"In the UK, where it happened, it's seen by the general public as a very good reason why we need CCTV coverage - without it tracing the bombers' movements in the investigation would have been practically impossible"...and once they traced them, planet Earth started to automagically sping backwards and then they were able to stop the terrorists so the bombs really never exploded... or something like that
Apparently you're a bit different from us then. Because when something happens here that we don't want to happen again, we investigate it, find out who did what and when, how the people became involved, and draw important conclusions (such as in this case we in Britain were surprised to find that the bombers were all UK citizens, a marked difference from the New York and Madrid attacks. So we're interested to know how they were drawn into being suicide bombers and what their links to foreign terrorist groups were). But like I say, obviously you're different and when something like this happens you just want to shrug and show your indifference and not care about whether the relatives of the victims get any answers about what happened or not...
"In the UK, CCTV is reasonably popular because people associate it with safety (drunks and muggers don't like to attack you in front of a camera) and not with undue government surveillance."...which means that UK citizens are as easily fooled as anyone else into thinking that breaking privacy somehow is a good thing.
No it means we are sensible enough to realise that not only is "a family member being attacked by a rapist or a drunk in the city one evening" much more likely than "the UK police investigating you because you appeared on a CCTV still", it's also much worse.
Like, how hard would it be for a "terrorist" to get fake licence plates and stick them on a car?
That's not actually a problem for the system, because it does not rely on the plates being valid.
Here's a typical scenario:
An attack/robbery occurs and the criminals leap into their stolen getaway car. The PC at the scene is not a trained pursuit driver and so cannot take part in a high speed chase (the UK police tend to feel these are more dangerous than useful), or simply isn't in a patrol car but on foot. She reports the make and colour of the car and its registration plates and location over the radio...
Under the existing system, the police then have to rely on a patrol car happening to see the suspect vehicle somewhere nearby in order to follow it, or hope that there's a police helicopter around to track it. Under the new system, the road camera network will track the vehicle, making it easier for the police to pick up the chase. Duplicate plates aren't such a problem because you are tracking the vehicle on it's journey (so a false positive fifty miles away will be quickly ignored). The camera system isn't an evidence or automated ticketing system - it's a whole bunch of handy bystanders saying "he went that way".
Anyone who drove through that area, from a suspected bad area, is now a suspect.
Bad example (assuming you mean the 7th July London bombings). CCTV footage of the London Underground and mainline railway stations was used to successfully re-trace the movements of the 7 July bombers. In the UK, where it happened, it's seen by the general public as a very good reason why we need CCTV coverage - without it tracing the bombers' movements in the investigation would have been practically impossible. And it was not a case of "anyone who [went] through that area... is now a suspect" but a case of tracing the movements of specific individuals who were already suspects based on evidence at the scene.
In the UK, CCTV is reasonably popular because people associate it with safety (drunks and muggers don't like to attack you in front of a camera) and not with undue government surveillance. But given our recent history does not include anything like the "House Committee on Un-American Activities" it's not surprising we fear our government less.
The road camera scheme, however, is less popular because people instantly think "speed cameras" and because it looks like a precursor to congestion charging on the roads nationally. Anything that makes driving more expensive is unpopular.
I simple don't buy that. To begin with, religious and spiritual beliefs don't really have much to do with logic. We wouldn't be having this discussion if logic didn't break down at some point and things have to be taken on faith. Religion is a matter of personal preference. Me stating preferences does not mean that I think that others are wrong. There are plenty of cases where people state beliefs but are happy if others' differ. For example - if someone says "I believe that chocolate is the best food in the world." you might disagree but realize it is a matter of what is personally the best for that person. Why can't it be the same way with religion? "I believe X and it works for me but you believe Y and that works for you and both of us lead better lives because of it?"
The concrete example I had in mind: Christians believe that Jesus was the only son of God - a real son of a real God and not just a hypothetical or imaginary concept. Atheists believe he was not and that there is no God. Muslims believe that there is a God but Jesus was not his son. Et cetera. Jesus is not a quantum cat - he is not simultaneously the son of God and not the son of God. God does not simultaneously exist and not exist. Atheists believe that I am wrong. And I believe that they are wrong. We could be patronising about it and each claim that each other's wrong beliefs suit our respective frames of mind at the time, but that is not the same thing as believing each other is right. More realistically, we'll just politely disagree with each other - although some atheists thinking they are being polite and tolerant try to say "maybe he's true for you", which roughly translated comes across as "I think I'm right and you're mad" and can be an effective way to lose a friend!:-)
"I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me" is either true or it isn't. I believe it is true. If you believe it is not true, then I happily recognise your social right to believe that and won't discriminate against you in any way or even dislike you for it, but I still think you're wrong.
I did read what you posted and I'm not trying to twist your words. But your post did seem a little out of context to me (in that I was answering fyngyrz's claim that Jesus was a fictional character, and your point about gnostics having a different theological view of Jesus didn't seem very relevant to that specific point), so maybe the sense of your post didn't come across as you'd intended.
The question of whether we should agree with Paul or with the gnostics is a different question, and I'd answer that by simply saying that Christians read the Old Testament text, read Paul's discussions of it in the epistles, and by and large we tend to feel that Paul's interpretation is more convincing than the gnostics'.
