Heaven, Hell, Bible? Yeah, maybe not actually in there at all. Oh, sure, there's some vague references that over time have been well and truly blown out of proportion, but the whole heaven and hell thing is not really a point of the book.
On the contrary, it's more of a motivator towards leading a "good" life. There's mention of eternal life (not in heaven) as a reward, and death as the alternative. Not so much of this etheral crap.
And many the other parts are more or less historical; some of them for the purpose of being historical.
Then there's the mad-hermit hallucinatory section, for which the symbolic interpretation is often up for grabs. That's where the organised religion often gets caught up and manipulative.
Then surely you would not object to giving the scientologists greater power over your esteemed self? That way, you can clearly divine just what it is that they would impose upon you in your unwilling state.
You are comparing between past and present tense. Scientology has never been in the position of influence that pop-christianity has been in the past, so you cannot make an even judgement.
Organised religion leaves much to be desired, in any event.
I don't know. What if the arrow "lands in" your eye, for example?
It's probably justified to be concerned for the state of an apple that an arrow lands in. Changing the victim to a forest is misleading.
Of course the differing connotations of the two terms make it all a big mess anyway. Landing in terms of missiles gives a different impression than it would with a bullet or a loosed arrow.
I found that to be strangely humourous, I'm sorry.
You're right, science is not religion, but it's not fact either. It is just (and only) observation. Once we remove the public perception of "science" as an infalliable entity, slowly (and surely) divining the nature of this reality we inhabit, we'll be much better off. After all, science isn't something to put your faith in.
You can't replace religion with science; science isn't (or shouldn't be) that narrow-minded. It's a method, not an answer.
Or maybe I'm just an unbearable idealist, sometimes I can't even tell.
You can only talk to one person on the phone at once, right? I can see one or two rare situations where this would be of use, but generally, uses are there for this type of technology?
Actually, you can just right-click an input box on a form and select "Add a keyword for this search..." which will work more easily, especially with post-method forms, unless they've taken the feature out in the newer versions of firefox...
Slashdot Mirror
Heaven, Hell, Bible? Yeah, maybe not actually in there at all. Oh, sure, there's some vague references that over time have been well and truly blown out of proportion, but the whole heaven and hell thing is not really a point of the book.
On the contrary, it's more of a motivator towards leading a "good" life. There's mention of eternal life (not in heaven) as a reward, and death as the alternative. Not so much of this etheral crap.
And many the other parts are more or less historical; some of them for the purpose of being historical.
Then there's the mad-hermit hallucinatory section, for which the symbolic interpretation is often up for grabs. That's where the organised religion often gets caught up and manipulative.
Then surely you would not object to giving the scientologists greater power over your esteemed self? That way, you can clearly divine just what it is that they would impose upon you in your unwilling state.
You are comparing between past and present tense. Scientology has never been in the position of influence that pop-christianity has been in the past, so you cannot make an even judgement.
Organised religion leaves much to be desired, in any event.
This one:_ episode_31/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/18/bofh_2005
Or you could just make it yourself...
I don't know.
What if the arrow "lands in" your eye, for example?
It's probably justified to be concerned for the state of an apple that an arrow lands in. Changing the victim to a forest is misleading.
Of course the differing connotations of the two terms make it all a big mess anyway. Landing in terms of missiles gives a different impression than it would with a bullet or a loosed arrow.
I found that to be strangely humourous, I'm sorry.
You're right, science is not religion, but it's not fact either. It is just (and only) observation. Once we remove the public perception of "science" as an infalliable entity, slowly (and surely) divining the nature of this reality we inhabit, we'll be much better off. After all, science isn't something to put your faith in.
You can't replace religion with science; science isn't (or shouldn't be) that narrow-minded. It's a method, not an answer.
Or maybe I'm just an unbearable idealist, sometimes I can't even tell.
You can only talk to one person on the phone at once, right?
I can see one or two rare situations where this would be of use, but generally, uses are there for this type of technology?
Be alert, but not alarmed.
I guess it's time for a new PC. I don't know that I can live without IE 7's new 'anti-phishing' filter.
doubleplusungood
What are we assuming, again?
bane/foundation. Same thing.
Incidently, it's not just America, but the entire west, and the western imitators, too.
We've taught them well.
Or look at it this way:
Westerner - super_high_level_of_consumerist_culture == better_off
Spend some time in a third world country and you'll see what I mean. Admittedly, it's not so drastic in the cities, but you'd be surprised. I was.
ET was designed to be cute!?
I shall never trust the film industry again.
Whoosh!
I would like to inform you,
Evidence supports, it does not suggest.
Actually, you can just right-click an input box on a form and select "Add a keyword for this search..." which will work more easily, especially with post-method forms, unless they've taken the feature out in the newer versions of firefox...
Quite right. It's not anonymous.
Apparently it's the thought which counts.
Why all the big attachment to JPEGs?
Isn't it better to be taking lossless pictures with digital cameras anyway?
(My digital camera only writes in jpg format. I'm not sure if this is rare amongst digital cameras nowdays, but it doesn't seem ideal.)
Because Wikipedia is the most reputable source you can think of?
That's one word, duckspeaker.
The charge of the light brigade?
Oh wait.