I have another reason against foam padding: it is very successful in pressing on my blood vessels and so blocking them, at least that's what I assume gives the numb feeling. I am most happy with a very basic wooden desk chair, only adjustable seat height and the back can be adjusted up/down forward/backward with one simple screw.
But don't buy it for your geek, 9 out of 10 people will disagree with me because they think a soft cushion sits well. Nice idea to give a chair but it is so personal... so don't loose the receipt if you do it. [And tie up the toddler, no-one will notice if you place it in the basement.;)]
ctrl+f for the bar and to start automatically go to menu tools/options icon advanced tab general accessibility block tick the find as you type checkbox.
That's all just the visible stuff they need to convince people this is not 2.6. I liked the warning bar better. Also more compatible with IE.
Good news is that under the hood more important stuff happened though hardly visible, such as a new rendering tool, way more stable memory handling and if I understand well that has to do with javascript bug fixing. One showstopper left for me: Firebug & Web Developer cannot outline anymore.
Firebug works for me, check it's homepage. There's a recipe for overriding the compatibility check for add-ons.
The way for to force FF3.0.pre to accept all your add-ons, EVEN if they may NOT BE GOOD for FF3: I have no idea how this procedure could create havoc but since you're evading proper procedures, well.. better backup your profile and whatnot. Download the *.xpi file from a reliable source. Rename it to *.zip Open the zipfile. Edit file install.rdf so maxVersion reads 3.0pre
[em:maxVersion]3.0pre[/em:maxVersion]
To evade the security check for modifications to files in the packet, delete the META-INF directory. Yes. ugly. Rezip the files. Rename to.xpi Open in Firefox.
Another tip: to get rid of "awesome" with the "oldbar" add-on:). I am better at remembering urls.
Back in the late seventies or early eighties it must have been, the first 3D tests on TV, I remember squinting through tiny 1cm red and green plastic squares we took form a game. Um, it worked but I prefer full colour.
"I think blue is the worst..." I liked WordPerfect for DOS that defaulted to light blue on dark blue. But then again, that was just after we were released from the amber or green screens lasering into the screens and our retinas.
Indeed, about all enzymes are chiral, and if a living creature produces an amino acid, enzymes are likely to be involved. So why would amino acids be racemic?
That is one of the things confusing me: why did Jesus then say he did not come to abolish the law of the profets, but to fulfill them? Matthew 5 v.17-18, and in a milder form in Lucas 16 v.17.
Me: you want to call yourself a follower of it, you should follow each and every rule without questioning.
You: That's a ridiculous straw-man. Jesus himself questioned God. Of course we question it. If there was never a question, there was never a decision made. Being a Christian means making that decision.
How do you weigh that against the citations above? And a bit further in Luke 16 you are told to listen to Mozes' law and the profets.
You will probably accuse me again of using false arguments, but this is how I see it.
hi Letxa, I appreciate your effort. I do feel my questions are reasonable. I have read parts of the Bible and backgrounds about the Bible. I know people like to interprete it in many ways, not even agreeing on translations. I've seen explanations that are very peaceful, others that are aggressive, others that are bizarre. So I tried to find out how this is possible. My current belief is that people just cherrypick, and ignore the parts they do not like. I hoped you could give a sound way to avoid that.
You suggest I read the entire Bible with an open mind. Well if I read it I can't help to incorporate my knowledge on history, church divisions, what I read about predecessing versions of stories such as Abraham and Isaac.
"If you investigate it determined to find faults, you're going to misinterpret every verse and only confirm your own preconceptions and misconceptions. If that's your attitude going in, I guess I wouldn't even recommend you spend the time on it."
There is a range between meekly accepting every word and misinterpreting every verse almost deliberately. I think in my previous post I indicated my willingness to listen.
"I'm sorry, but those things simply illustrate that you know far too little about the Bible to make an educated critique of the Bible or of Christian beliefs. They are also completely off-topic to the discussion of how evolution may or may not be compatible with Christianity."
That is because they were not MEANT to cover evolution. This branch of this thread is about how to read the Bible and see which parts are to be read literally and which ones not.
And I am not one of those who think evolution and christianity are mutually exclusive.
"Even so, I would be happy to have that discussion but I've had this type of discussion many times before and have long-since learned that the most useless discussion is with one who is determined to not learn." It might be that you just have a weak case and choose people who already know too much about it.
"I don't mind a difference of opinion and agreeing to disagree, but I find that when it comes to topics like this, the person that is challenging Christianity really isn't interested in learning why their understanding of Christianity is incorrect." WOW STOP. I didn't start this topic, i was not challenging, you were offering.