Including those claiming that the New Testament was heavily edited, like by the Nicene Council. (To give a specific point so you know I wasn't vague because there aren't any specific examples
I was hoping for a specific example of an edit [ie, which words in which passage] so I could look it up and check the various views on it. (We're getting into the area where there is debate amongst scholars about what was or was note edited and when). But if you're genuinely looking to hear what the pro-Christian scholarly side of this debate is, maybe it'd be simpler for me to point you to resources such as http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Bocks_Historic alJesus.htm. This site http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/Doorway.htm at Cambridge University also has a large amount of material in this area.
I do mind when they get to the point where they say that what assumptions they have made about faith are right and mine are wrong...
To an extent everybody whether Christian or not necessarily does this part. Simply by saying "I believe X" you are saying you believe that someone who believes "not X" is wrong. Politeness tends to make us use the "I believe X" form, though;-) The point I am wryly making is that tolerance isn't about saying everybody's beliefs are true (that'd be an odd sort of pluralism that logically doesn't work) but about saying that everybody has a social right to their beliefs whether or not they are true.
...and God is going to send me to hell to be tortured eternally because of it. Such a statement goes against everything that their faith teaches besides being mean, nasty, and irrational.
(The end of your sentence relates specifically to Christian beliefs, so I'm answering that bit separately). Some Christians are quite stark in their fire and brimstone warnings, that's true, and I don't think it's the best tactic for explaining the faith to non-Christians. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is against everything their faith teaches, however, because they are preaching from particular bible passages.
It scares me that something that affects peoples' lives so much (and on which they may base a majority of the important decisions in their life on) is something that they refuse to have questioned, question themselves, or consider alternate views for.
Hmm, I've got to say that's an unsubstantiated assertion on your part, and one I honestly suspect comes from your personal prejudices. I'm yet to meet any Christian anywhere who did not consider things very deeply on their journey to faith. They might not tell you all about their journey, but that does not mean they did not have one. And far from "refuse to have questioned", we tend to patiently answer any genuine questions you might have, as I am doing now. You're not likely to shake our faith or convince us we're wrong - we find Jesus's arguments much more compelling than yours (and it's a rare day when I come across a question
I didn't forget anything. The gospels themselves are works that can only be traced back to 300 AD. You're trying to use the book to prove the book, which won't work. There is no documentation older than 300 AD, only documents that are known to be either originals from 300ad, or copies of something earlier. How much earlier is completely unknown and unproven
Actually, how much earlier is not completely unknown although it is hotly debated amonst historians. And historiand similarly argue about some gospel fragments that they agree are older than 300AD, but they disagree between 70AD and 200AD. The link I gave you earlier is a good place to start.
Of course you're welcome to continue with your personal pet conspiracy theory that it was all just some fraduster in 300AD that you've been pushing here, but you should be aware that you're on your own on a very weak limb there - disagreeing even with most secular historians.
Yes there were gnostic sects in existence. Paul discusses some of the theological differences with some gnostic beliefs in some of the epistles. I disagree with your assertion that those early theological differences mean that we should disregard the gospels.
It's hard to debate the "fairly proven" alterations/editing you claim without specific examples, but AIUI many of the "fairly proven" alterations people often bring up actually turn out to be "hotly debated" alterations. Ie, historians disagree about whether they were "later edits by others" or "earlier drafts by the original author". This is hardly surprising since there is not actually a concensus about when the gospels were written (or at least there are two competing consensuses).
The point I was making about the individual books is not to say that the contents of each is irrelevant, but to rebut fyngyrz's fairly ridiculous assertion that the whole of the new testament was written as a single book in 300AD.
As for "the vast majority of Christians not leaving you alone", I'm going to respectfully question whether that's really the case. For example, you came to this thread - it didn't come chasing you.
Oh good grief, how long did you spend on that little rant? And between the accusations of not having an original thought, commentary on how you'd like to persectute Christians by feeding them to lions, and some mild insults in your second paragraph, there's only two pieces of serious argument you put forward. The first being that you feel that the resurrection lessens the crucifixion (a repeat from your previous post), and the second being the "stunning" revelation that indeed Tacitus and Josephus wrote their histories some years after their deaths and did not themselves meet Christ or witness his miracles.
As for your first point (resurrection lessening the crucifixion), it has always been the case in Christian theology that death is a smaller matter than if there were no resurrection for Christ or for us. "Death where is thy sting?" as the saying goes. You choose to reject grace through Christ, and that is entirely up to you. Good luck to you.
As for the second, again you forget the fact that the gospels are the primary account of the life of Christ. True there are arguments about the dates (Christian scholars tend to put them at around 50-90AD suggesting their primary authors wrote them before they died, while scholars opposed to Christianity tend to put them around 70-150AD suggesting a longer oral history before they were written down). http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/ May97/gospels.html has a discussion of this. Josephus and Tacitus are however helpful in disproving some of the wilder conspiracy theories by demonstrating that even historians much closer to the event (and who as historians are likely to have spoken to people for whom the events did happen in their lifetime) refer to Christ's existance as a person.
Aparently I have much less time to spend posting on slashdot than you (too much PhD work to get on with), so I'm going to keep this as brief as possible.
Similarly, if Christ had not risen it would have been very easy for the Romans to produce the body, but they didn't. The body would have been quite hard to steal, and post-resurrection Christ appeared to so many people that conspiracy is really out of the question.
