He has also largely been rejected by the scientific community. Paradigm shifts is nonsense. It's all people working on the shoulders of giants. Damned few major revolutions in science just came out of the blue.
I can't think of a scientist or philosopher of science nowadays that actually agrees with many of Kuhn's conclusions. Even Kuhn himself backed off of them to some extent. Sadly, the only time Kuhn is even trotted out anymore is by post-modernists and advocates of quack science to try to denigrate actual scientists.
Maybe the solution is to bribe politicians back. Let's band together and pay for their hookers and fine meals. I mean, if the United States has become a near-naked kleptocracy where the only thing that drives legislation is big wads of cash, why not eliminate any notion of democracy and admit it is a corrupt nation run by vile repugnant people and start buying them off to make right decisions?
It's still a sin, whether forgivable or not.And your last sentence amply demonstrates why everyone from Quakers to Nazis have been able to use the Bible to promote their own particular philosophies.
If the plumber is working in a hotel, he doesn't confuse the guests with the owners. That network doesn't belong to you, it isn't your "bathtub", so your analogy is pure bullshit.
This is rather like saying "He violated a contract a decade ago, but because the wronged party found other business, pursuit of the initial violation is pointless."
Just because events have moved long past this period, so far as I'm concerned, if Microsoft deliberately used its monopoly to damage a competitor, it should be made to pay for it.
The reason you won't come around and hurt us or kill us is because the Enlightenment thinkers, and in particular John Locke showed how to pull your fangs. We can only hope that it eventually catches on in many Muslim countries, too, because there are a good many Mullahs who need political/social castrating, just like the West did to all its fire-and-brimstone preachers.
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." - Romans Chapter 1 verse 27
Whatever "peace love dove Hari Krishna all you groovy freaks" Jesus of Nazarus may have tried to insert in place of the various Old Testament restrictions, St. Paul put back in, which is why modern Christianity is more properly the religion of St. Paul, and not of Jesus himself, who quickly took a back seat to whatever particular ax ol' Saul of Tarsus wanted to grind at any given moment.
Exactly right. It's nothing more than cherry picking to underpin existing prejudices. The Southern Baptist Convention did the same thing throughout most of its history to prop up its racist beliefs.
This is nothing more than quibbling over what's being hated. Leviticus makes it clear that homosexuals are to be executed. Whether Yahweh just hates sodomy or more generally hates sodomites is a point of dogma, but to the guy being hauled outside the city walls to be stoned to death, it made no difference.
Frankly, I find many points in Leviticus utterly morally reprehensible, and, I suspect many Christians do too, which is why they end up in these little games of semantics about homosexuality, so that they can try to remove themselves a little from a holy book that commands its followers to do evil things.
My position is that what two adults do together is none of your fucking business. If some infinite omnipotent being exists out there and He/She/It/Them is so utterly small-minded as to give a damn whether two adults gain sexual and emotional satisfaction through homosexual acts, then such a being isn't worthy of being worshiped. Certainly the god of the Hebrews was a vile and evil monster. The god of the New Testament is certainly on some neat psychotropic drugs, but still, you get to some of St. Paul's charming words and then Revelations, you realize the dosage wore off and we're right back to an evil being who creates infinite punishments for finite crimes (if some of those crimes are even crimes at all).
Not me. I'm an atheist. I think the whole thing is rubbish, but one cannot say "God hates the sin, not the sinner" when one of His laws states that homosexuals must be executed.
And yet every single copy of the Christian Bible includes Leviticus, and from my youth, I do remember passages be read from it. Clearly it matters to some Christians, particularly those who want to maintain or reintroduce sodomy laws.
As I said elsewhere, it matters little to a man being put to death for having sexual relations with another men whether God is hating the sin or God is hating the sinner.
If you're being put to death because you had sexual relations with another member of your sex, I doubt very much the distinction between "God hates the sin, not the sinner" and "God hates the sinner" is going to mean very much at all.
And yes, I realize Christ said there was a new covenant (or allegedly said it, who knows where that came from). but since certain branches of Christianity will still invoke Hebrew law to condemn certain practices, it strikes me that what constitutes the new covenant is yet another area of interpretation.
Besides, if Leviticus is that utterly meaningless, then why bother putting it in the Bible at all?
You do realize these are post-hoc re-interpretations. There can be little doubt that, at least, the proscription against male homosexuality existed and was very strong indeed. You're free to reinterpret things as you please, but what you can't convince me of is that your interpretation is actually a legitimate one when you analyze the text.
Which is why I had have a special legalized exemption system that amounted to "Sure, you can pump this awful chemical into the air/water/ground but if we trace so much as one person's death to your conduct, we take your entire board and senior management out back of the court house and beat them to death with bricks."
Slashdot Mirror
He has also largely been rejected by the scientific community. Paradigm shifts is nonsense. It's all people working on the shoulders of giants. Damned few major revolutions in science just came out of the blue.
I can't think of a scientist or philosopher of science nowadays that actually agrees with many of Kuhn's conclusions. Even Kuhn himself backed off of them to some extent. Sadly, the only time Kuhn is even trotted out anymore is by post-modernists and advocates of quack science to try to denigrate actual scientists.
