Shall we also have hand control? What about making pipe illegal? Oh, and let's not forget the new legislation to make trenchcoats illegal as well. Legislation is not the answer. And, last I heard, pipe bombs and sawed-off shotguns _are_ illegal.
Next question: Did the Brady law or the waiting period or the registration or not allowing fellons to possess handguns help in this case??? Please explain how, exactly, "more gun control then it wouldn't have been so easy for these kids to get access to semi-automatic weapons."
Back to the Internet (with the religion tacked on)
on
Beyond The Holy Circle
·
· Score: 1
"I already said in an earlier post that I felt it would give users "a chance to flesh out, and seek out their own beliefs" by utilizing "the anonymity it provides." How do you feel about this? "
Very good. Actually, I am a little concerned. I've seen some sites that espouse hatred and closed-mindedness. My only concern would be those with little interest in searching(cattle, as it were) attaching the sum of their beliefs to the first radical (different, not necessarily extreme) thing they find. If they search no farther, then this nifty 'Internet thingie' is wasted.
OTOH, the Internet has been proven(ish, no real scientific study) to foster learning across broad ranges of subject matter. I just hope that this concept will apply to those searching for something to believe in...
Ok. I'm NOT trying to say that ALL Christians are bad.
"OK let me clarify I do not judge a Catholic by the actions of his Church, nor a Protestant by the actions of a fanatic."
Agreed.
"You are judging a whole group of people by the actions of the few."
No. I am not judging the people. (The murderers, yes, a Christian, no) I am judging the Institution as a whole. Let's put it this way; I belive the US Government is pretty corrupt, but I do not believe that every politition is corrupt. Irregardless of the *people* the Government is what is corrupt. (I won't get into my views on US politico here. More than I could type in a day;-) What I am saying is that I think the concept of Christianity is flawed.
It goes like this... * Bible is flawed and ambiguous -> * Man reads bible and is forced to take everything at face value -> * Since Man's nature is essentially bad(according to the Bible and comments earlier in this thread), Man will take the worst interpretation -> * Fighting, carnage, and bloodshed ensue -> * Repeat ad nauseam...
Those in the Church who rise above their baser instincts are truly a credit to the Institution as a whole; however, that doesn't change the fact that the Institution and the Concept are flawed.
And me. While I have to agree with you on the whole, I still have a tough time being that optimistic, as we have already established the innate 'bad' nature of man earlier in this thread. To expect a person to believe that Christ walked on water or the parting of the Red Sea is to also expect them to take everything else in the Bible at face value. The lowest common denominator in this case amounts to genocide, xenocide, and a few other -ocides. Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic, but if one will take the Bible at face value, then I must take the Bible and the Institution at face value as well.
"So the past atrocities are the fault of all Christians..."
So abortion clinic bombings and the murder of those who perform abortions are in the past?
"How can you not seperate the two when one persecuted the other, that alone would almost serve as a dividing line."
(Not to be Inflammitory:This is a dangerous statement used to prove a point, not to insult) Which denomination(s) perform clinic bombings again? I seem to have forgotten...
"So the past atrocities are the fault of all Christians, that akin to saying that the enslavement of African-Americans is the fault of all whites."
Not the fault of all Christians, but the fault of the foundation of Christianity. If the foundation is flawed, then the house will fall, no matter how good the builder or how sturdy the material.
"I feel that one sects purposful mis-interpretation of the Bible for their own political gain should not cast a shadow on the other followers of that religion(not aying that Protestants are perfect in the least, that is another discussion)"
No, it should not. How many/.ers bristle when I say 'Religious Right'? The fact that all under the canopy are tainted is human nature. Should I then judge soley on individual merit?(Judge as in make a decision, not as in damn to hell) Or should I draw my conclusions from the face that the institution presents? Either one is incomplete. Therefore, I must look back to the actions of the institution and the members of said institution; that is my guide. Understandably, not all Christians are bad. But as a majority, taken from factual, historical information, I must conclude that the institution is bad, if it compells people to do some of the things they do. Go out tonight and rent 'Inherit the Wind' with Spencer Tracy and Gene Kelly. Then maybe you will have a better insight into what I'm saying.
"The institution you speak of is the Catholic Church, which is entirely seperate from the protestant church."
...And therefore blameless??? I feel that the book that is the basis of the religion (Catholic or Protestant) is the catylist of the killing. Remember the parable of the man who built his house on a foundation of sand? Same principal applies.