As stated, I did read about and in the bible and I like to think I know more about it than the average Joe (who does not know the difference between pesach and eastern, if he knows what eastern is at all). I am still looking for an overview of what rules in the Bible still apply, and why. Could you maybe point me to some online source on that?
"Like I said earlier, people that insist on a contradiction between science and Christianity virtually always suffer a lack of knowledge of science, Christianity, or both. The frustrating part is that these people are usually the most extreme and not interested in actually learning about the topic on which they lack knowledge." You spent a lot of words on not answering my sincere questions. Too bad.
That is mighty convenient, so you found a way to be a Christian in a modern world by calling the Bible a Cultural Guide.
Too bad for me I cannot make myself live such a huge contradiction. To me, if a religion is based on rules and stories, and you want to call yourself a follower of it, you should follow each and every rule without questioning (which is pretty hard if you actually READ the rules and stories).
But if you want to reconsider what is supposed to be Gods word, then why not make the leap to a pure rational worldview?
>> And if people misunderstand what the Bible says, please explain what the methodology is >> by which we should determine which sections of the Bible are literal and which are metaphorical.
> Thoughtful studying of the text by a reasoned and educated mind that is interested > in finding the truth rather than creating false conflicts between science and Christianity.
A proper way to do that would make me reconsider my current opinion on the Bible, so I would appreciate some more information on how to find the difference between literal and metaphorical bits.
And before you come with vaguenesses, it would have to provide an explanation for quite some things in a way that only leaves one interpretation open for things like the differences in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew (or Mark) and Chronicles, God's total change of character between OT and NT, the Bible being the infallible word of God and apparent contradictions within the Bible, a way to read Job as one complete story, and much more.
"the first human would have, by definition, had sex with a protomonkey in order to procreate."
Wherever you would draw the line between ape and human, as if there was a sharp change, you would find a population somewhen in history with a mix of ape and human properties.
Additionaly "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins gives a great overview of the various eye in the animal kingdom. Interesting bits are how the eye apparently developed along several lines, and how a choice made early in evolution can hardly be undone, such as the blood vessels being in front of the retina in the eyes of vertrebrates. (Or wait, God did that to protect the retina.)
Ha, Godwin's law proven valid again, as usual with such topics.
Anyway, i will bite the bait. Hitler could also be considered a young earth creationist (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html). He even joined the bible-rewriting by erasing Jewish references (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=399470&in_page_id=1770).
As you may have noticed, I am not a native speaker. So maybe indoctrination is not a friendly word to use.
But I do insist that the idea of a specific God existing is only acceptable once you've accepted it. From that moment everything will fit in, even if you have to push the trapezoid pegs trough triangleshaped holes. However, if you are looking for evidence for God... well all Godproofs I've seen would not hold in court. So in stead of indoctrinated, which i admit sounds as if some evil intention was present, let's call it triggered, prepared, something like that.
"But I don't hear answers from any other quarter." You must be living in a special world, never heard of various other relogions offering similar ancient stories which to me are not distinguishable (since i shed of my childhood Christian indoctrination) ?
"you don't think your existance is a good reason to at least contemplate it?" Um, I've looked at myself, contemplated the existence of the Hebrew God, and read a bit here and there about the background of biblical stories. When I add all up my conclusion for now is that there is abundant evidence that the bible is a collection of subjective and heavily edited material. Resulting in a strange mix of violence and orders to kill quite a few people I rather not kill, such as name-calling children, teenagers in puberty, and people spreading other beliefs. Looking at it from a philosophical pov i think the alternatives given by modern biology are a lot more coherent. This magnetic machine does not disprove God, something which is impossible by definition, but it is another indication that there is a God-shaped hole in the brain waiting to be filled with whatever religion available.
Most people can't read Dutch, you insensitive sod.
I'll give it a try: "Voting in a self-chosen polling station within ones municipality -in my opinion- facilitates the desire of those municipalities to be flexible towards the voter." and "For trust in democracy it is important that the elections comply to the guarantees/assurances as have been clearly put forward by the committee. As shows the title of the advice 'voting with confidence'."
Slashdot Mirror
Are you still quoting that distortion of Al's words?
I have another reason against foam padding: it is very successful in pressing on my blood vessels and so blocking them, at least that's what I assume gives the numb feeling.
;)]
I am most happy with a very basic wooden desk chair, only adjustable seat height and the back can be adjusted up/down forward/backward with one simple screw.