Bzzzzt. Sorry. This isn't history. This is part of the bible's stories. You can't use it to justify the bible; that's circular.
On the contrary. The previous poster explicitly asked which was more likely - that the gospel miracles are true or that it was all a conspiracy theory. So, I simply point out the flaws in the usually-purported conspiracy theories.
zzzt. Book 1, written first, makes predictions. Book 2, written second (and quite some time later) claims they are fulfilled. History makes no mention of these fulfillments, only the books. Circular; uses the books to justify the books. Sorry.
You seem to have the misguided belief that the New Testament is a single book, when it is a collection of books and epistles, and we know when they were collated together in the Bible, and we know their distinct origins and writers in each case (although there are opposing views about the dating of some of the gospels). Of course you do this to play the fool's game of classifying history as "only those writings which are not supportive enough to suggest their author believed Jesus" - and then asking whether they are supportive enough.
What? People don't write about mistakes or set up plot lines that need resolution or justify later plot twists if they're putting out fiction? If they do, it means its not fiction? Man, are you confused.:-) Bzzzt!
That is, let's put it politely, a daft schoolboy response that fits neither with the historical evidence we have for how the collation of the new testament came about, nor with the nature of the new testament itself (more than half of which is made up of letters on theological matters), and your argument doesn't even fit with the various writings of the day about Jesus which were not included in the bible.
Yes you are, you're just afraid of the negative connotations associated with the term.
That being said, fundie or no, you're all the same irrational, delusional whackos, regardless of what you call yourselves.
I'll leave the tone of your post to speak for itself about which of us is being irrational today:-)
Normally I wouldn't "feed your troll", but I've got a few idle moments...
Which is more likely, cultists revising history to favor themselves, or "miracles"?
It would hardly be a miracle if it happened every day.
As for the cultists, there is actually a fair bit of evidence to suggest this is not the case. There are lots of books that discuss this (and of course lots of other books that claim it's all bunkum), so this is just a very brief summary.
First up, secular historians of the time such as Tacitus and Josephus also refer (albeit briefly) to the Romans' problem with Christ in Judea. So we have independent confirmation something happened. Although the only gospel manuscripts we have today date back to around 300AD, there are an enormous quantity of them from diverse areas [more copies than for any other ancient text] and they all match remarkably well. If the gospels had been altered as they had been handed down, we could certainly expect to see differences in the copies as some would have some alterations and others wouldn't. And given that Christians became so prominent so quickly, there's a distinct lack of anybody at the time denying Christ's existance rather than denying his divinity. Similarly, if Christ had not risen it would have been very easy for the Romans to produce the body, but they didn't. The body would have been quite hard to steal, and post-resurrection Christ appeared to so many people that conspiracy is really out of the question.
Next there's the Jewish scripture itself. Much of the Old Testament dates back a very long way and it's easy to confirm that hasn't been fiddled with since Christ's birth. Jesus convinced Jews in his time because he fulfilled their prophecies that had been written down long before, and because of the extent of his understanding of scripture. It's very easy to cross check between the OT prophecies and their NT fulfullment - most modern translations even have the references in the footnotes.
And of course the gospels are none too flattering to their authors or to the notable apostles. One would think a cultist revising history would paint a rosy picture of the cultists themselves, rather than a picture of people who periodically fail Jesus, fall asleep when they are supposed to be keeping watch, and keep getting things wrong.
And then there's Paul remarkably agreeing with the other gospels and unpacking it in great depth despite having received his revelation separately and not having spent much time with the gospel writers, and having originally been one who persectuted Christians.
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
How do you know Jesus said this? Because it's in a book that everyone says is the word of God? Theologians are pretty sure that "but through me" line was put in because the church was beginning to splinter into separate factions and they had to do something to try and keep it monolithic.
Actually no most theologians don't think think that verse was a conspiracy theory, but maybe you read a book once by someone who thought that. And indeed the early church was not monolithic at all. Reading Acts and the various epistles might give you a better understanding of the early church, and of the actual theological differences and issues of the day.
Religions crack me up, most of them end up causing more damage to humanity than the Bush administration.
Hmm, like introducing the concept of freely available schooling for all not just the priviliged in 19th century England (look up "Ragged School Union" and Shaftesbury) and campaigning to outlaw child labour around the same time, spending hundreds of millions every year on providing clean water and education in poorer countries, helping to bring about an end to the long civil war in Mozambique, being a major influence on helping South Africa to end apartheid, running many of the homeless shelters and women's refuges in the UK, USA, Australia and countless other countries...
I think the key thing here is... is that i dont know what god says. I'm just a human being. I cant speak for god. I can certainly CLAIM to speak for god, as any other human can. That is the horrible fear. That is why i would rather have a relationship with GOD without human systems such as religion.
I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know what God wants. And out of respect for God, i will not allow other human beings to SPEAK FOR GOD.
So isnt it best to have your own personal relationship with God?
And a "personal relationship with God" is exactly what Christianity is. I know a lot of people looking from the outside could mistake "singing songs in church" or "obeying the commandments" for being the core of Christianity, but it isn't. Our relationship with Christ is.
From the gospel according to John 14:25-26: "All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
And as John puts it in his first letter (1 John 4:13): We know that we live in him and he in us because he has given us of his Spirit.