"As a side note I do not believe that any hate crime laws are good, all they do is make one race more important than another, and one of the precepts I believe is that we are all equal."
Agreed. Anything that sets one above another for things out of one's control (race, heritage, eye color) is a Bad Thing(tm).
"Perhaps you would do better to place the fault into the hands of those that committed the atrocities. Remember, just because it was in the name of religion does not mean that it was what the religion espouses... I wish I could remember the passage, but, since I can't, I suggest you re-read the Gospels (I am only saying this since the religion in reference is Christianity; do the say with the like documents for other religions). "
Agreed, fault does go to those individuals who committed said atrocities.
However, what can one expect when a God-figure says 'I am the way, and the truth, and the light; man cannot reach the Father save through me' (I know, the quote's off; I don't have my Bible handy) What that means is that if you are not a Christian (meaning 'Christ-like') and if you do not believe that Christ is your savior, then you go to Hell.
Simple as that.
I think that that quote (along with 'Veangence(sp?) is mine' and 'If a church teaches one falsehood, then all of its teachings are untrue') went a long way towards the slaughters.
At least in the Koran, it explicitly gives permission to strike down one's enemies. In the Bible, that is left up to interpretation. The difference between the two, while subtle, is in part my beef with the Church.
"It would seem the more enlightened you are, the less you would look down on those different than you"
I do not 'look down' upon those whose views are different than my own. I do, however, hold in contempt an institution (or idea) that has resulted in the slaughter of so many innocent people.
"I think that if you look you will find that other "Crusade" style wars have happened thoughout history that were not based on Christianity."
Please back that up. Here's my justification. Crusades:Let's see, the Crusades were two things(I'm making a generalization here): #1:The Church needed a distraction, a rallying point to bring in warring factions... #2:The Church (as always) needed money. Who better to get it from than the Infidels thet occupied the Holy Land?
How many died?
The Inquisition: An attempt to finaly quash the last remaining vestages of Goddess-type worship.
How many burned? How many were raped?
The conquest of the 'New World': 'God, Gold, and Glory', though not in that order.
How many of my people died? How many still die?
"I would think that geeks wouldn't care about each others religion nor lower ourselves to the level of attacking someones beliefs. "
Again, I am not 'attacking' anyone. My father's pastor is a man whom I hold the deepest respect for. I can agree with most everything he preaches. I am attacking the close-mindedness of the religion that causes so many to die. And I'm not 'bashing' Christianity. Just look to the middle east. How many still die there? Does Christianity play into it? Yes, but that's not the only thing.
"In fact you might even do well to seperate Catholic and Protestant and not lump them all together under the banner of "Christian", better yet, why not break it down into the factions that it truly is, the denomonations."
In the same way you would have me break down murder in the US by race, right? The point is not about denomonation, it is about the precept. How many Protestants killed Catholics in Ireland today? How many white people killed black people today?
"I in fact did not see it as a slam to any religion since all he did was point out accepted historical facts."
"not everyone needs choice - there are a lot of people in the middle who don't care; they just want to live their lives. Forcing them to Choose will just alienate them and (perhaps) drive them towards the short term comfortable choice. "
'You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill. I will choose a purpose clear; I will choose freewill."
Just a question...how many people have died as a result of Christianity??
Hmmm??
One million? Ten million? Half a billion?
How many of my ancestors died because of "God, Gold, and Glory"?
How many of yours did???
While I truly respect Martin Luther, that doesn't change the fact that the Church is the largest mass-murdering orginization this world has ever known.
Why?
Because some people actually thought for themselves.
Because some people were never given the FREEDOM to think or choose.
Because some people were the wrong race, gender, creed, or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I personally would be a little more concerned with the heavy drinking programmers (and sysadmins). I know quite a few pothead programmers and alcoholic sysadmins. The raver crowd tends to burn out too quick, IMHO.
"The Microsoft chairman noted, for example, that early Internet browsers had been distributed for free, but said that modern browsers were far more sophisticated and could no longer be developed in a noncommercial environment.
``Today the browsers have gotten rich enough that it's not the kind of software that you can develop and test in a university-type of environment,'' he said."
I got Netscape 4.5 and IE 5.0 for free. Since when has _anyone_ charged for a browser???
The poor boy is obviously delusional. Somebody give him a smart pill, please!
Yeah, but the freon would be a bit expensive. Figure $25.00 a pound for two or three pounds. I think the fridge idea is better. the fridge's insulation is soft; running wires/tubes would be no problem.
