It's confusing. It's not metaphoric. But it's not physical either. You're literally eating his body. But only the "Sum is greater than the parts = soul" essence sense.
We are more than the matter we're composed of therefore the bread is literally Christ's body but the molecular composition never changes.
So in other words it's metaphoric by humanity's definition of the word. The Church just invented a new definition of "literally" to justify their position.
I feel as though I am the only one not drinking from the cool-aid on this one. The story line, apart from the apparently necessary political message, is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories.
Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie. If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.
Yeah! Stop producing all this unoriginal, uninspired drivel and start producing inoffensive apolitical, aphilisophical, viewpointless masterpieces! That's how Art has worked the last few hundred years why stop now? I want entertainment that has no viewpoint but is meaningful and significant! The artist shouldn't try to inject any personal perspective on their work, that's how great art is made!
Everyone attempts to use empiricism to describe the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. Some just have lower standards for evidence.
"I know God exists because he healed my grandmother." That's a scientific statement. "I know God exists because of the way I feel when I speak to him." That's a scientific statement. "I know God exists because of the numerous ways he shows himself to me." That's a scientific statement.
Stating that the evidence for God is insufficient therefore the only logical default position is to say that there is no God until proven otherwise is pragmatic not an assertion. The alternative is to assume that any concept without proof is true until proven false results in you living a life where there is ALWAYS a monster, ninja unicorn following you around but staying just out of your field of view.
Atheists and Agnostics are the same thing. Proving a negative is impossible, proving a positive is also technically impossible, but that doesn't mean you can't be inclined one way or another. We're all Agnostics if you want to get really technical.
There is a substantive difference between "no belief in god" and "belief in no god". The prior is an absence of belief and makes no claim as to the existence of a god. The latter is an affirmative statement of the non-existence of a god. The prior is agnosticism, the latter atheism.
For some reason you are tying belief with god. This belies an inaccurate understanding of the term "belief". Look it up. Few definitions of "belief" refer to deity.
That's a false distinction that has no meaning in the real world. I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy. I'm not denying the theoretical possibility of a Tooth Fairy, I'm simply of the position that it's just a story. I also don't believe Star Wars actually happened. I base both those positions on the basis of lack of evidence and I wouldn't define either as being agnostic about Tooth Fairys "Well maybe they exist and maybe they don't".
Agnosticism is a form of Atheism. It's a lack of belief. No sane human being on earth would say with 100% certainty ANYTHING is definitely the case but somehow when it comes to God you have to be a devoutest to state your inclination. Even most believers don't say "God definitely exists and nothing could ever change that belief." but they get to be called theists. By saying "I don't know if there is a God", the agnostic defines themselves as an atheist, they do not conclude there is a God therefore they are not Theists, they are Atheist.
Just as much as capitalism. If by Religion you mean advancing the argument "It will lead to a better world".
Now Maoisms, Stalinism etc might be better matches for being a religion but that wouldn't play nice with lumping them all together into one inaccurately homogeneous descriptor.
While your argument seems rational at its face value it instantaneously becomes meaningless in practice.
By your definition Religion == Belief about something.
Therefore my belief that your definition is too broad means I've formed another religion.
Atheism says nothing of God. It simply rejects all the currently advanced theories on God. Atheism really has to be applied to each instance of God Theory. Theoretically even the most ardent atheist will admit that there would be a situation where they would believe in a God, they simply have never experienced it. In contrast monotheists reject all theories except for one of God in their default position all other theories are forgeries or tricks. If you look at it from the perspective of Atheism (rejecting God Theories) the monotheist rejects not only all presently advanced theories on God's existence but all possible theories. Which means a monotheist is actually Atheist in regards to an (infinite number of God Theories - 1). On the other hand you have an Atheist who has at best rejected the finite number of God Theories advanced to date. When compared (Infinity - 1) vs (Bajillion) you'll actually find that the Atheist is less Atheistic than the monotheist.
This is the trouble with defining Atheism as a Religion. It has no belief system. All it does is reject presently advanced beliefs. If that's a religion then there's the religion of those who reject the notion of UFOs. And then there's the religion of those who don't believe in Ghosts.
As the spokesman for Monosetians I want to voice our OUTRAGE caused by your demand for a list. Monosetians have few beliefs but asking for lists of things is shocking, abusive and insulting to our belief that all sets are of only one item. It's an obvious attempt to intentionally cause outrage amongst all of our members.