Maybe the solution is to bribe politicians back. Let's band together and pay for their hookers and fine meals. I mean, if the United States has become a near-naked kleptocracy where the only thing that drives legislation is big wads of cash, why not eliminate any notion of democracy and admit it is a corrupt nation run by vile repugnant people and start buying them off to make right decisions?
Then how does Venus, which has almost no magnetic field manage to retain a very dense atmosphere?
Of which the purchasing of the components for will end you up on a dozen government watch lists.
It's still a sin, whether forgivable or not.And your last sentence amply demonstrates why everyone from Quakers to Nazis have been able to use the Bible to promote their own particular philosophies.
If the plumber is working in a hotel, he doesn't confuse the guests with the owners. That network doesn't belong to you, it isn't your "bathtub", so your analogy is pure bullshit.
I fail to see how context repairs it. Clearly St. Paul views homosexuality as a sin.
This is rather like saying "He violated a contract a decade ago, but because the wronged party found other business, pursuit of the initial violation is pointless."
Just because events have moved long past this period, so far as I'm concerned, if Microsoft deliberately used its monopoly to damage a competitor, it should be made to pay for it.
The reason you won't come around and hurt us or kill us is because the Enlightenment thinkers, and in particular John Locke showed how to pull your fangs. We can only hope that it eventually catches on in many Muslim countries, too, because there are a good many Mullahs who need political/social castrating, just like the West did to all its fire-and-brimstone preachers.
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
- Romans Chapter 1 verse 27
Whatever "peace love dove Hari Krishna all you groovy freaks" Jesus of Nazarus may have tried to insert in place of the various Old Testament restrictions, St. Paul put back in, which is why modern Christianity is more properly the religion of St. Paul, and not of Jesus himself, who quickly took a back seat to whatever particular ax ol' Saul of Tarsus wanted to grind at any given moment.
Exactly right. It's nothing more than cherry picking to underpin existing prejudices. The Southern Baptist Convention did the same thing throughout most of its history to prop up its racist beliefs.
This is nothing more than quibbling over what's being hated. Leviticus makes it clear that homosexuals are to be executed. Whether Yahweh just hates sodomy or more generally hates sodomites is a point of dogma, but to the guy being hauled outside the city walls to be stoned to death, it made no difference.
Frankly, I find many points in Leviticus utterly morally reprehensible, and, I suspect many Christians do too, which is why they end up in these little games of semantics about homosexuality, so that they can try to remove themselves a little from a holy book that commands its followers to do evil things.
My position is that what two adults do together is none of your fucking business. If some infinite omnipotent being exists out there and He/She/It/Them is so utterly small-minded as to give a damn whether two adults gain sexual and emotional satisfaction through homosexual acts, then such a being isn't worthy of being worshiped. Certainly the god of the Hebrews was a vile and evil monster. The god of the New Testament is certainly on some neat psychotropic drugs, but still, you get to some of St. Paul's charming words and then Revelations, you realize the dosage wore off and we're right back to an evil being who creates infinite punishments for finite crimes (if some of those crimes are even crimes at all).
Not me. I'm an atheist. I think the whole thing is rubbish, but one cannot say "God hates the sin, not the sinner" when one of His laws states that homosexuals must be executed.
What do you want me to say to that? It reads more like "That object is purple, and even if it is green, it is purple."
And yet every single copy of the Christian Bible includes Leviticus, and from my youth, I do remember passages be read from it. Clearly it matters to some Christians, particularly those who want to maintain or reintroduce sodomy laws.
As I said elsewhere, it matters little to a man being put to death for having sexual relations with another men whether God is hating the sin or God is hating the sinner.
If you're being put to death because you had sexual relations with another member of your sex, I doubt very much the distinction between "God hates the sin, not the sinner" and "God hates the sinner" is going to mean very much at all.
And yes, I realize Christ said there was a new covenant (or allegedly said it, who knows where that came from). but since certain branches of Christianity will still invoke Hebrew law to condemn certain practices, it strikes me that what constitutes the new covenant is yet another area of interpretation.
Besides, if Leviticus is that utterly meaningless, then why bother putting it in the Bible at all?
You do realize these are post-hoc re-interpretations. There can be little doubt that, at least, the proscription against male homosexuality existed and was very strong indeed. You're free to reinterpret things as you please, but what you can't convince me of is that your interpretation is actually a legitimate one when you analyze the text.
I think someone needs to re-read Leviticus. Yahweh most certainly hates homosexuals.
KISS was a has-been in 1985. It's a has-has-has-has-been by now, and KISS has basically been Paul Stanley's vehicle for a couple of decades anyways.
Advertisers should have a bomb implanted at the base of their skull, and the minute they betray any sociopathic tendency, KABOOM!
They'll figure it out after the first few fines.
Don't worry about it. The next Tea Party/Libertarian president will eliminate the EPA, which apparently will make us all safer.
Which is why I had have a special legalized exemption system that amounted to "Sure, you can pump this awful chemical into the air/water/ground but if we trace so much as one person's death to your conduct, we take your entire board and senior management out back of the court house and beat them to death with bricks."