Switch(presidential_candidate) { case IDIOT: alert("Hey! I'm an idiot! Vote for me and give me money!"); break;
case STUPID: alert("I inverted the Internet! It will be open source. And I will own it all!"); break;
case ELECTED: { screw_the_public(taxpayers, working_folk); alert("Thanks for giving me money. I've won now, so in return, I have instituted a tax hike and a six-day work week!"); spread_rumors(world, money); break; }
Agreed in theory, incorrect in context. Neither of these absolutly awesome pilots were in this particular campaign. At any rate, I wasn't trying to make a quality point.
"Yeah but, your average user probably has no idea what a macro is"
If the average (l)user is that ignorant, then they *do* deserve what they get. Does the *average* driver know what a door lock is? Does the *average* home/apartment/igloo dweller let someone in their dwelling without verifing who they are? C'mon, let's use some common sense here!
Still there, because we're not willing, as a country, to accept the basic fact of any war. People die. There is no bloodless victory in war, that I can see.
Damned yuppie mindset. Everything is clean and shiny, no senseless sensibilities offended, everything is like a storybook. Hey, I still play in the rain and roll in the mud. I'm not afraid to see the logic (however sick and twisted it may be) that violence is really the only alternative for a person who will not listen to anything else. Case in point: Corporal punishment for children(bear with me here). If a child will not listen to the parent, you do time out. But what do most parents do if the child just walks away? The put the kid back. The kid walks away again. Eventually, the child learns that the parent won't do anything to stop them. So you end up with an eleven-year-old taking an AK to school and blowing the shit out of his classmates, because no one ever set a boundry and enforced it. Same thing with the US and the rest of the world. The world knows that it can get away with murder; and does so with pride, every day.
Slashdot Mirror
Shall we also have hand control? What about making pipe illegal? Oh, and let's not forget the new legislation to make trenchcoats illegal as well. Legislation is not the answer. And, last I heard, pipe bombs and sawed-off shotguns _are_ illegal.
Next question: Did the Brady law or the waiting period or the registration or not allowing fellons to possess handguns help in this case??? Please explain how, exactly, "more gun control then it wouldn't have been so easy for these kids to get access to semi-automatic weapons."
"I already said in an earlier post that I felt it would give users "a chance to flesh out, and seek out their own beliefs" by utilizing "the anonymity it provides." How do you feel about this? "
Very good. Actually, I am a little concerned. I've seen some sites that espouse hatred and closed-mindedness. My only concern would be those with little interest in searching(cattle, as it were) attaching the sum of their beliefs to the first radical (different, not necessarily extreme) thing they find. If they search no farther, then this nifty 'Internet thingie' is wasted.
OTOH, the Internet has been proven(ish, no real scientific study) to foster learning across broad ranges of subject matter. I just hope that this concept will apply to those searching for something to believe in...
Ok. I'm NOT trying to say that ALL Christians are bad.
;-) What I am saying is that I think the concept of Christianity is flawed.
"OK let me clarify I do not judge a Catholic by the actions of his Church, nor a Protestant by the actions of a fanatic."
Agreed.
"You are judging a whole group of people by the actions of the few."
No. I am not judging the people. (The murderers, yes, a Christian, no) I am judging the Institution as a whole. Let's put it this way; I belive the US Government is pretty corrupt, but I do not believe that every politition is corrupt. Irregardless of the *people* the Government is what is corrupt. (I won't get into my views on US politico here. More than I could type in a day
It goes like this...
* Bible is flawed and ambiguous ->
* Man reads bible and is forced to take everything at face value ->
* Since Man's nature is essentially bad(according to the Bible and comments earlier in this thread), Man will
take the worst interpretation ->
* Fighting, carnage, and bloodshed ensue ->
* Repeat ad nauseam...
Those in the Church who rise above their baser instincts are truly a credit to the Institution as a whole; however, that doesn't change the fact that the Institution and the Concept are flawed.
See???
"it is that interpretation bit that riles me."
And me. While I have to agree with you on the whole, I still have a tough time being that optimistic, as we have already established the innate 'bad' nature of man earlier in this thread. To expect a person to believe that Christ walked on water or the parting of the Red Sea is to also expect them to take everything else in the Bible at face value. The lowest common denominator in this case amounts to genocide, xenocide, and a few other -ocides. Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic, but if one will take the Bible at face value, then I must take the Bible and the Institution at face value as well.
Hmmmm....
:)
Good point.
