If you think God wants you to give your money away, you can find somebody to take it. You got exactly what you wanted, this is a service, not a con. If you believe a tv preacher when he promises you worldly happiness or health if you give him money, then you are greedy (and stupid) and this is a con.
Lemon car
If the dealer lied about the car, it's just fraud. Maybe you are too trusting, but again, this ain't David Mamet here. If he says that the owner priced it too low and didn't understand how awesome the car really is, but will probably figure it out soon, BUY NOW, then he's appealing to your greed and it's a con.
Fugly date
Are you kidding me? Hey I know this hot chick that's just shy... she's yours for the taking, just show up! I don't know why she doesn't have a boyfriend... lucky you! This is greed. If it isn't, then for fucks sake, go enjoy yourself with the fugly girl! You can't be seen with an unattractive girl? Then why are you going out on blind dates?
The honest wingman here either goes out to help his buddy (doesn't matter what she looks like) or has his own stable of hotties. I know this is/., but you've seen it on tv or something, I'm sure.
Or am I missing something fundamental about human nature? Or are you?
Greed is where in your selfish desire for something you do something "wrong" to get it that harms another. However, sometimes it's hard to know who you are harming, but still you know you are doing something "wrong."
If someone simply lies to you and rips you off, that's not a "con". That's just fraud. If you are careful, you can avoid most fraud, but "cons" always rely on greed.
A lot of people say that some cons work on "honesty" or some other virtue, but I still haven't seen one that would work on an "honest man." For example, in your craigslist scam, you say that the mark expects to get the original asking price, so he's not being greedy. But an honest person is always going to do the right thing, and here the "right" thing to do is to send the check back. Why would the buyer not agree to that? Some kind of hurry? So now you have to decide how badly you want to make your sale. If the buyer is not in a hurry then... send the check back. If you want to make the sale so badly that you'll take the wrong payment just because the buyer is in a hurry... ask the IRS how honest you are in your accounting and bookkeeping. It's not honest to knowingly sell a $10 thing for $100 now and "fix it later." Of course it is an honest mistake to sell something that you meant to sell for $50 for $100, and then refund the difference, but that's not what's happening here. Oh, you can "let's just say that's what happened" but hey, you would be a liar.
I think its obvious that the "mark is working on" the desire to make the sale, and if he does something that's wrong, shady or just doesn't make sense to make it happen, hey, most of us call that greed.
Sometimes the "other person" that gets harmed is yourself. But if you always follow the "right path" nobody will get hurt.
Now, if you come up to me and tell me you lost your wallet and I give you $20 out of kindness, because I "trust" you... well, you aren't Paul Newman in "The Sting" here... you are just a liar.
And I thought of that before I gave you the $20.
Also, in the linked video, if the mark had simply said, "Uh, let's just call the police. I don't care what you do, I think I'm just going to call the police right now. We definitely should turn $3000 lying on the sidewalk over to the authorities." Then, no con would have happened. Or maybe even, "I don't want any part of this." In the latter he's perhaps not the best citizen, but at least he honest.
Totally agree. And honestly, what you are "judging" is how well the prosecution made it's case. And the "reasonable person" is you. That's pretty much it. However, I think "reasonable" has a long history of legal interpretation... but what matters in the end is what the jury said.
We are not the first to second-guess a jury.
Also, I don't think it's fair to say the dissenting side here on/. is merely "throwing out alternative scenarios." Rather I think we're offering explanations for his "odd behaviour" (supposedly "geek-like") which could potentially render his mannerisms irrelevant to the case and also, suggesting that when the prosecution claims that he killed his wife, but can't say how, when or where... that perhaps they really just don't have that good a case to begin with.
Of course the jury found him guilty, and that's what counts, and of course, he did it.
What is it about this case that brings out the stupids in people? No offense. Well, a little offense.
I think I understand how evidence works in a trial. I have some idea.
You might want to ask yourself what the importance of having an alibi is when... there is no body and no time of death established. You also might want to consider that Nina had a motive to flee the country without telling anyone. It is interesting also that someone the victim had been intimate with had confessed to killing several people... yet was never formally investigated.
No one is saying "without physical evidence, you cannot find someone guilty, because, as we all know, that's solid!"
Because you can get convicted on circumstantial evidence and testimony alone. It happens all the time. Some of us (yes, I'm not alone here) think he was guilty yet the standard of reasonable doubt was not met. I'm not saying the justice system is wrong. I'm not saying that there wasn't any physical evidence, and therefore he shouldn't have been convicted. I have opinions on that, but they don't apply here.
I AM saying... that from following the case (somewhat) I did not find the prosecution's case (which was, as it happens, mostly if not all circumstantial) compelling enough to find Hans Reiser guilty of PREMEDITATED MURDER, which is what he was charged with. Also, apparently the jurors felt that Hans' testimony was suspect as well. I don't think that's good enough... IN THIS CASE.
Feel free to disagree, but try to understand what I'm saying first. Do you understand now?
And... BY THE WAY... what you are describing as "how it works" sounds more like "preponderance of evidence" not... wait for it... "beyond a reasonable doubt." Here in the US we have both. Guess what, your "reducing the chances someone else did it" ideas are just fine... for a civil case. As a matter of fact, all you have to hit is 50%.
For Hans, we needed to apply the stricter proof test, and the way that is defined is not some kind of probability function nonsense, but rather the very freaking simple idea that a "reasonable person" through "common sense" would be "fully satisfied" that Hans is guilty. That's it. No probabilities, no chances. If a person feels "uncomfortable" with their verdict, because something is "bothering" them about it, because say, there was no body found and Nina might have fled to Russia and the prosecution didn't address that "convincingly", then, that is "a reasonable doubt."
IANAL, but I am open to correction if I have anything wrong. Your post didn't do it.
Also, not to be complete dick or anything, but there's no need for you to "excuse yourself" from a jury because you don't think you "understand the legal system"... they'll take care of that for you during jury selection. I suspect neither of us would make very good jurors. But for entirely different reasons of course.
not the same as "proven beyond any doubt", which seems to be your position
How did you get that from that post? That's the opposite of what Mr. Anon said.
I agree with anon. I personally felt pretty sure that he did it. But without a body and the fact that his S&M buddy freaking *confessed* to several murders... and the fact that the wife was apparently involved with the buddy... I felt that to convict only with circumstantial evidence was wrong. Me? I thought he did it, but had a "reasonable doubt" that perhaps the wife had fled or that Hans was freaking out and thought he was being framed, or perhaps was being framed. I thought the evidence left too much room for doubt... and it would be better to let him go free than convict an innocent man.