That's what I read when I read VLMC. MC is a bad acronym. It's also is potentially in conflict with Avid Media Composer (MC) which is an editing application.
Time to go back to the drawing board on that name.
pay for a public school teacher is more than sufficient, if you consider 2 months off in the summer, a winter break, a spring break, plus not a minute of unpaid overtime! On the contrary a developer works somewhere around 50 hours a week and receives, if they are lucky 2 weeks off.
I would dispute this claim. I only get 2-3 weeks off. But most teachers I know have to work during the summer at least part time. And when I go on vacation I actually have enough money to go somewhere cool.
It's quite simple. Give the technology classes to people who actually understand the subject and can teach interesting aspects of computer science.
All of my computer courses were either run by secretaries "Learn excel!" or mathematicians "Learn esoteric matlab graphing!"
Teach kids something more entertaining for a broader swath of students like visual effects. Write a renderer in a compositing application. or Teach kids Torque Game Builder. Something simple but creates a product the students actually are interested in.
If all of your deadlines are internal then that's fine but you're ignoring the client wild card. You can setup layers of punishment for a client missing a deadline but we often work with clients who have the resources to buy their ways out of their own failures.
You "need approval" by Monday for a Friday delivery. You get the approval on Thursday. They then say that it goes on air on Tuesday and has to be done no matter what. Now you're working a weekend. They'll get hit with an overage but they're willing to spend it because they'll probably just pass along the cost to their client for dragging their feet.
The alternative is to not have overages and penalties for missing client deadlines and simply say "No." that'll last about one time before the client gets fired and nobody will use you again lest they suffer the same fate.
You also ignore the "big project" in your theory. Sometimes a huge opportunity comes along that you can't pass up. Maybe you're already full so this'll have to be on top of the existing work-load. Maybe it's a job with lots of exposure and will lead to a lot of future work that you can plan for but don't have time to staff up for at present.
Yeah this was my reaction as well and I was really suprised by the actual question. I thought the question was going to be. "Will my employees think I'm a jerk for making them work late and then punching out at 6pm even if I'm not technically qualified to work on the project myself?"
Which is probably why the contest rules say they can disqualify any charity which doesn't conform to Chase values.
Seems simple. There are a near infinite number of charities which are in line with Chase corporate ideals and they want crowd sourcing to choose amongst them. Seeing as the first part "infinite number of charities" is impossible to filter then it's easiest to just reject ones that don't fit in at the end.
The problem with libertarianism is it has a very narrow definition of what government services protect liberty and freedom.
Anything two consenting adults do could include slavery and yet we know that even consensual slavery can easily result in a system where the powerful abuse those without influence to put them in a situation where they no longer are free.
We all have our own concepts of what the government's role is and how it can best serve the public good. Libertarians just arbitrary define their view on the government's role as the 'minimal'. The libertarian definition of 'minimal government' is often just sufficient to protect the business interests of those who have money and power.
The problem with libertarianism is it professes to draw a distinct line in where government should and should not intervene where none exists.
Even communists and fascists see limits to government. Only anarchists can legitimately claim to objectively hold claim to limiting the scope of government.
I think the last question is the critical one. I know far fewer women who stay up till 2 in the morning working and think of it as fun. I know lots of guys on the other hand who don't mind.
Also I think money is by and large less important to women than men. I tend to lean this way as well, I would prefer a low paying job that's enjoy able to a high paying job that's less fun. The question becomes is getting payed "enough" good enough?
Cards slow down express lanes? You're kidding right?
I swipe my card while the checker is scanning. When he's done it prompts me to confirm the price. I hit yes. He prints a receipt. No change. No counting. Instantaneous.
I see what you're doing there. You're trying to suppress Slashdot moderation! You're clearly conspiring to suppress all skeptical of Global Warming posts!
Don't lie! I know your scam now.
1) Point out the mistakes the parent made. 2) Offer a reasonable and passionate counter argument. 3) Attempt to cover counter arguments that might be made against you.
Clever, but not clever enough to escape my suppression detection systems. You're rigging Slashdot for your own liberal conspiracies! You might as well have said... "I sure went to town on that slashdot argument. Honestly I would be surprised if it broke +2 insightful"
Exactly. Copyright protects one of the most valuable resources we own. Time.