Would it be different if they killed in the name of linux?
"So the past atrocities are the fault of all Christians..."
/.ers bristle when I say 'Religious Right'? The fact that all under the canopy are tainted is human nature. Should I then judge soley on individual merit?(Judge as in make a decision, not as in damn to hell) Or should I draw my conclusions from the face that the institution presents? Either one is incomplete. Therefore, I must look back to the actions of the institution and the members of said institution; that is my guide. Understandably, not all Christians are bad. But as a majority, taken from factual, historical information, I must conclude that the institution is bad, if it compells people to do some of the things they do. Go out tonight and rent 'Inherit the Wind' with Spencer Tracy and Gene Kelly. Then maybe you will have a better insight into what I'm saying.
So abortion clinic bombings and the murder of those who perform abortions are in the past?
"How can you not seperate the two when one persecuted the other, that alone would almost serve as a dividing line."
(Not to be Inflammitory:This is a dangerous statement used to prove a point, not to insult)
Which denomination(s) perform clinic bombings again? I seem to have forgotten...
"So the past atrocities are the fault of all Christians, that akin to saying that the enslavement of African-Americans is the fault of all whites."
Not the fault of all Christians, but the fault of the foundation of Christianity. If the foundation is flawed, then the house will fall, no matter how good the builder or how sturdy the material.
"I feel that one sects purposful mis-interpretation of the Bible for their own political gain should not cast a shadow on the other followers of that religion(not aying that Protestants are perfect in the least, that is another discussion)"
No, it should not. How many
...you are correct. However, have script kiddies ever killed anyone in the name of Linus?
"The institution you speak of is the Catholic Church, which is entirely seperate from the protestant church."
...And therefore blameless??? I feel that the book that is the basis of the religion (Catholic or Protestant) is the catylist of the killing. Remember the parable of the man who built his house on a foundation of sand? Same principal applies.
"As a side note I do not believe that any hate crime laws are good, all they do is make one race more important than another, and one of the precepts I believe is that we are all equal."
Agreed. Anything that sets one above another for things out of one's control (race, heritage, eye color) is a Bad Thing(tm).
"Perhaps you would do better to place the fault into the hands of those that committed the atrocities. Remember,
just because it was in the name of religion does not mean that it was what the religion espouses... I wish I could
remember the passage, but, since I can't, I suggest you re-read the Gospels (I am only saying this since the religion in
reference is Christianity; do the say with the like documents for other religions). "
Agreed, fault does go to those individuals who committed said atrocities.
However, what can one expect when a God-figure says 'I am the way, and the truth, and the light; man cannot reach the Father save through me' (I know, the quote's off; I don't have my Bible handy) What that means is that if you are not a Christian (meaning 'Christ-like') and if you do not believe that Christ is your savior, then you go to Hell.
Simple as that.
I think that that quote (along with 'Veangence(sp?) is mine' and 'If a church teaches one falsehood, then all of its teachings are untrue') went a long way towards the slaughters.
At least in the Koran, it explicitly gives permission to strike down one's enemies. In the Bible, that is left up to interpretation. The difference between the two, while subtle, is in part my beef with the Church.
...I believe you misunderstand my point.
"It would seem the more enlightened you are, the less you would look down on those different than you"
I do not 'look down' upon those whose views are different than my own. I do, however, hold in contempt an institution (or idea) that has resulted in the slaughter of so many innocent people.
"I think that if you look you will find that other "Crusade" style wars have happened thoughout history that were not
based on Christianity."
Please back that up. Here's my justification.
Crusades:Let's see, the Crusades were two things(I'm making a generalization here):
#1:The Church needed a distraction, a rallying point to bring in warring factions...
#2:The Church (as always) needed money. Who better to get it from than the Infidels thet occupied the Holy Land?
How many died?
The Inquisition:
An attempt to finaly quash the last remaining vestages of Goddess-type worship.
How many burned?
How many were raped?
The conquest of the 'New World':
'God, Gold, and Glory', though not in that order.
How many of my people died?
How many still die?
"I would think that geeks wouldn't
care about each others religion nor lower ourselves to the level of attacking someones beliefs. "
Again, I am not 'attacking' anyone. My father's pastor is a man whom I hold the deepest respect for. I can agree with most everything he preaches. I am attacking the close-mindedness of the religion that causes so many to die. And I'm not 'bashing' Christianity. Just look to the middle east. How many still die there? Does Christianity play into it? Yes, but that's not the only thing.