Am I missing something too? Is that not how this is supposed to work?
Something about it being better to let 10 guilty men go free...?
Apple and MS both have rich neighbor. Apple steals a TV. MS watches Apple's TV and wants one. MS steals another TV from same neighbor. Meanwhile, neighbor is trying to get people to come over and watch his other, other TV, but nobody will. Apple acts like a weenie and calls the cops on MS. Rich neighbor calls the cops on Apple. Cops let everybody go. MS buys a little piece of Apple's TV.
Well said. However, if you would read through some of the other comments, you would see that you are a bit late to the party. The comment system is sort of broken I think and sometimes it is kind of easy to miss things though.
Double whoosh. Also wrong-ish:
The non-intuitive message confuses people for several reasons. The abbreviation "PC" is misleading because it is widely understood -- especially in the context of electronic office equipment -- to mean "Personal Computer", suggesting to many that the problem lies in the computer, not the printer.
Well, he was ruder than I was above... but yes, I have written plenty of client-side queries that embed constant values in a SQL statement. No, not INSERTS (fairly useless, that)... but plenty of UPDATES (think updating a date time stamp to sysdate) and of course SELECTS (think a web page that displays only t-shirts).
Concatenting strings with user values into SQL... bad. Yes. Generalizing to the point where you suggest that quotes are bad any time any place... well kind of makes you sound like a niave noob yourself and invites these sort of comments. Not every SQL statement has user-derived values. Not every SQL statement needs to be parameterized (not every API in the world supports it, either). And not every application is a web application, or deals with hostile input. And implementing security through "coding standards" and "best practices" is a cookie-cutter approach and no substitute for deep groking. If somebody on my team is learning how to code from Slashdot... I'm leaving that team.
ON THE OTHER HAND you are absolutely correct in that BRINGING SQL INJECTION ATTACKS UP in whatever context is a service to the community and a good thing.
And pointing out the underlying issues involved... and that things are not always so black and white... is also a service to the community.
Explain to me how you can 'inject' anything into a string literal. Nowhere in the post does he build a SQL statement from user input. Methinks you are just a little too ready to bust someone.
I think you mean IBM. Differential cryptanalysis was discovered by IBM in 1974. IBM also invented DES. NSA approved, reduced the key size, and asked IBM to keep differential cryptanalysis a secret.
It's funny that you point to a case where the NSA failed to keep some encryption technology developed by a public company a secret... as proof that they have a crack team of super mathmaticians hidden away somewhere.
Not that I disagree with you. You just need a better example.
A couple of things the NSA has going for it are lots of money, and power. So I figure they have whatever those things bring you. I can make a long list of things, from steam engines, the first computer, airplanes, fission, DNA, the first personal computer, not to mention... calculus... geometry... I could go on here... that caught the "government" by surprise. Throughout history, the governments of the world have proven themselves to be thugs... not enlightened scientists. IMHO.
Not that the NSA couldn't brute-force your email, of course.
Basically, you just seem to like what "Jesus" has to say.
Yes, now you are catching on. I like what He had to say very much.
you don't believe that anyone who wrote anything in the Bible was divinely guided (you don't)
Well, I never said that. You are asking me something that I could never, ever hope to know. Let's stick with Matthew. I said Matthew never claimed to be divenely guided. Moreover, I don't need to believe that Matthew was divinely guided to "like" - or believe - what Jesus had to say. This seems to be one of your requirements. Good luck with that. When I hear my brothers and sisters speak of biblical inerrancy I roll my eyes at this (clearly) logicaly untenable position. The books in question (the gospels) do not even claim this for themselves. It may be true, but how would I know? This idea of divinely guided authorship is not the source of my faith. Stop trying to say that it is, or that it should be. It is not.
you don't believe that anyone who actually knew Jesus wrote the Gospels (you don't)
Again, I never said that. You are still asking me something I will never hope to know. Matthew may be the actual author, and if so, then he logically would be an eyewitness (since he was supposedly an apostle). I don't think you can prove he was not the author of the book... only that he might not be the author, or that we can never be 100% sure of its accuracy or completeness. I agree. But if you can show that the apostle Matthew could not have been the author of that gospel (in whole or in part), stop posting on slashdot and write a paper or something. The last time I checked, the scholars were out on that issue. If I were relying on his authorship being an established fact, THEN I would be screwed I guess. Unfortunately for you and your line of attack, I (apparently along with Matthew) feel that his personal testimony is irrelevant. I wonder why that is?
If you don't accept that Jesus was a divine being (you don't)
Hello? I said this? Maybe when I was drooling my meds fell out of my mouth and I forgot. Wow. I worship and follow Jesus as Lord and "personal saviour," terms which I think would need to be defined before we discussed that much further. You and I were discussing "the message of christ" and what it might mean versus later church interpretation/doctrine. We discussed if His message was irreparably changed or lost (in particular, at Nicaea). We were also discussing how accurate His preserved message is, if the man even existed, and if it was reasonable to even tentatively assume that he might have said any of the things he is supposed to have said, in order to evaluate what His message might even have been. I think yes; you were trying to convince me otherwise. I steadfastly refused to debate the "truth" of His message as a foolish endeavor.
Were we having a different conversation?
What I am trying to say is that their was MASSIVE debate and conflict between various sects of Christianity, particularly on the divinity of Jesus. These debates were eventually ended through FORCE.
Sounds like you know your stuff. So... you can read the competing theories (those that we know about anyway) and decide for yourself. I did.
Look up "Arian Controversy".
You know, I'm actually already familiar with that.
Also known as STYLE. The word "style" appears about 10 times in the article you cited.
You seemed to have some "misconceptions." In particular that I didn't understand carbon dating or how serious scholars actually do those things they do. I thought by using a fancy word I might set you straight.
What I've been trying to illustrate is that "Jesus" didn't say anything.
Replying to myself before I forget something. The phrase "son of god" is found in the OT... but not like Jesus used it. This is what I mean by "coined".
I wasn't relying on carbon dating being accurate to 'n' years and I think you know that. I never said the papyrus fragments of Matthew were carbon dated. But I did say that we have texts that show Matthew as predating Nicaea, which is common knowledge but you're being pedantic and I'm playing along.