We do have faith that Christ is the Son of God, so yes you'd have to believe that he is speaking for God. But as far as anyone today is concerned, we do not rely on any human currently on the earth "SPEAKING FOR GOD". Again, from the outside it might be easy to mistake a pastor's sermon for speaking for God and dictating what God's will is. But they are actually giving us their understanding of the gospel from their study, experience and prayer, and we are free to pray about it ourselves and perhaps disagree with them. (caveat: Catholics believe the pope is their final arbiter on what is or is not doctrinally correct; that is their defence against people falsely claiming to "speak of God" and leading people away from God).
Instead we study and pray in private, and also meet together to discuss and pray about what God's will for us is. We are guided by the gospels and God's Holy Spirit, and we value the advice of other believers.
James 1:5-6 If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a save of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.
We have a faith where none of the ceremony is required, we don't have to observe any fetes or fasts if we don't want to, and we are saved even though we fall short and break the law, simply by accepting God's grace and having a relationship with him through his son (of course that tends to make us want to follow his laws and worship him).
So I don't see how that makes anything harder for any of us. As the gospel according to Matthew 12:30 puts it "... my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Having said that, I am well aware that you are just vomiting fundamentalist tripe and that you haven't had a deep thought about this in your entire life. Yes, IHBT.
Mate, I'm going to skip over the flame part of your email except to say you're wrong on both your assumptions there (I am not a fundamentalist and my journey to faith involved a very great deal of serious thought. I am also not American, but that's by-the-by.)
I wanted to write this reply because I think your story about your friend's sacrifice and Jesus's sacrifice bring up topics that are far more important than debating the historical records, Tacitus, Josephus, the dating of the gospels, etc (lots of books dissect that, from both sides). I'm also aware I need tread carefully here and not be insensitive to your understandable anger about your friend's death. So, I'm going to try not to argue too forcefully, and I'm going to say upfront that I'm not so concerned whether or not I persuade you but would like to say a very little about those issues.
Absolutely true, Jesus's death was not the most painful there has ever been (though I wouldn't fancy going through it myself) and for the thirty years before it he was able-bodied, sighted, and indeed never even broke a bone in his body according to John 19:36. The story of Jesus's death is not one of "I have suffered more than any of you" - it never says that anywhere. It is a story of "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son...". Not only does God love us "so much he'd die for us", he showed us by dying for us - in fact by letting us and our sinful nature kill him. And yes he rose again, but time and again he tells us he'll raise us again too. John 14:1-4 is one of the occasions I particularly like.
Your concern about prayer. It is worth having a look at the parable of the prodigal son. God is very clear that he loves non-Christians every bit as much as Christians. I'm not going to delve into what asking for something in Jesus's name really means - it's late, it'd take a long time - but suffice it to say it's not just a matter of "every random thing" we ask for.
Also true, God has not interceded and prevented suffering in the world. He has not sent lightning bolts to strike down Hitler, nor even jammed up the pipes in the gas chambers. He has not prevented evil men from committing evil acts. God has let us suffer the consequences of our own and also of other people's actions. And God does not compel us to do good, or even prevent us from turning away from him. But he never said he would. The promise of "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Rev 21:4) is for the new heaven and the new earth, and that is yet to arrive. For now, events do have consequences and some of them are painful and some of them are undeserved. Christians can sometimes have a tendency to treat that a bit glibly - "oh well, it'll all be ok in heaven". And I apologise for when we are insensitive about it. But it is our great hope and belief that although we spend 80 years or so in an unfair world, God invites everyone through his son to spend eternity in a perfect world, and we are not ashamed to accept the invitation.
As for your friend who died - what do Christians believe was his fate? God actually tells us much more about who is saved than about who isn't. So I'm going to say even less. A cop out, but that issue I really think if you did want to know a Christian view on that you'd be better off talking over with a good pastor (and yes there are some insensitive a.k.a. bad pastors out there), and because I don't feel that slashdot is a sensitive or appropriate place to discuss something that must be a very deep and personal.
There is a strong human temptation to blame God for inaction with one hand and dismiss his action with the other. And he's not going to stop us from that choice either if we really want to m
These stories make extraordinary claims. Not only is there no extraordinary evidence, there appears to be no evidence at all for those stories
Here's another perspective on the "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof" issue. Sorry it's a little long.
(from the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke 16) [The rich man] said, "but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent". He replied "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced, even if someone rises from the dead."
And indeed it seems you haven't been convinced - even though someone rose from the dead. When it comes down to it, what you want isn't a one-time-proof, but for God to be in a state of constantly proving his existence with fresh miracles every day. I'll explain:
In Jesus's time, the Pharisees asked for a miracle as proof because they didn't believe the "extraoardinary claims" either (Matthew 16). Jesus said he'd give them one - rising from the dead. And he did. After the resurrection and pentecost, the apostles performed miracles in the process convincing some more people of the extroadinary claims (most of Acts). But naturally, you say those 'miracles' are just more extraordinary claims. You'd perhaps also say the book of Luke is a set of extraordinary claims even though it was Luke's report of his investigation into the extraordinary claims. At every step forward, there's a grumble that yesterday's proof is today just another extraordinary claim unless some more proof is given for that last piece of proof. Each day, someone wants another miracle, and that continues right up to today and your post.