"In fact you might even do well to seperate Catholic and Protestant and not lump them all
together under the banner of "Christian", better yet, why not break it down into the factions that it truly is, the
denomonations."
In the same way you would have me break down murder in the US by race, right? The point is not about denomonation, it is about the precept. How many Protestants killed Catholics in Ireland today? How many white people killed black people today?
"I in fact did not see it as a slam to any religion
since all he did was point out accepted historical facts."
You got that right, at least.
"not everyone needs choice - there are a lot of people in the middle who don't care; they just want to live
their lives. Forcing them to Choose will just alienate them and (perhaps) drive them towards the short term
comfortable choice. "
'You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill.
I will choose a purpose clear; I will choose freewill."
--Rush, Freewill
Just a question...how many people have died as a result of Christianity??
Hmmm??
One million?
Ten million?
Half a billion?
How many of my ancestors died because of "God, Gold, and Glory"?
How many of yours did???
While I truly respect Martin Luther, that doesn't change the fact that the Church is the largest mass-murdering orginization this world has ever known.
Why?
Because some people actually thought for themselves.
Because some people were never given the FREEDOM to think or choose.
Because some people were the wrong race, gender, creed, or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Fear the Christians?
I think not..
So _that's_ what was in the 'heart-shaped-box'.
cool...
I personally would be a little more concerned with the heavy drinking programmers (and sysadmins). I know quite a few pothead programmers and alcoholic sysadmins. The raver crowd tends to burn out too quick, IMHO.
Or, put another way, is this a fad??
Did I miss something, here?
"The Microsoft chairman noted, for example, that early Internet browsers had been distributed for free, but said that modern browsers
were far more sophisticated and could no longer be developed in a noncommercial environment.
``Today the browsers have gotten rich enough that it's not the kind of software that you can develop and test in a university-type of
environment,'' he said."
I got Netscape 4.5 and IE 5.0 for free. Since when has _anyone_ charged for a browser???
The poor boy is obviously delusional. Somebody give him a smart pill, please!
Yeah, but the freon would be a bit expensive. Figure $25.00 a pound for two or three pounds. I think the fridge idea is better. the fridge's insulation is soft; running wires/tubes would be no problem.
Even better would be to put up a big Bill Gates Personal Wealth Clock in the cafeteria...
I'm really looking forward to the rant from RMS on this one...:)
//heh
Switch(presidential_candidate)
{
case IDIOT:
alert("Hey! I'm an idiot! Vote for me and give me money!");
break;
case STUPID:
alert("I inverted the Internet! It will be open source. And I will own it all!");
break;
case ELECTED:
{
screw_the_public(taxpayers, working_folk);
alert("Thanks for giving me money. I've won now, so in return, I have instituted a tax hike and a six-day work week!");
spread_rumors(world, money);
break;
}
case DEFEATED:
{
for(var i=1; i>0; i++)
{
alert("WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!");
}
break;
}
default:
alert("This candidate is particularly lame. Can you say Dan Quayle?");
}
//Note: These are not necessarily the author's view's...:)
Agreed in theory, incorrect in context. Neither of these absolutly awesome pilots were in this particular campaign. At any rate, I wasn't trying to make a quality point.
Chicken...;)
(no offense)
rofl
"Yeah but, your average user probably has no idea what a macro is"
If the average (l)user is that ignorant, then they *do* deserve what they get. Does the *average* driver know what a door lock is? Does the *average* home/apartment/igloo dweller let someone in their dwelling without verifing who they are? C'mon, let's use some common sense here!
Sorry, it's,
"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."
--Ben Franklin
Still there, because we're not willing, as a country, to accept the basic fact of any war. People die. There is no bloodless victory in war, that I can see.
Damned yuppie mindset. Everything is clean and shiny, no senseless sensibilities offended, everything is like a storybook. Hey, I still play in the rain and roll in the mud. I'm not afraid to see the logic (however sick and twisted it may be) that violence is really the only alternative for a person who will not listen to anything else. Case in point: Corporal punishment for children(bear with me here). If a child will not listen to the parent, you do time out. But what do most parents do if the child just walks away? The put the kid back. The kid walks away again. Eventually, the child learns that the parent won't do anything to stop them. So you end up with an eleven-year-old taking an AK to school and blowing the shit out of his classmates, because no one ever set a boundry and enforced it. Same thing with the US and the rest of the world. The world knows that it can get away with murder; and does so with pride, every day.
Think about it...