The magdalen papyrus I mentioned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_papyrus) has been dated to 200 A.D. (by some) using paleographical analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeography). There are always disagreements on these things - but you have set the bar pretty low. I'm just shooting for "not retarded.":)
And I never mentioned Mark. I said pieces of Matthew have been dated to around 200 A.D. They have also been dated to later and earlier. But I never said carbon dated. You are being dishonest now. My point was that there do exist texts that suggest that Jesus said he was the son of God, these texts have been dated to before 325, and this idea was certainly floating around in the Chirstian community before Nicaea. Many of your previous arguments seemed to suggest this idea was concieved at Nicaea and the evidence was manufactured after the fact. Nothing you have said demonstrates this. The window of accuracy for the carbon dating for judas is irrelevant, and I never mentioned it other that to show that we have alterntate texts that perhaps are more "accurate."
None of the gospels were written by an eyewitness to Jesus or knew anyone that was.
That's right. And I never said they were. I said Matthew was a collection of eyewitness accounts, at least 2nd or 3rd hand. And he didn't even sign his name. But, still that's more than sticking your head in a hat 2000 years later. As you said, I "pick and choose" what to belive.
I do think it's weird that you accept the Nicaean Creed as fact while at the same time insisting the council was not divinely inspired. Basically you're saying that they "happened to guess correctly", which seems weird to me.
And
No. If Jesus was born of Joseph then he was specifically NOT the Son of God. If you're saying that Jesus was the Son of God but Mary was NOT a virgin then you're saying that God had physical sex with Mary, a married woman, to produce Jesus. This is a position I've never heard from anyone before. I am very hesitant to call it "Christian".
It seems weird to you because you are not listening to me. You are only listening to what the "church" says. It seems like I'm not allowed an opinion of my own unless it conforms to some established order. And you don't want to listen to Jesus, either. I mean just to hear what he has to say, of course. I don't mean you should accept what he has to say. He after all, coined this whole "son of God" business... nobody really knows what he meant. No, I don't think God had physical sex with Mary, but I think that Joseph might have been his father, or another man, and that he could still be the "son of God." Because "son of God" was never defined by Jesus. This seems... not hard to understand.
Please pay attention to what I said and what I did not just say. I'll repeat it: I don't know if Jesus was born of the "virgin" Mary or not. If he said he was the "Son of God" without qualifing that he means literal paternity (as in, sharing the same DNA as God - this is getting ridiculous) then it doesn't make my head asplode to think he meant it in a symbolic, legal, effective, universal, or a gabillion other ways. I have decided to read on and see if I can figure out what he meant; you seem to have decided to focus on what the catholic church thinks... very much, much after the fact.
But I also "quote" Jesus (I quote a book) and suggest that one can have a personal relationship with his creator, that we are not being offered complete perfect knowledge by Christ in the first place, or that He (by his own words) came to overturn th
Fair enough. I'm confused though if we are debating on what Jesus is likely to have said or if these things were actually true.
Would you get on a plane where the pilot had only skimmed the manual to get the "gist" of it?
No, but I get on planes all the time where the pilot might be drunk or just stupid. I usually don't even know the pilot's name... I just have faith in the FAA and the market.:)
OK, seriously, good response. I've got one as well, and I've enjoyed this.
Of course, you will reject both myself and Joseph Smith as legitimate prophets based on.... what exactly? You've given no criteria for what texts you consider "authentic".
Maybe we should debate the facts. The "facts" as I know them:
There are original papyrus copies of various NT texts that predate the Council of Nicaea. For example, at Madgalen College there are pieces of the book of Matthew that has been dated to around 200 A.D. The idea that Jesus called himself the "son of God" and that he taught non-violence predates Nicaea, and is documented.
Now, "Matthew" merely proports to be an ANONYMOUS account of Jesus, pulled from second or third hand eyewitnesses and early christian lore. Disregard it as "the word of God" if you wish: even the book itself doesn't make that claim. Early church fathers as early as the 2nd century have held as tradition that Matthew wrote it. Disregard that too. No where in ANY surviving copy of Matthew does Jesus say "kill people who do not accept my divinity" and in it he does, several times, say effectively that he is the son of God. This I don't think you can deny - but try anyway.
A hundred or so years later some bishops got together in Nicaea and voted that they liked this book. As far as I know, there is NO proof that they altered any of the copies of Matthew. We have NO "before and after" texts, and certainly not for the divinity claim or the non-violence issue. These bishops also do NOT claim anything miraculous happened at Nicaea, other than that everybody showed up on time, sober.
You posted to slashdot that Jesus said "those who fail to accept his divinity should be put to the sword." No arguments there.
I'm pretty sure you were not an eyewitness to Jesus, or knew anyone that was.
According to South Park, Joseph Smith stuck his head in a hat and read special tablets. He wrote later that they told a story about Jesus visiting the Native Americans. OK. I don't argue with that.
But I'll listen to this old copy of Matthew and his eyewitnesses before I'll listen to Joseph Smith, or you for that matter. Which is also a "fact."
And that's about it.
Why I give more credence to some sources than others, yet not 100% credence to any, seems obvious to me. The book of Matthew is older than you or Smith. Fact. We have no evidence or proof that Matthew was altered at Nicaea. Fact. Matthew claims that his is an eyewitness account. You did not. Smith did not. It doesn't matter if Matthew is an accurate eyewitness account... it automatically carries more weight than your quote or Joseph Smith's hat. Unlike the two of you, it actually has a chance at being a true account.
Now does the gnostic Gospel of Judas (for example) "carry more wieght" than Matthew? That's tough. It's older and has been carbon dated. And after all, I agree with you that the church did try to destroy it. But they didn't. So, luckily, you can read both and decide for yourself.
But Judas and the other, surviving gospels disagree on many things. So one is a little older, and was the target of a purge, and the other has "tradition" and agrement from other books, those that weren't purged. It may be a case of conflicting testimony. "He said, she said."
Again, no evidence that the carbon dated copy of Judas was modified, edited, purged or molecularly altered by the bishops of Nicaea. So we can at least read it and feel like it is "accura
If you want to settle this, I just need one quote attributed to Jesus Christ from *any* source that suggests that I, me, myself, as a self-proclaimed follower of Jesus (or what is commonly referred to as a "Christian") kill another human being for any purpose whatsoever and I'll stop making the claim that he was clearly, 100% a proponent of non-violence. Not a paraphrased quote that mentions blood, or somebody dying, or swords, or hell, or plucking out my eye in a metaphoric sense (oh, come on) but the real deal, a simple suggestion that Jesus wants me to kill someone. I have my scriptures (or propaganda) that say NOT TO KILL - I need the counterpoint. Not a story that Jesus got angry, cursed someone, and they died. Most self-proclaimed "christians" (not all) do believe that he was some kind of god or another. God gives, and takes, as the saying goes. No, I'm looking for somewhere that he suggests that it is good for me (a follower) to do so. Or heavens, better yet, that he wants me to torture someone. Because he's so capricious.