So, what you want is your own personal miracle in your individual sight. (And, to be brutally honest, I suspect you would probably find a reason to disqualify any evidence unless it was God appearing to perform a personal miracle for you.) Well, the sovereign God responds to that with a bit of a poser. He does do some things specially for people on an individual basis [answering prayer] but the catch is you already need to have faith to ask in faith.
Perhaps having sent his son to die for you, God doesn't feel he needs to degrade himself any further just to prove himself to you individually? Personally, I can't really blame him - after all when it comes down to it, it's not his eternal life that's on the line.
why do you need to Jesus to have a relationship with god? Why do i need a church?... Why cant i just love god and be a good person for whatever god is, or may not be?
I'm going to read this as a genuine question about Christianity, and reply with the biblical answer:
Because God says so, and because it's rather hard to "love god" while deliberately ignoring everything he says and rejecting his greatest sacrifice on your behalf.
The famously relevant bible passage is John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." But there are many other places it is set out in both the Old and New Testaments.
Or in other words, if your plan is to front up to God and tell him "Hey why should I have had to do what you say or care about your son who died for me? I'm a nice guy!" then you should perhaps be prepared for a reply along the lines of "Bad luck, mate."
This is the period of time the police are legally allowed to hold you with no evidence whatsoever that you've done anything wrong, just because they suspect you might have.
Incorrect. The bill also required the police to go before the High Court to seek permission to continue detaining the suspect every 7 days, and then the 90 days was to be the maximum even with High Court approval. Getting permission from the High Court to continue detention takes rather a lot more than "no evidence whatsoever". It takes "not quite enough to have a reasonable prospect of a conviction yet but a demonstrable likelihood of obtaining the neccessary evidence in the next X days".
In extreme cases, courts have said "everybody knows that software is governed by EULAs, so you don't even need notice on the outside of the box, as long as you have some way to reject once you read the contract."
Unless you're referring to a different case than I think you are, what they ruled was that some particular terms of a particular EULA were enforceable because the purchaser "must have expected" those particular terms to be in the EULA before he purchased the item. In other words, it only applied to terms that a reasonable person (aka the judge/jury) would expect to be in the license agreement.
So that's stronger in that the purchaser did not need to have a refund mechanism, but weaker because it only applied to terms people expect to be in an EULA, and not the oddball or unduly restrictive ones mentioned in this article.
(But like I say, perhaps you're referring to a different case than I think you are)
It has everything to do with economic power. Many people in the U.S. would hardly notice if other countries started dropping off the internet, except, perhaps, for a small decrease in spam. In any other country, the internet would basically be useless without seeing U.S. sites.
I think the reason this has come up now is the opposite - there seems to be a gradual realisation happening that there are no longer any world superpowers, not even the US, and the rest of the world has decided it does now have the economic and political muscle to wrest notional "control" of the internet away.
That's not to say the US isn't still the biggest player on the field, just that as the world economy has become so interdependent, the US has become more vulnerable than superpowers were in the past, or perhaps its tolerance of economic pain is lower than superpowers in the past. (Even militarily it appears it is painful and expensive now for even the world's biggest and most advanced military to maintain an occupation in a single medium sized foreign country where it finds resistance.)
why is it that the administration wants control over the Internet. But when it comes to trade and the economy they want to "liberalize" it and actually give up control.
You might want to talk to third world farmers about the issue of US agricultural subsidies, and ask them whether they think the US really wants to give up control of trade. (Of course the EU is just as bad)
As always in politics, it's not a double standard, it's just the ignoble single standard of "what's best for us".
I really hope he figured out a way to make Civ4 playable after a hundred or so turns. I've been playing Civ3 on a pentium M lately and it's still way too slow when the game gets into the modern age.
Could just be because by the time you get to the modern age you haven't slept for 36 hours...
Blast, I thought he said "nuclear whistles" and sent him down to the toy store. Oh well, there goes the earth in the 23rd century. Talk about careless talk costing lives...
Unfortunately, from the article it seems ALONtm is noted for it's high compressive strength, whereas to build the sides of a whale-sized bath you need high tensile strength. Unless of course it's a particularly aggressive whale and keeps shooting armour-piercing rounds at the side of the bath, but then the bigger question would be "how did it pull the trigger"?
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you're a bit different from us then. Because when something happens here that we don't want to happen again, we investigate it, find out who did what and when, how the people became involved, and draw important conclusions (such as in this case we in Britain were surprised to find that the bombers were all UK citizens, a marked difference from the New York and Madrid attacks. So we're interested to know how they were drawn into being suicide bombers and what their links to foreign terrorist groups were). But like I say, obviously you're different and when something like this happens you just want to shrug and show your indifference and not care about whether the relatives of the victims get any answers about what happened or not...
No it means we are sensible enough to realise that not only is "a family member being attacked by a rapist or a drunk in the city one evening" much more likely than "the UK police investigating you because you appeared on a CCTV still", it's also much worse.
That's not actually a problem for the system, because it does not rely on the plates being valid.
Here's a typical scenario:
An attack/robbery occurs and the criminals leap into their stolen getaway car. The PC at the scene is not a trained pursuit driver and so cannot take part in a high speed chase (the UK police tend to feel these are more dangerous than useful), or simply isn't in a patrol car but on foot. She reports the make and colour of the car and its registration plates and location over the radio...