It takes me time to create art/code. By taking my art/code without my permission what you're doing is profiting from my time without giving me anything in return.
From a pragmatic standpoint I enjoy the labors of closed source software. Open source only works when there is sufficient motivation to create a product. Most of the software I use only is usable because of the incredible amount of time and dedication given to the project. Often it's the product of one lone developer toiling away to create the perfect mouse trap. No one entity has the resources either to fund it. While our company would find his software useful we wouldn't find it $100k useful. Nor would it really be fair if we spent $100k and everyone else profited. If it was $100k useful then we would develop it in house and keep it as a trade secret so that we would hold an advantage over our competitors.
Closed Source Commercial software gives us access to tools we could otherwise never be able to afford to create or develop.
I would mod your post insightful if I regularly encountered bugs in my xbox games. I don't. Almost all of the bugs I've encountered in the last few years have been multi-player related and mostly exploits. The notable exception being crab-walking in Gears of War. But that isn't unusual. That's the sort of bug that I've encountered in every multi-player game for all time. Aka, bunny hopping in Counter-Strike. And that was one of the most heavily beta tested games of all time.
Not to mention it's all well to say "We'll boycott you over XYZ" but in reality none of us actually care *that* much--which is why they get away with it. I wouldn't stop watching my favorite show just because a channel had unusually loud commercial breaks.
These are also usually the first people to complain about tax rates. They move to the middle of nowhere. Then expect a new highway to be built to their nowhere. Then they complain about gas and sales taxes to pay for their new highway. Then they say the government never does anything for them. Meanwhile I pay extra in rent to stay in the city and have to pay higher taxes to build their stupid highway so that they can have a yard and 10 bedrooms in the suburbs./no bitterness here....
Every road you drive on was probably someone's property at some time and they probably didn't want to give it up.
If you want to live in a forest full of anarchists be my guest. For the rest of us we realize there is a moral authority that sharing and cooperation is a net benefit to each of us.
Slashdot Mirror
It's confusing. It's not metaphoric. But it's not physical either. You're literally eating his body. But only the "Sum is greater than the parts = soul" essence sense.
We are more than the matter we're composed of therefore the bread is literally Christ's body but the molecular composition never changes.
So in other words it's metaphoric by humanity's definition of the word. The Church just invented a new definition of "literally" to justify their position.
I feel as though I am the only one not drinking from the cool-aid on this one. The story line, apart from the apparently necessary political message, is nothing more than a rehash of a million other stories.
Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie. If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.
Yeah! Stop producing all this unoriginal, uninspired drivel and start producing inoffensive apolitical, aphilisophical, viewpointless masterpieces! That's how Art has worked the last few hundred years why stop now? I want entertainment that has no viewpoint but is meaningful and significant! The artist shouldn't try to inject any personal perspective on their work, that's how great art is made!
Everyone attempts to use empiricism to describe the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. Some just have lower standards for evidence.
"I know God exists because he healed my grandmother." That's a scientific statement.
"I know God exists because of the way I feel when I speak to him." That's a scientific statement.
"I know God exists because of the numerous ways he shows himself to me." That's a scientific statement.
Stating that the evidence for God is insufficient therefore the only logical default position is to say that there is no God until proven otherwise is pragmatic not an assertion. The alternative is to assume that any concept without proof is true until proven false results in you living a life where there is ALWAYS a monster, ninja unicorn following you around but staying just out of your field of view.
Atheists and Agnostics are the same thing. Proving a negative is impossible, proving a positive is also technically impossible, but that doesn't mean you can't be inclined one way or another. We're all Agnostics if you want to get really technical.
I'm sure you mean: "As the one Monosetian" in accordance with your strong "belief that all sets are of only one item". Right?
We (I) aren't very active proselytizers for obvious reasons.
There is a substantive difference between "no belief in god" and "belief in no god". The prior is an absence of belief and makes no claim as to the existence of a god. The latter is an affirmative statement of the non-existence of a god. The prior is agnosticism, the latter atheism.
For some reason you are tying belief with god. This belies an inaccurate understanding of the term "belief". Look it up. Few definitions of "belief" refer to deity.
That's a false distinction that has no meaning in the real world. I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy. I'm not denying the theoretical possibility of a Tooth Fairy, I'm simply of the position that it's just a story. I also don't believe Star Wars actually happened. I base both those positions on the basis of lack of evidence and I wouldn't define either as being agnostic about Tooth Fairys "Well maybe they exist and maybe they don't".