Because that is what I was talking about.
Now about all this other stuff.
You are not a Christian and do not reflect the views of Christians. Christians certainly DO believe that the Gospels were sacred, divinely guided and written by the Apostles.
You probably should meet more "Christians." Open up your mind a little bit. I know it's fun and easy to portray us all as simple, closed minded ID bigots, but you seem a little narrow in your views. I believe the gospels are a written account of a man and his sayings. Not dictation from God. I HAVE NO REASON to claim that they are 100% accurate as "history." No, sorry, I don't have to choose. Nothing, NOTHING in the world is like this. Ever.
Either the Canonical Gospels are historically accurate or they're not.
No, no, no. Where do you get this? "Accurate" means "free from error or defect." If this is your definition, then how can we ever prove this? I am certain that they are not "accurate". And most importantly, they never, ever claim to be for themselves. Luke simply calls his work an "orderly account" of things that were "handed down" from "eyewitnesses." But what historical account (of ANYTHING) have you been reading that is "free from error?" Plato? Do you throw out all of Plato's ideas because we never found Atlantis? I don't. I really like Plato. But I don't believe in Atlantis. The saying of Jesus in the gospels may only be 20% correct. Or they may be divine origin. They may be complete fabrication. Or 80% correct. What's with the black and white? I repeat: I do not have to choose between these two extremes. I personally believe that they are "historically accurate" to the degree that the man lived and said most if not all of what we think he said. There are room for errors and omissions. For sure we don't have a record of EVERYTHING the man EVER SAID, do we? But I do believe that he said he was the "son of God." I believe he was crucified. I believe that his existence "resonated" with the early "church" enough to transform their world. Are there errors in the gospels? Maybe. Yes, I believe there could be. Do I think these errors would include a complete misquote (or invention) of something as profound as "I am the way, the truth, and the life?" No, that doesn't seem reasonable to me. Am I "selectively picking and choosing" what I believe? YOU BET. Are you suggesting that I believe either all or nothing? But specifically, are you suggesting that I write that particular quote off as complete, invented nonsense? Why exactly? Where does your truth about this come from? You say it is "impossible to know" - ok, I can see why you think this. But I say that it is impossible for YOU to know that it is impossible. Seems awful absolute and clear cut. But anyway, what if he didn't say that one? Do I still call him "Lord?" Yes, and this is NOT a contradiction. Because this is not the only place in the text(s) where he i
I'm not sure what you mean about the Gospel of Thomas. There are a lot of "sayings" in it that have close analogs to the synoptic gospels. And of course some things that are not which is I suppose why some people think it's not a good source of information. It's too different, therefore suspect. I don't agree with this reasoning, just trying to help. As far as personally torturing non-believers goes, Jesus doesn't really do much of anything in Thomas other than talk. But he does say lots of things like:
57 Jesus said, "The Father's kingdom is like a person who has [good] seed. His enemy came during the night and sowed weeds among the good seed. The person did not let the workers pull up the weeds, but said to them, 'No, otherwise you might go to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them.' For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be conspicuous, and will be pulled up and burned."
Which is talking about a future event usually called the "coming of the Kingdom of God" and according to Jesus (he talks about this in the other gospels as well) God will really shake things up, lots of people will die, death, destruction, blah blah, all around, cats lying with dogs, all sorts of things of biblical proportions will happen. This is a prediction, God does it, or worse, Mankind does it to himself, and certainly I can find no evidence of Jesus "torturing" anyone in Thomas, other than maybe bore them to death with his words.:)
So why do YOU give more historical weight to the Canonical Gospels than the non-Canonical Gospels, or the Tao Te Ching, or The Torah, or the Illiad and Odyssey, or etc.? If you don't accept the authority of, as you put it, "dead bishops in Asia Minor" from where do you derive your claims of historical accuracy? Why should you, 2000 years separated from events speaking a completely different language and of a complete different culture, be a more accurate judge of Jesus' intent than his contemporaries?
I thought I answered that. I do not claim inerrancy, "historical accuracy" or any of that. I do believe that there was a man named Jesus, he said some stuff, a lot of it survived, mostly accurate. You can call this "faith" if you want - but that is the usual copout from my camp and I think it's more than that. Of those words that survived, they resonate with me in a way that transcends my normal experience. Call it "spiritual."
Which are the "true" sayings? Beats me. A lot of the saying in non-canon mesh pretty well with the synoptics. Some are kind of out there. Thomas never "resonated" with me. Speaking of it as pure literature - it seems out of place. They don't call the synoptics "seeing together" for nothing.
Why should you, 2000 years separated from events speaking a completely different language and of a complete different culture, be a more accurate judge of Jesus' intent than his contemporaries?
I am not a judge. Other than in the sense that I can read the same criticisms that you can, hear the same arguments as you hear, absorb the same facts as you do... and then make up my own mind. And you might want to rethink your understanding of how "canon" came about... the men who gathered at Nicaea to decide these things (making the first ecumenical council a "historical" event in 325) were NOT the "contemporaries" of Christ.
What did the real "contemporaries" of Christ think? This is lost to history I suppose. All we have are the same texts that the men of Nicaea were reading. I suppose they had to more things to read. If so, these "lost" non-canonical documents are lost, at least to me. Of what they did have, these men assumed certain things about authorship - I tend to agree. If you are suggesting that in 325 there was a catholic conspiracy to supress certain truths and the 325 AD version of orwellian historical revisionism occurred... well I saw that movie and thought it was silly. And Tom Hanks looked even sillier in his wig.
Thanks for the links. There's a bit of confusion here. Even if the events in the New Testament were invented out of whole cloth, or if Paul called for the genocide of 99% of the planet, the words "attributed" to Christ DO teach non-violence for His followers. So even if the Church made it all up, their own holy canon still demonstrates this.