Under the existing system, the police then have to rely on a patrol car happening to see the suspect vehicle somewhere nearby in order to follow it, or hope that there's a police helicopter around to track it. Under the new system, the road camera network will track the vehicle, making it easier for the police to pick up the chase. Duplicate plates aren't such a problem because you are tracking the vehicle on it's journey (so a false positive fifty miles away will be quickly ignored). The camera system isn't an evidence or automated ticketing system - it's a whole bunch of handy bystanders saying "he went that way".
Bad example (assuming you mean the 7th July London bombings). CCTV footage of the London Underground and mainline railway stations was used to successfully re-trace the movements of the 7 July bombers. In the UK, where it happened, it's seen by the general public as a very good reason why we need CCTV coverage - without it tracing the bombers' movements in the investigation would have been practically impossible. And it was not a case of "anyone who [went] through that area
In the UK, CCTV is reasonably popular because people associate it with safety (drunks and muggers don't like to attack you in front of a camera) and not with undue government surveillance. But given our recent history does not include anything like the "House Committee on Un-American Activities" it's not surprising we fear our government less.
The road camera scheme, however, is less popular because people instantly think "speed cameras" and because it looks like a precursor to congestion charging on the roads nationally. Anything that makes driving more expensive is unpopular.
Before the Treaty of Rome, 25 March 1957... um, no.
The concrete example I had in mind: Christians believe that Jesus was the only son of God - a real son of a real God and not just a hypothetical or imaginary concept. Atheists believe he was not and that there is no God. Muslims believe that there is a God but Jesus was not his son. Et cetera. Jesus is not a quantum cat - he is not simultaneously the son of God and not the son of God. God does not simultaneously exist and not exist. Atheists believe that I am wrong. And I believe that they are wrong. We could be patronising about it and each claim that each other's wrong beliefs suit our respective frames of mind at the time, but that is not the same thing as believing each other is right. More realistically, we'll just politely disagree with each other - although some atheists thinking they are being polite and tolerant try to say "maybe he's true for you", which roughly translated comes across as "I think I'm right and you're mad" and can be an effective way to lose a friend!
"I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me" is either true or it isn't. I believe it is true. If you believe it is not true, then I happily recognise your social right to believe that and won't discriminate against you in any way or even dislike you for it, but I still think you're wrong.
More accurately, I was saying that your response was inadequate. But I was polite enough not put it that way in my original post
The question of whether we should agree with Paul or with the gnostics is a different question, and I'd answer that by simply saying that Christians read the Old Testament text, read Paul's discussions of it in the epistles, and by and large we tend to feel that Paul's interpretation is more convincing than the gnostics'.
I was hoping for a specific example of an edit [ie, which words in which passage] so I could look it up and check the various views on it. (We're getting into the area where there is debate amongst scholars about what was or was note edited and when). But if you're genuinely looking to hear what the pro-Christian scholarly side of this debate is, maybe it'd be simpler for me to point you to resources such as http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Bocks_Historic alJesus.htm. This site http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/Doorway.htm at Cambridge University also has a large amount of material in this area.
To an extent everybody whether Christian or not necessarily does this part. Simply by saying "I believe X" you are saying you believe that someone who believes "not X" is wrong. Politeness tends to make us use the "I believe X" form, though ;-) The point I am wryly making is that tolerance isn't about saying everybody's beliefs are true (that'd be an odd sort of pluralism that logically doesn't work) but about saying that everybody has a social right to their beliefs whether or not they are true.
(The end of your sentence relates specifically to Christian beliefs, so I'm answering that bit separately). Some Christians are quite stark in their fire and brimstone warnings, that's true, and I don't think it's the best tactic for explaining the faith to non-Christians. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is against everything their faith teaches, however, because they are preaching from particular bible passages.
Hmm, I've got to say that's an unsubstantiated assertion on your part, and one I honestly suspect comes from your personal prejudices. I'm yet to meet any Christian anywhere who did not consider things very deeply on their journey to faith. They might not tell you all about their journey, but that does not mean they did not have one. And far from "refuse to have questioned", we tend to patiently answer any genuine questions you might have, as I am doing now. You're not likely to shake our faith or convince us we're wrong - we find Jesus's arguments much more compelling than yours (and it's a rare day when I come across a question
Actually, how much earlier is not completely unknown although it is hotly debated amonst historians. And historiand similarly argue about some gospel fragments that they agree are older than 300AD, but they disagree between 70AD and 200AD. The link I gave you earlier is a good place to start.
Of course you're welcome to continue with your personal pet conspiracy theory that it was all just some fraduster in 300AD that you've been pushing here, but you should be aware that you're on your own on a very weak limb there - disagreeing even with most secular historians.
Yes there were gnostic sects in existence. Paul discusses some of the theological differences with some gnostic beliefs in some of the epistles. I disagree with your assertion that those early theological differences mean that we should disregard the gospels.
It's hard to debate the "fairly proven" alterations/editing you claim without specific examples, but AIUI many of the "fairly proven" alterations people often bring up actually turn out to be "hotly debated" alterations. Ie, historians disagree about whether they were "later edits by others" or "earlier drafts by the original author". This is hardly surprising since there is not actually a concensus about when the gospels were written (or at least there are two competing consensuses).
The point I was making about the individual books is not to say that the contents of each is irrelevant, but to rebut fyngyrz's fairly ridiculous assertion that the whole of the new testament was written as a single book in 300AD.