But don't buy it for your geek, 9 out of 10 people will disagree with me because they think a soft cushion sits well. Nice idea to give a chair but it is so personal... so don't loose the receipt if you do it. [And tie up the toddler, no-one will notice if you place it in the basement.
thanks, so I won't try it.
No i didn't know that.
thanks, coward!
can't you click on it?
ctrl+f for the bar and to start automatically go to menu tools/options
icon advanced tab general
accessibility block
tick the find as you type checkbox.
That's all just the visible stuff they need to convince people this is not 2.6. I liked the warning bar better. Also more compatible with IE.
Good news is that under the hood more important stuff happened though hardly visible, such as a new rendering tool, way more stable memory handling and if I understand well that has to do with javascript bug fixing.
One showstopper left for me: Firebug & Web Developer cannot outline anymore.
You're so lucky, it's there already! Look for "oldbar".
Firebug works for me, check it's homepage.
.xpi
:). I am better at remembering urls.
There's a recipe for overriding the compatibility check for add-ons.
The way for to force FF3.0.pre to accept all your add-ons, EVEN if they may NOT BE GOOD for FF3:
I have no idea how this procedure could create havoc but since you're evading proper procedures, well.. better backup your profile and whatnot.
Download the *.xpi file from a reliable source.
Rename it to *.zip
Open the zipfile.
Edit file install.rdf so maxVersion reads 3.0pre
[em:maxVersion]3.0pre[/em:maxVersion]
To evade the security check for modifications to files in the packet, delete the META-INF directory. Yes. ugly.
Rezip the files. Rename to
Open in Firefox.
Another tip: to get rid of "awesome" with the "oldbar" add-on
? for print, isn't that sinclair zx81 basic?
Back in the late seventies or early eighties it must have been, the first 3D tests on TV, I remember squinting through tiny 1cm red and green plastic squares we took form a game. Um, it worked but I prefer full colour.
"I think blue is the worst..."
I liked WordPerfect for DOS that defaulted to light blue on dark blue. But then again, that was just after we were released from the amber or green screens lasering into the screens and our retinas.
Indeed, about all enzymes are chiral, and if a living creature produces an amino acid, enzymes are likely to be involved. So why would amino acids be racemic?
That is one of the things confusing me: why did Jesus then say he did not come to abolish the law of the profets, but to fulfill them? Matthew 5 v.17-18, and in a milder form in Lucas 16 v.17.
Me: you want to call yourself a follower of it, you should follow each and every rule without questioning.
You: That's a ridiculous straw-man. Jesus himself questioned God. Of course we question it. If there was never a question, there was never a decision made. Being a Christian means making that decision.
How do you weigh that against the citations above? And a bit further in Luke 16 you are told to listen to Mozes' law and the profets.
You will probably accuse me again of using false arguments, but this is how I see it.
hi Letxa,
I appreciate your effort. I do feel my questions are reasonable.
I have read parts of the Bible and backgrounds about the Bible. I know people like to interprete it in many ways, not even agreeing on translations. I've seen explanations that are very peaceful, others that are aggressive, others that are bizarre.
So I tried to find out how this is possible. My current belief is that people just cherrypick, and ignore the parts they do not like. I hoped you could give a sound way to avoid that.
You suggest I read the entire Bible with an open mind. Well if I read it I can't help to incorporate my knowledge on history, church divisions, what I read about predecessing versions of stories such as Abraham and Isaac.
"If you investigate it determined to find faults, you're going to misinterpret every verse and only confirm your own preconceptions and misconceptions. If that's your attitude going in, I guess I wouldn't even recommend you spend the time on it."
There is a range between meekly accepting every word and misinterpreting every verse almost deliberately. I think in my previous post I indicated my willingness to listen.
"I'm sorry, but those things simply illustrate that you know far too little about the Bible to make an educated critique of the Bible or of Christian beliefs. They are also completely off-topic to the discussion of how evolution may or may not be compatible with Christianity."
That is because they were not MEANT to cover evolution. This branch of this thread is about how to read the Bible and see which parts are to be read literally and which ones not.
And I am not one of those who think evolution and christianity are mutually exclusive.
"Even so, I would be happy to have that discussion but I've had this type of discussion many times before and have long-since learned that the most useless discussion is with one who is determined to not learn."
It might be that you just have a weak case and choose people who already know too much about it.
"I don't mind a difference of opinion and agreeing to disagree, but I find that when it comes to topics like this, the person that is challenging Christianity really isn't interested in learning why their understanding of Christianity is incorrect."