Agnosticism is a form of Atheism. It's a lack of belief. No sane human being on earth would say with 100% certainty ANYTHING is definitely the case but somehow when it comes to God you have to be a devoutest to state your inclination. Even most believers don't say "God definitely exists and nothing could ever change that belief." but they get to be called theists. By saying "I don't know if there is a God", the agnostic defines themselves as an atheist, they do not conclude there is a God therefore they are not Theists, they are Atheist.
Just as much as capitalism. If by Religion you mean advancing the argument "It will lead to a better world".
Now Maoisms, Stalinism etc might be better matches for being a religion but that wouldn't play nice with lumping them all together into one inaccurately homogeneous descriptor.
While your argument seems rational at its face value it instantaneously becomes meaningless in practice.
By your definition Religion == Belief about something.
Therefore my belief that your definition is too broad means I've formed another religion.
Atheism says nothing of God. It simply rejects all the currently advanced theories on God. Atheism really has to be applied to each instance of God Theory. Theoretically even the most ardent atheist will admit that there would be a situation where they would believe in a God, they simply have never experienced it. In contrast monotheists reject all theories except for one of God in their default position all other theories are forgeries or tricks. If you look at it from the perspective of Atheism (rejecting God Theories) the monotheist rejects not only all presently advanced theories on God's existence but all possible theories. Which means a monotheist is actually Atheist in regards to an (infinite number of God Theories - 1). On the other hand you have an Atheist who has at best rejected the finite number of God Theories advanced to date. When compared (Infinity - 1) vs (Bajillion) you'll actually find that the Atheist is less Atheistic than the monotheist.
This is the trouble with defining Atheism as a Religion. It has no belief system. All it does is reject presently advanced beliefs. If that's a religion then there's the religion of those who reject the notion of UFOs. And then there's the religion of those who don't believe in Ghosts.
As the spokesman for Monosetians I want to voice our OUTRAGE caused by your demand for a list. Monosetians have few beliefs but asking for lists of things is shocking, abusive and insulting to our belief that all sets are of only one item. It's an obvious attempt to intentionally cause outrage amongst all of our members.
I'll see you in court sir!
That's what I read when I read VLMC. MC is a bad acronym. It's also is potentially in conflict with Avid Media Composer (MC) which is an editing application.
Time to go back to the drawing board on that name.
By definition joining a Friends' server shouldn't be any more difficult than clicking "Join Friend's Game". That's what Steam and Live are for.
pay for a public school teacher is more than sufficient, if you consider 2 months off in the summer, a winter break, a spring break, plus not a minute of unpaid overtime! On the contrary a developer works somewhere around 50 hours a week and receives, if they are lucky 2 weeks off.
I would dispute this claim. I only get 2-3 weeks off. But most teachers I know have to work during the summer at least part time. And when I go on vacation I actually have enough money to go somewhere cool.
It's quite simple. Give the technology classes to people who actually understand the subject and can teach interesting aspects of computer science.
All of my computer courses were either run by secretaries "Learn excel!" or mathematicians "Learn esoteric matlab graphing!"
Teach kids something more entertaining for a broader swath of students like visual effects. Write a renderer in a compositing application. or Teach kids Torque Game Builder. Something simple but creates a product the students actually are interested in.
You obviously don't have clients.
If all of your deadlines are internal then that's fine but you're ignoring the client wild card. You can setup layers of punishment for a client missing a deadline but we often work with clients who have the resources to buy their ways out of their own failures.
You "need approval" by Monday for a Friday delivery. You get the approval on Thursday. They then say that it goes on air on Tuesday and has to be done no matter what. Now you're working a weekend. They'll get hit with an overage but they're willing to spend it because they'll probably just pass along the cost to their client for dragging their feet.
The alternative is to not have overages and penalties for missing client deadlines and simply say "No." that'll last about one time before the client gets fired and nobody will use you again lest they suffer the same fate.
You also ignore the "big project" in your theory. Sometimes a huge opportunity comes along that you can't pass up. Maybe you're already full so this'll have to be on top of the existing work-load. Maybe it's a job with lots of exposure and will lead to a lot of future work that you can plan for but don't have time to staff up for at present.