As for "the vast majority of Christians not leaving you alone", I'm going to respectfully question whether that's really the case. For example, you came to this thread - it didn't come chasing you.
Oh good grief, how long did you spend on that little rant? And between the accusations of not having an original thought, commentary on how you'd like to persectute Christians by feeding them to lions, and some mild insults in your second paragraph, there's only two pieces of serious argument you put forward. The first being that you feel that the resurrection lessens the crucifixion (a repeat from your previous post), and the second being the "stunning" revelation that indeed Tacitus and Josephus wrote their histories some years after their deaths and did not themselves meet Christ or witness his miracles.
/ May97/gospels.html has a discussion of this.
As for your first point (resurrection lessening the crucifixion), it has always been the case in Christian theology that death is a smaller matter than if there were no resurrection for Christ or for us. "Death where is thy sting?" as the saying goes. You choose to reject grace through Christ, and that is entirely up to you. Good luck to you.
As for the second, again you forget the fact that the gospels are the primary account of the life of Christ. True there are arguments about the dates (Christian scholars tend to put them at around 50-90AD suggesting their primary authors wrote them before they died, while scholars opposed to Christianity tend to put them around 70-150AD suggesting a longer oral history before they were written down). http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic
Josephus and Tacitus are however helpful in disproving some of the wilder conspiracy theories by demonstrating that even historians much closer to the event (and who as historians are likely to have spoken to people for whom the events did happen in their lifetime) refer to Christ's existance as a person.
On the contrary. The previous poster explicitly asked which was more likely - that the gospel miracles are true or that it was all a conspiracy theory. So, I simply point out the flaws in the usually-purported conspiracy theories.
You seem to have the misguided belief that the New Testament is a single book, when it is a collection of books and epistles, and we know when they were collated together in the Bible, and we know their distinct origins and writers in each case (although there are opposing views about the dating of some of the gospels). Of course you do this to play the fool's game of classifying history as "only those writings which are not supportive enough to suggest their author believed Jesus" - and then asking whether they are supportive enough.
That is, let's put it politely, a daft schoolboy response that fits neither with the historical evidence we have for how the collation of the new testament came about, nor with the nature of the new testament itself (more than half of which is made up of letters on theological matters), and your argument doesn't even fit with the various writings of the day about Jesus which were not included in the bible.
I'll leave the tone of your post to speak for itself about which of us is being irrational today
Normally I wouldn't "feed your troll", but I've got a few idle moments...
It would hardly be a miracle if it happened every day.
As for the cultists, there is actually a fair bit of evidence to suggest this is not the case. There are lots of books that discuss this (and of course lots of other books that claim it's all bunkum), so this is just a very brief summary.
First up, secular historians of the time such as Tacitus and Josephus also refer (albeit briefly) to the Romans' problem with Christ in Judea. So we have independent confirmation something happened. Although the only gospel manuscripts we have today date back to around 300AD, there are an enormous quantity of them from diverse areas [more copies than for any other ancient text] and they all match remarkably well. If the gospels had been altered as they had been handed down, we could certainly expect to see differences in the copies as some would have some alterations and others wouldn't. And given that Christians became so prominent so quickly, there's a distinct lack of anybody at the time denying Christ's existance rather than denying his divinity. Similarly, if Christ had not risen it would have been very easy for the Romans to produce the body, but they didn't. The body would have been quite hard to steal, and post-resurrection Christ appeared to so many people that conspiracy is really out of the question.
Next there's the Jewish scripture itself. Much of the Old Testament dates back a very long way and it's easy to confirm that hasn't been fiddled with since Christ's birth. Jesus convinced Jews in his time because he fulfilled their prophecies that had been written down long before, and because of the extent of his understanding of scripture. It's very easy to cross check between the OT prophecies and their NT fulfullment - most modern translations even have the references in the footnotes.
And of course the gospels are none too flattering to their authors or to the notable apostles. One would think a cultist revising history would paint a rosy picture of the cultists themselves, rather than a picture of people who periodically fail Jesus, fall asleep when they are supposed to be keeping watch, and keep getting things wrong.
And then there's Paul remarkably agreeing with the other gospels and unpacking it in great depth despite having received his revelation separately and not having spent much time with the gospel writers, and having originally been one who persectuted Christians.
Actually no most theologians don't think think that verse was a conspiracy theory, but maybe you read a book once by someone who thought that. And indeed the early church was not monolithic at all. Reading Acts and the various epistles might give you a better understanding of the early church, and of the actual theological differences and issues of the day.
Hmm, like introducing the concept of freely available schooling for all not just the priviliged in 19th century England (look up "Ragged School Union" and Shaftesbury) and campaigning to outlaw child labour around the same time, spending hundreds of millions every year on providing clean water and education in poorer countries, helping to bring about an end to the long civil war in Mozambique, being a major influence on helping South Africa to end apartheid, running many of the homeless shelters and women's refuges in the UK, USA, Australia and countless other countries...
And a "personal relationship with God" is exactly what Christianity is. I know a lot of people looking from the outside could mistake "singing songs in church" or "obeying the commandments" for being the core of Christianity, but it isn't. Our relationship with Christ is.
From the gospel according to John 14:25-26:
"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
And as John puts it in his first letter (1 John 4:13):
We know that we live in him and he in us because he has given us of his Spirit.