So, just to be extra clear, when I say Jesus taught non-violence, I do mean that he told His would-be followers that they were not to use violence to resolve problems or "convert" others. He did not teach that we were to go on religious crusades, hold inquisitions, torture, persecute, or really anything but love each other. The "church" has done those things, but there are no sayings of Christ in any known "scripture" (canon or not) to back up those deeds. He even explicitly told us "judge not lest ye be judged" so I would say that even though he had no problems with the Old Testament (neither do I), He doesn't want me to go around stoning people (and I don't). This applies to his followers. For God, or the Romans, or any state, maybe it's different, but for real people claiming to follow Jesus it is very clear: love others. Do not kill others, even to defend yourself. Period.
This was the topic at hand. Do the world's religion's teachings line up with the actions of their followers? Are most Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. hypocrites or are the source texts vauge and allow for some interpretation? How can we go to war to "defend" tenets such as "thou shall not kill?" My position is if you look at the source texts (e.g. the bible, the gita) then you will find that there are legitimate differences between the various religions, AND that the "common practices" and various bits of dogma (such as WWJK, Who Would Jesus Kill?) bear very little resemblance to the original source text. Christ taught non-violence, if you think Paul did not, fine, but Paul does not quote Christ in his letters, not once. (As I remember. I could of course be wrong about that.)
And Paul couldn't quote him anyway. He claims that he only met the ghost of Jesus, and at that only once. The synoptic books claim to make an attempt at a faithful (accurate) rendition of Christ's actions and sayings, verbatim. I'm not sure there is any way to prove if they were successful or not. My "person opinion" is that they are accurate renditions. The "logic" goes like this: the council of nicaea came a couple of hundred years after these words were written down. What is canon and what is not canon was determined by men, mere humans, well after the fact. I do not reference these people as an authority on what to believe. I read everything I can, apocrypha, heresy, everything. The people who wrote these words down most likely belived what they were writing. I do not think they made many errors, or lied (very much). Who knows? Not the men of Nicaea, that's for certain.
If you reject the Council of Nicaea, how do you determine canon? Personal opinion?
Well, uh, yes, actually. Personal opionion is all I have. I must take responsibility for everything I believe, even if it is to only appeal to some authority. You mistakenly assume that I believe that "the bible" is infalible. I don't. I can't believe that when I don't even know who wrote it. But something in Christ's words resonated with me, and I became a believer in Him. There is some faith here, but it is not a faith in editors and dead bishops from Asia Minor that I have.
And regardless of authorship issues, what is canon, or not, all we have now are the words. And Christ's words do not "call for violence." Ever.
If these paraphrased scriptures are supposed to be "calls for violence" (not one of them is of course) because they obliquely reference "blood," "death," "hell" or "God's wrath" then we'll n
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, again with the misunderstanding of greed.
tv preachers
If you think God wants you to give your money away, you can find somebody to take it. You got exactly what you wanted, this is a service, not a con. If you believe a tv preacher when he promises you worldly happiness or health if you give him money, then you are greedy (and stupid) and this is a con.
Lemon car
If the dealer lied about the car, it's just fraud. Maybe you are too trusting, but again, this ain't David Mamet here. If he says that the owner priced it too low and didn't understand how awesome the car really is, but will probably figure it out soon, BUY NOW, then he's appealing to your greed and it's a con.
Fugly date
Are you kidding me? Hey I know this hot chick that's just shy... she's yours for the taking, just show up! I don't know why she doesn't have a boyfriend... lucky you! This is greed. If it isn't, then for fucks sake, go enjoy yourself with the fugly girl! You can't be seen with an unattractive girl? Then why are you going out on blind dates?
The honest wingman here either goes out to help his buddy (doesn't matter what she looks like) or has his own stable of hotties. I know this is /., but you've seen it on tv or something, I'm sure.
Or am I missing something fundamental about human nature? Or are you?
Greed is where in your selfish desire for something you do something "wrong" to get it that harms another. However, sometimes it's hard to know who you are harming, but still you know you are doing something "wrong."
If someone simply lies to you and rips you off, that's not a "con". That's just fraud. If you are careful, you can avoid most fraud, but "cons" always rely on greed.
A lot of people say that some cons work on "honesty" or some other virtue, but I still haven't seen one that would work on an "honest man." For example, in your craigslist scam, you say that the mark expects to get the original asking price, so he's not being greedy. But an honest person is always going to do the right thing, and here the "right" thing to do is to send the check back. Why would the buyer not agree to that? Some kind of hurry? So now you have to decide how badly you want to make your sale. If the buyer is not in a hurry then... send the check back. If you want to make the sale so badly that you'll take the wrong payment just because the buyer is in a hurry... ask the IRS how honest you are in your accounting and bookkeeping. It's not honest to knowingly sell a $10 thing for $100 now and "fix it later." Of course it is an honest mistake to sell something that you meant to sell for $50 for $100, and then refund the difference, but that's not what's happening here. Oh, you can "let's just say that's what happened" but hey, you would be a liar.
I think its obvious that the "mark is working on" the desire to make the sale, and if he does something that's wrong, shady or just doesn't make sense to make it happen, hey, most of us call that greed.
Sometimes the "other person" that gets harmed is yourself. But if you always follow the "right path" nobody will get hurt.
Now, if you come up to me and tell me you lost your wallet and I give you $20 out of kindness, because I "trust" you... well, you aren't Paul Newman in "The Sting" here... you are just a liar.
And I thought of that before I gave you the $20.
Also, in the linked video, if the mark had simply said, "Uh, let's just call the police. I don't care what you do, I think I'm just going to call the police right now. We definitely should turn $3000 lying on the sidewalk over to the authorities." Then, no con would have happened. Or maybe even, "I don't want any part of this." In the latter he's perhaps not the best citizen, but at least he honest.
No?
The first thing I thought of was how easy it would be for me to become a digital scab.
I work remotely.
Totally agree. And honestly, what you are "judging" is how well the prosecution made it's case. And the "reasonable person" is you. That's pretty much it. However, I think "reasonable" has a long history of legal interpretation... but what matters in the end is what the jury said.
We are not the first to second-guess a jury.
Also, I don't think it's fair to say the dissenting side here on /. is merely "throwing out alternative scenarios." Rather I think we're offering explanations for his "odd behaviour" (supposedly "geek-like") which could potentially render his mannerisms irrelevant to the case and also, suggesting that when the prosecution claims that he killed his wife, but can't say how, when or where... that perhaps they really just don't have that good a case to begin with.
Of course the jury found him guilty, and that's what counts, and of course, he did it.