WOW STOP. I didn't start this topic, i was not challenging, you were offering.
As stated, I did read about and in the bible and I like to think I know more about it than the average Joe (who does not know the difference between pesach and eastern, if he knows what eastern is at all). I am still looking for an overview of what rules in the Bible still apply, and why. Could you maybe point me to some online source on that?
"Like I said earlier, people that insist on a contradiction between science and Christianity virtually always suffer a lack of knowledge of science, Christianity, or both. The frustrating part is that these people are usually the most extreme and not interested in actually learning about the topic on which they lack knowledge."
You spent a lot of words on not answering my sincere questions. Too bad.
ronadams claimed: "For all the empirical evidence you offer on evolution, I could offer an equal and greater amount for creationism,"
Well then please PUBLISH your information to be considered by others.
But first step by the talkorigins.org site to save embarrassment. It's all been said so many times...
That is mighty convenient, so you found a way to be a Christian in a modern world by calling the Bible a Cultural Guide.
Too bad for me I cannot make myself live such a huge contradiction. To me, if a religion is based on rules and stories, and you want to call yourself a follower of it, you should follow each and every rule without questioning (which is pretty hard if you actually READ the rules and stories).
But if you want to reconsider what is supposed to be Gods word, then why not make the leap to a pure rational worldview?
>> And if people misunderstand what the Bible says, please explain what the methodology is
>> by which we should determine which sections of the Bible are literal and which are metaphorical.
> Thoughtful studying of the text by a reasoned and educated mind that is interested
> in finding the truth rather than creating false conflicts between science and Christianity.
A proper way to do that would make me reconsider my current opinion on the Bible, so I would appreciate some more information on how to find the difference between literal and metaphorical bits.
And before you come with vaguenesses, it would have to provide an explanation for quite some things in a way that only leaves one interpretation open for things like the differences in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew (or Mark) and Chronicles, God's total change of character between OT and NT, the Bible being the infallible word of God and apparent contradictions within the Bible, a way to read Job as one complete story, and much more.
"the first human would have, by definition, had sex with a protomonkey in order to procreate."
Wherever you would draw the line between ape and human, as if there was a sharp change, you would find a population somewhen in history with a mix of ape and human properties.
Additionaly "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins gives a great overview of the various eye in the animal kingdom. Interesting bits are how the eye apparently developed along several lines, and how a choice made early in evolution can hardly be undone, such as the blood vessels being in front of the retina in the eyes of vertrebrates. (Or wait, God did that to protect the retina.)
Ha, Godwin's law proven valid again, as usual with such topics.
Anyway, i will bite the bait.
Hitler could also be considered a young earth creationist (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html).
He even joined the bible-rewriting by erasing Jewish references (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=399470&in_page_id=1770).
They're blocking slashdot.org originated links
Reload the link or copy it to the browers' location bar.
As you may have noticed, I am not a native speaker.
So maybe indoctrination is not a friendly word to use.
But I do insist that the idea of a specific God existing is only acceptable once you've accepted it. From that moment everything will fit in, even if you have to push the trapezoid pegs trough triangleshaped holes.
However, if you are looking for evidence for God... well all Godproofs I've seen would not hold in court.
So in stead of indoctrinated, which i admit sounds as if some evil intention was present, let's call it triggered, prepared, something like that.
On planet Skeptic the colours keep changing.
"But I don't hear answers from any other quarter."
You must be living in a special world, never heard of various other relogions offering similar ancient stories which to me are not distinguishable (since i shed of my childhood Christian indoctrination) ?
"you don't think your existance is a good reason to at least contemplate it?"
Um, I've looked at myself, contemplated the existence of the Hebrew God, and read a bit here and there about the background of biblical stories. When I add all up my conclusion for now is that there is abundant evidence that the bible is a collection of subjective and heavily edited material. Resulting in a strange mix of violence and orders to kill quite a few people I rather not kill, such as name-calling children, teenagers in puberty, and people spreading other beliefs.
Looking at it from a philosophical pov i think the alternatives given by modern biology are a lot more coherent. This magnetic machine does not disprove God, something which is impossible by definition, but it is another indication that there is a God-shaped hole in the brain waiting to be filled with whatever religion available.
Most people can't read Dutch, you insensitive sod.
I'll give it a try:
"Voting in a self-chosen polling station within ones municipality -in my opinion- facilitates the desire of those municipalities to be flexible towards the voter."
and
"For trust in democracy it is important that the elections comply to the guarantees/assurances as have been clearly put forward by the committee. As shows the title of the advice 'voting with confidence'."