We do have faith that Christ is the Son of God, so yes you'd have to believe that he is speaking for God. But as far as anyone today is concerned, we do not rely on any human currently on the earth "SPEAKING FOR GOD". Again, from the outside it might be easy to mistake a pastor's sermon for speaking for God and dictating what God's will is. But they are actually giving us their understanding of the gospel from their study, experience and prayer, and we are free to pray about it ourselves and perhaps disagree with them. (caveat: Catholics believe the pope is their final arbiter on what is or is not doctrinally correct; that is their defence against people falsely claiming to "speak of God" and leading people away from God).
Instead we study and pray in private, and also meet together to discuss and pray about what God's will for us is. We are guided by the gospels and God's Holy Spirit, and we value the advice of other believers.
James 1:5-6
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a save of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.
We have a faith where none of the ceremony is required, we don't have to observe any fetes or fasts if we don't want to, and we are saved even though we fall short and break the law, simply by accepting God's grace and having a relationship with him through his son (of course that tends to make us want to follow his laws and worship him).
So I don't see how that makes anything harder for any of us. As the gospel according to Matthew 12:30 puts it "... my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Here's another perspective on the "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof" issue. Sorry it's a little long.
(from the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke 16)
[The rich man] said, "but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent".
He replied "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced, even if someone rises from the dead."
And indeed it seems you haven't been convinced - even though someone rose from the dead. When it comes down to it, what you want isn't a one-time-proof, but for God to be in a state of constantly proving his existence with fresh miracles every day. I'll explain:
In Jesus's time, the Pharisees asked for a miracle as proof because they didn't believe the "extraoardinary claims" either (Matthew 16). Jesus said he'd give them one - rising from the dead. And he did. After the resurrection and pentecost, the apostles performed miracles in the process convincing some more people of the extroadinary claims (most of Acts). But naturally, you say those 'miracles' are just more extraordinary claims. You'd perhaps also say the book of Luke is a set of extraordinary claims even though it was Luke's report of his investigation into the extraordinary claims. At every step forward, there's a grumble that yesterday's proof is today just another extraordinary claim unless some more proof is given for that last piece of proof. Each day, someone wants another miracle, and that continues right up to today and your post.
So, what you want is your own personal miracle in your individual sight. (And, to be brutally honest, I suspect you would probably find a reason to disqualify any evidence unless it was God appearing to perform a personal miracle for you.) Well, the sovereign God responds to that with a bit of a poser. He does do some things specially for people on an individual basis [answering prayer] but the catch is you already need to have faith to ask in faith.
Perhaps having sent his son to die for you, God doesn't feel he needs to degrade himself any further just to prove himself to you individually? Personally, I can't really blame him - after all when it comes down to it, it's not his eternal life that's on the line.
I'm going to read this as a genuine question about Christianity, and reply with the biblical answer:
Because God says so, and because it's rather hard to "love god" while deliberately ignoring everything he says and rejecting his greatest sacrifice on your behalf.
The famously relevant bible passage is John 14:6
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
But there are many other places it is set out in both the Old and New Testaments.
Or in other words, if your plan is to front up to God and tell him
"Hey why should I have had to do what you say or care about your son who died for me? I'm a nice guy!"
then you should perhaps be prepared for a reply along the lines of
"Bad luck, mate."
So when it gets stuck all over the streets the way regular chewing gum does, will it help prevent potholes?
Incorrect. The bill also required the police to go before the High Court to seek permission to continue detaining the suspect every 7 days, and then the 90 days was to be the maximum even with High Court approval. Getting permission from the High Court to continue detention takes rather a lot more than "no evidence whatsoever". It takes "not quite enough to have a reasonable prospect of a conviction yet but a demonstrable likelihood of obtaining the neccessary evidence in the next X days".
Unless you're referring to a different case than I think you are, what they ruled was that some particular terms of a particular EULA were enforceable because the purchaser "must have expected" those particular terms to be in the EULA before he purchased the item. In other words, it only applied to terms that a reasonable person (aka the judge/jury) would expect to be in the license agreement.
So that's stronger in that the purchaser did not need to have a refund mechanism, but weaker because it only applied to terms people expect to be in an EULA, and not the oddball or unduly restrictive ones mentioned in this article.
(But like I say, perhaps you're referring to a different case than I think you are)
I think the reason this has come up now is the opposite - there seems to be a gradual realisation happening that there are no longer any world superpowers, not even the US, and the rest of the world has decided it does now have the economic and political muscle to wrest notional "control" of the internet away.
That's not to say the US isn't still the biggest player on the field, just that as the world economy has become so interdependent, the US has become more vulnerable than superpowers were in the past, or perhaps its tolerance of economic pain is lower than superpowers in the past. (Even militarily it appears it is painful and expensive now for even the world's biggest and most advanced military to maintain an occupation in a single medium sized foreign country where it finds resistance.)
You might want to talk to third world farmers about the issue of US agricultural subsidies, and ask them whether they think the US really wants to give up control of trade. (Of course the EU is just as bad)
As always in politics, it's not a double standard, it's just the ignoble single standard of "what's best for us".
Unfortunately, from the article it seems ALONtm is noted for it's high compressive strength, whereas to build the sides of a whale-sized bath you need high tensile strength. Unless of course it's a particularly aggressive whale and keeps shooting armour-piercing rounds at the side of the bath, but then the bigger question would be "how did it pull the trigger"?