I think I understand how evidence works in a trial. I have some idea.
You might want to ask yourself what the importance of having an alibi is when... there is no body and no time of death established. You also might want to consider that Nina had a motive to flee the country without telling anyone. It is interesting also that someone the victim had been intimate with had confessed to killing several people... yet was never formally investigated.
No one is saying "without physical evidence, you cannot find someone guilty, because, as we all know, that's solid!"
Because you can get convicted on circumstantial evidence and testimony alone. It happens all the time. Some of us (yes, I'm not alone here) think he was guilty yet the standard of reasonable doubt was not met. I'm not saying the justice system is wrong. I'm not saying that there wasn't any physical evidence, and therefore he shouldn't have been convicted. I have opinions on that, but they don't apply here.
I AM saying... that from following the case (somewhat) I did not find the prosecution's case (which was, as it happens, mostly if not all circumstantial) compelling enough to find Hans Reiser guilty of PREMEDITATED MURDER, which is what he was charged with. Also, apparently the jurors felt that Hans' testimony was suspect as well. I don't think that's good enough... IN THIS CASE.
Feel free to disagree, but try to understand what I'm saying first. Do you understand now?
And... BY THE WAY... what you are describing as "how it works" sounds more like "preponderance of evidence" not... wait for it... "beyond a reasonable doubt." Here in the US we have both. Guess what, your "reducing the chances someone else did it" ideas are just fine... for a civil case. As a matter of fact, all you have to hit is 50%.
For Hans, we needed to apply the stricter proof test, and the way that is defined is not some kind of probability function nonsense, but rather the very freaking simple idea that a "reasonable person" through "common sense" would be "fully satisfied" that Hans is guilty. That's it. No probabilities, no chances. If a person feels "uncomfortable" with their verdict, because something is "bothering" them about it, because say, there was no body found and Nina might have fled to Russia and the prosecution didn't address that "convincingly", then, that is "a reasonable doubt."
IANAL, but I am open to correction if I have anything wrong. Your post didn't do it.
Also, not to be complete dick or anything, but there's no need for you to "excuse yourself" from a jury because you don't think you "understand the legal system"... they'll take care of that for you during jury selection. I suspect neither of us would make very good jurors. But for entirely different reasons of course.
not the same as "proven beyond any doubt", which seems to be your position
How did you get that from that post? That's the opposite of what Mr. Anon said.
I agree with anon. I personally felt pretty sure that he did it. But without a body and the fact that his S&M buddy freaking *confessed* to several murders... and the fact that the wife was apparently involved with the buddy... I felt that to convict only with circumstantial evidence was wrong. Me? I thought he did it, but had a "reasonable doubt" that perhaps the wife had fled or that Hans was freaking out and thought he was being framed, or perhaps was being framed. I thought the evidence left too much room for doubt... and it would be better to let him go free than convict an innocent man.
Am I missing something too? Is that not how this is supposed to work?
Something about it being better to let 10 guilty men go free...?
(William Blackstone)
No?
Apple and MS both have rich neighbor. Apple steals a TV. MS watches Apple's TV and wants one. MS steals another TV from same neighbor. Meanwhile, neighbor is trying to get people to come over and watch his other, other TV, but nobody will. Apple acts like a weenie and calls the cops on MS. Rich neighbor calls the cops on Apple. Cops let everybody go. MS buys a little piece of Apple's TV.
Then Steve is fired for being a giagantic prick.
Vista.
Am I missing anything?
Source? I know of no deal that was reached between Apple/Xerox before the Apple "look and feel" lawsuit. Just curious.
Oh well, enjoy the fascism. Ha ha.
Channeling Michelle Obama... "For the first time... I feel proud of my country..."
Actually, we're next in line, I'm sure.
Well said. However, if you would read through some of the other comments, you would see that you are a bit late to the party. The comment system is sort of broken I think and sometimes it is kind of easy to miss things though.
that made me laugh very, very hard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Load_Letter
PC= paper cassette
PC!= computer
PC= personal computer
PC!= the only thing that might use the printer
Concatenting strings with user values into SQL... bad. Yes. Generalizing to the point where you suggest that quotes are bad any time any place... well kind of makes you sound like a niave noob yourself and invites these sort of comments. Not every SQL statement has user-derived values. Not every SQL statement needs to be parameterized (not every API in the world supports it, either). And not every application is a web application, or deals with hostile input. And implementing security through "coding standards" and "best practices" is a cookie-cutter approach and no substitute for deep groking. If somebody on my team is learning how to code from Slashdot... I'm leaving that team.
ON THE OTHER HAND you are absolutely correct in that BRINGING SQL INJECTION ATTACKS UP in whatever context is a service to the community and a good thing.
And pointing out the underlying issues involved... and that things are not always so black and white... is also a service to the community.
It's called LGPL, and it should be used more often, IMHO.
I know that feeling.
It's funny that you point to a case where the NSA failed to keep some encryption technology developed by a public company a secret... as proof that they have a crack team of super mathmaticians hidden away somewhere.
Not that I disagree with you. You just need a better example.
A couple of things the NSA has going for it are lots of money, and power. So I figure they have whatever those things bring you. I can make a long list of things, from steam engines, the first computer, airplanes, fission, DNA, the first personal computer, not to mention... calculus... geometry... I could go on here... that caught the "government" by surprise. Throughout history, the governments of the world have proven themselves to be thugs... not enlightened scientists. IMHO.
Not that the NSA couldn't brute-force your email, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
You had to be joking.
I dunno, maybe when the CIA overthrew
the democratically-elected administration of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet or something?Or do you prefer 're-installed?'
Basically, you just seem to like what "Jesus" has to say.
Yes, now you are catching on. I like what He had to say very much.
you don't believe that anyone who wrote anything in the Bible was divinely guided (you don't)
Well, I never said that. You are asking me something that I could never, ever hope to know. Let's stick with Matthew. I said Matthew never claimed to be divenely guided. Moreover, I don't need to believe that Matthew was divinely guided to "like" - or believe - what Jesus had to say. This seems to be one of your requirements. Good luck with that. When I hear my brothers and sisters speak of biblical inerrancy I roll my eyes at this (clearly) logicaly untenable position. The books in question (the gospels) do not even claim this for themselves. It may be true, but how would I know? This idea of divinely guided authorship is not the source of my faith. Stop trying to say that it is, or that it should be. It is not.
you don't believe that anyone who actually knew Jesus wrote the Gospels (you don't)
Again, I never said that. You are still asking me something I will never hope to know. Matthew may be the actual author, and if so, then he logically would be an eyewitness (since he was supposedly an apostle). I don't think you can prove he was not the author of the book... only that he might not be the author, or that we can never be 100% sure of its accuracy or completeness. I agree. But if you can show that the apostle Matthew could not have been the author of that gospel (in whole or in part), stop posting on slashdot and write a paper or something. The last time I checked, the scholars were out on that issue. If I were relying on his authorship being an established fact, THEN I would be screwed I guess. Unfortunately for you and your line of attack, I (apparently along with Matthew) feel that his personal testimony is irrelevant. I wonder why that is?
