely jibe with the books. *sigh* Lucas, Lucas, Lucas...
Yeah, after all Star Wars doesn't involve that kind premise... er, never mind.
*sigh* Kids and their attempts to be cool by imitating slang...