Yeah this was my reaction as well and I was really suprised by the actual question. I thought the question was going to be. "Will my employees think I'm a jerk for making them work late and then punching out at 6pm even if I'm not technically qualified to work on the project myself?"
Which is probably why the contest rules say they can disqualify any charity which doesn't conform to Chase values.
Seems simple. There are a near infinite number of charities which are in line with Chase corporate ideals and they want crowd sourcing to choose amongst them. Seeing as the first part "infinite number of charities" is impossible to filter then it's easiest to just reject ones that don't fit in at the end.
The problem with libertarianism is it has a very narrow definition of what government services protect liberty and freedom.
Anything two consenting adults do could include slavery and yet we know that even consensual slavery can easily result in a system where the powerful abuse those without influence to put them in a situation where they no longer are free.
We all have our own concepts of what the government's role is and how it can best serve the public good. Libertarians just arbitrary define their view on the government's role as the 'minimal'. The libertarian definition of 'minimal government' is often just sufficient to protect the business interests of those who have money and power.
So would anarchy.
The problem with libertarianism is it professes to draw a distinct line in where government should and should not intervene where none exists.
Even communists and fascists see limits to government. Only anarchists can legitimately claim to objectively hold claim to limiting the scope of government.
I think the last question is the critical one. I know far fewer women who stay up till 2 in the morning working and think of it as fun. I know lots of guys on the other hand who don't mind.
Also I think money is by and large less important to women than men. I tend to lean this way as well, I would prefer a low paying job that's enjoy able to a high paying job that's less fun. The question becomes is getting payed "enough" good enough?
Cards slow down express lanes? You're kidding right?
I swipe my card while the checker is scanning. When he's done it prompts me to confirm the price. I hit yes. He prints a receipt. No change. No counting. Instantaneous.
I see what you're doing there. You're trying to suppress Slashdot moderation! You're clearly conspiring to suppress all skeptical of Global Warming posts!
Don't lie! I know your scam now.
1) Point out the mistakes the parent made.
2) Offer a reasonable and passionate counter argument.
3) Attempt to cover counter arguments that might be made against you.
Clever, but not clever enough to escape my suppression detection systems. You're rigging Slashdot for your own liberal conspiracies! You might as well have said... "I sure went to town on that slashdot argument. Honestly I would be surprised if it broke +2 insightful"
Exactly. Copyright protects one of the most valuable resources we own. Time.
It takes me time to create art/code. By taking my art/code without my permission what you're doing is profiting from my time without giving me anything in return.
From a pragmatic standpoint I enjoy the labors of closed source software. Open source only works when there is sufficient motivation to create a product. Most of the software I use only is usable because of the incredible amount of time and dedication given to the project. Often it's the product of one lone developer toiling away to create the perfect mouse trap. No one entity has the resources either to fund it. While our company would find his software useful we wouldn't find it $100k useful. Nor would it really be fair if we spent $100k and everyone else profited. If it was $100k useful then we would develop it in house and keep it as a trade secret so that we would hold an advantage over our competitors.
Closed Source Commercial software gives us access to tools we could otherwise never be able to afford to create or develop.
I would mod your post insightful if I regularly encountered bugs in my xbox games. I don't. Almost all of the bugs I've encountered in the last few years have been multi-player related and mostly exploits. The notable exception being crab-walking in Gears of War. But that isn't unusual. That's the sort of bug that I've encountered in every multi-player game for all time. Aka, bunny hopping in Counter-Strike. And that was one of the most heavily beta tested games of all time.
Not to mention it's all well to say "We'll boycott you over XYZ" but in reality none of us actually care *that* much--which is why they get away with it. I wouldn't stop watching my favorite show just because a channel had unusually loud commercial breaks.
These are also usually the first people to complain about tax rates. They move to the middle of nowhere. Then expect a new highway to be built to their nowhere. Then they complain about gas and sales taxes to pay for their new highway. Then they say the government never does anything for them. Meanwhile I pay extra in rent to stay in the city and have to pay higher taxes to build their stupid highway so that they can have a yard and 10 bedrooms in the suburbs. /no bitterness here....
Every road you drive on was probably someone's property at some time and they probably didn't want to give it up.
If you want to live in a forest full of anarchists be my guest. For the rest of us we realize there is a moral authority that sharing and cooperation is a net benefit to each of us.