If you don't accept that Jesus was a divine being (you don't)
Hello? I said this? Maybe when I was drooling my meds fell out of my mouth and I forgot. Wow. I worship and follow Jesus as Lord and "personal saviour," terms which I think would need to be defined before we discussed that much further. You and I were discussing "the message of christ" and what it might mean versus later church interpretation/doctrine. We discussed if His message was irreparably changed or lost (in particular, at Nicaea). We were also discussing how accurate His preserved message is, if the man even existed, and if it was reasonable to even tentatively assume that he might have said any of the things he is supposed to have said, in order to evaluate what His message might even have been. I think yes; you were trying to convince me otherwise. I steadfastly refused to debate the "truth" of His message as a foolish endeavor.
Were we having a different conversation?
What I am trying to say is that their was MASSIVE debate and conflict between various sects of Christianity, particularly on the divinity of Jesus. These debates were eventually ended through FORCE.
Sounds like you know your stuff. So... you can read the competing theories (those that we know about anyway) and decide for yourself. I did.
Look up "Arian Controversy".
You know, I'm actually already familiar with that.
Also known as STYLE. The word "style" appears about 10 times in the article you cited.
You seemed to have some "misconceptions." In particular that I didn't understand carbon dating or how serious scholars actually do those things they do. I thought by using a fancy word I might set you straight.
What I've been trying to illustrate is that "Jesus" didn't say anything.
OK, keep going.
The anonymous authors of the NT pu
http://www.hpfriedrichs.com/bks-votc.htm
Also check "Instruments of Amplication"
http://www.hpfriedrichs.com/bks-ioa.htm
He builds tubes out of stuff you would find in a garbage can. Cool beans.
Replying to myself before I forget something. The phrase "son of god" is found in the OT... but not like Jesus used it. This is what I mean by "coined".
carbon dating
I wasn't relying on carbon dating being accurate to 'n' years and I think you know that. I never said the papyrus fragments of Matthew were carbon dated. But I did say that we have texts that show Matthew as predating Nicaea, which is common knowledge but you're being pedantic and I'm playing along.
The magdalen papyrus I mentioned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_papyrus) has been dated to 200 A.D. (by some) using paleographical analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeography). There are always disagreements on these things - but you have set the bar pretty low. I'm just shooting for "not retarded." :)
And I never mentioned Mark. I said pieces of Matthew have been dated to around 200 A.D. They have also been dated to later and earlier. But I never said carbon dated. You are being dishonest now. My point was that there do exist texts that suggest that Jesus said he was the son of God, these texts have been dated to before 325, and this idea was certainly floating around in the Chirstian community before Nicaea. Many of your previous arguments seemed to suggest this idea was concieved at Nicaea and the evidence was manufactured after the fact. Nothing you have said demonstrates this. The window of accuracy for the carbon dating for judas is irrelevant, and I never mentioned it other that to show that we have alterntate texts that perhaps are more "accurate."
None of the gospels were written by an eyewitness to Jesus or knew anyone that was.
That's right. And I never said they were. I said Matthew was a collection of eyewitness accounts, at least 2nd or 3rd hand. And he didn't even sign his name. But, still that's more than sticking your head in a hat 2000 years later. As you said, I "pick and choose" what to belive.
I do think it's weird that you accept the Nicaean Creed as fact while at the same time insisting the council was not divinely inspired. Basically you're saying that they "happened to guess correctly", which seems weird to me.
And
No. If Jesus was born of Joseph then he was specifically NOT the Son of God. If you're saying that Jesus was the Son of God but Mary was NOT a virgin then you're saying that God had physical sex with Mary, a married woman, to produce Jesus. This is a position I've never heard from anyone before. I am very hesitant to call it "Christian".
It seems weird to you because you are not listening to me. You are only listening to what the "church" says. It seems like I'm not allowed an opinion of my own unless it conforms to some established order. And you don't want to listen to Jesus, either. I mean just to hear what he has to say, of course. I don't mean you should accept what he has to say. He after all, coined this whole "son of God" business... nobody really knows what he meant. No, I don't think God had physical sex with Mary, but I think that Joseph might have been his father, or another man, and that he could still be the "son of God." Because "son of God" was never defined by Jesus. This seems... not hard to understand.
Please pay attention to what I said and what I did not just say. I'll repeat it: I don't know if Jesus was born of the "virgin" Mary or not. If he said he was the "Son of God" without qualifing that he means literal paternity (as in, sharing the same DNA as God - this is getting ridiculous) then it doesn't make my head asplode to think he meant it in a symbolic, legal, effective, universal, or a gabillion other ways. I have decided to read on and see if I can figure out what he meant; you seem to have decided to focus on what the catholic church thinks... very much, much after the fact.
But I also "quote" Jesus (I quote a book) and suggest that one can have a personal relationship with his creator, that we are not being offered complete perfect knowledge by Christ in the first place, or that He (by his own words) came to overturn th
Would you get on a plane where the pilot had only skimmed the manual to get the "gist" of it?
No, but I get on planes all the time where the pilot might be drunk or just stupid. I usually don't even know the pilot's name... I just have faith in the FAA and the market. :)
OK, seriously, good response. I've got one as well, and I've enjoyed this.
Of course, you will reject both myself and Joseph Smith as legitimate prophets based on.... what exactly? You've given no criteria for what texts you consider "authentic".
Maybe we should debate the facts. The "facts" as I know them:
And that's about it.
Why I give more credence to some sources than others, yet not 100% credence to any, seems obvious to me. The book of Matthew is older than you or Smith. Fact. We have no evidence or proof that Matthew was altered at Nicaea. Fact. Matthew claims that his is an eyewitness account. You did not. Smith did not. It doesn't matter if Matthew is an accurate eyewitness account... it automatically carries more weight than your quote or Joseph Smith's hat. Unlike the two of you, it actually has a chance at being a true account.
Now does the gnostic Gospel of Judas (for example) "carry more wieght" than Matthew? That's tough. It's older and has been carbon dated. And after all, I agree with you that the church did try to destroy it. But they didn't. So, luckily, you can read both and decide for yourself.
But Judas and the other, surviving gospels disagree on many things. So one is a little older, and was the target of a purge, and the other has "tradition" and agrement from other books, those that weren't purged. It may be a case of conflicting testimony. "He said, she said."
Again, no evidence that the carbon dated copy of Judas was modified, edited, purged or molecularly altered by the bishops of Nicaea. So we can at least read it and feel like it is "accura
Because that is what I was talking about.
Now about all this other stuff.
You are not a Christian and do not reflect the views of Christians. Christians certainly DO believe that the Gospels were sacred, divinely guided and written by the Apostles.
You probably should meet more "Christians." Open up your mind a little bit. I know it's fun and easy to portray us all as simple, closed minded ID bigots, but you seem a little narrow in your views. I believe the gospels are a written account of a man and his sayings. Not dictation from God. I HAVE NO REASON to claim that they are 100% accurate as "history." No, sorry, I don't have to choose. Nothing, NOTHING in the world is like this. Ever.
Either the Canonical Gospels are historically accurate or they're not.
No, no, no. Where do you get this? "Accurate" means "free from error or defect." If this is your definition, then how can we ever prove this? I am certain that they are not "accurate". And most importantly, they never, ever claim to be for themselves. Luke simply calls his work an "orderly account" of things that were "handed down" from "eyewitnesses." But what historical account (of ANYTHING) have you been reading that is "free from error?" Plato? Do you throw out all of Plato's ideas because we never found Atlantis? I don't. I really like Plato. But I don't believe in Atlantis. The saying of Jesus in the gospels may only be 20% correct. Or they may be divine origin. They may be complete fabrication. Or 80% correct. What's with the black and white? I repeat: I do not have to choose between these two extremes. I personally believe that they are "historically accurate" to the degree that the man lived and said most if not all of what we think he said. There are room for errors and omissions. For sure we don't have a record of EVERYTHING the man EVER SAID, do we? But I do believe that he said he was the "son of God." I believe he was crucified. I believe that his existence "resonated" with the early "church" enough to transform their world. Are there errors in the gospels? Maybe. Yes, I believe there could be. Do I think these errors would include a complete misquote (or invention) of something as profound as "I am the way, the truth, and the life?" No, that doesn't seem reasonable to me. Am I "selectively picking and choosing" what I believe? YOU BET. Are you suggesting that I believe either all or nothing? But specifically, are you suggesting that I write that particular quote off as complete, invented nonsense? Why exactly? Where does your truth about this come from? You say it is "impossible to know" - ok, I can see why you think this. But I say that it is impossible for YOU to know that it is impossible. Seems awful absolute and clear cut. But anyway, what if he didn't say that one? Do I still call him "Lord?" Yes, and this is NOT a contradiction. Because this is not the only place in the text(s) where he i
57 Jesus said, "The Father's kingdom is like a person who has [good] seed. His enemy came during the night and sowed weeds among the good seed. The person did not let the workers pull up the weeds, but said to them, 'No, otherwise you might go to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them.' For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be conspicuous, and will be pulled up and burned."
Which is talking about a future event usually called the "coming of the Kingdom of God" and according to Jesus (he talks about this in the other gospels as well) God will really shake things up, lots of people will die, death, destruction, blah blah, all around, cats lying with dogs, all sorts of things of biblical proportions will happen. This is a prediction, God does it, or worse, Mankind does it to himself, and certainly I can find no evidence of Jesus "torturing" anyone in Thomas, other than maybe bore them to death with his words. :)
So why do YOU give more historical weight to the Canonical Gospels than the non-Canonical Gospels, or the Tao Te Ching, or The Torah, or the Illiad and Odyssey, or etc.? If you don't accept the authority of, as you put it, "dead bishops in Asia Minor" from where do you derive your claims of historical accuracy? Why should you, 2000 years separated from events speaking a completely different language and of a complete different culture, be a more accurate judge of Jesus' intent than his contemporaries?
I thought I answered that. I do not claim inerrancy, "historical accuracy" or any of that. I do believe that there was a man named Jesus, he said some stuff, a lot of it survived, mostly accurate. You can call this "faith" if you want - but that is the usual copout from my camp and I think it's more than that. Of those words that survived, they resonate with me in a way that transcends my normal experience. Call it "spiritual."
Which are the "true" sayings? Beats me. A lot of the saying in non-canon mesh pretty well with the synoptics. Some are kind of out there. Thomas never "resonated" with me. Speaking of it as pure literature - it seems out of place. They don't call the synoptics "seeing together" for nothing.
Why should you, 2000 years separated from events speaking a completely different language and of a complete different culture, be a more accurate judge of Jesus' intent than his contemporaries?
I am not a judge. Other than in the sense that I can read the same criticisms that you can, hear the same arguments as you hear, absorb the same facts as you do... and then make up my own mind. And you might want to rethink your understanding of how "canon" came about... the men who gathered at Nicaea to decide these things (making the first ecumenical council a "historical" event in 325) were NOT the "contemporaries" of Christ.
What did the real "contemporaries" of Christ think? This is lost to history I suppose. All we have are the same texts that the men of Nicaea were reading. I suppose they had to more things to read. If so, these "lost" non-canonical documents are lost, at least to me. Of what they did have, these men assumed certain things about authorship - I tend to agree. If you are suggesting that in 325 there was a catholic conspiracy to supress certain truths and the 325 AD version of orwellian historical revisionism occurred... well I saw that movie and thought it was silly. And Tom Hanks looked even sillier in his wig.
I'm lo
So, just to be extra clear, when I say Jesus taught non-violence, I do mean that he told His would-be followers that they were not to use violence to resolve problems or "convert" others. He did not teach that we were to go on religious crusades, hold inquisitions, torture, persecute, or really anything but love each other. The "church" has done those things, but there are no sayings of Christ in any known "scripture" (canon or not) to back up those deeds. He even explicitly told us "judge not lest ye be judged" so I would say that even though he had no problems with the Old Testament (neither do I), He doesn't want me to go around stoning people (and I don't). This applies to his followers. For God, or the Romans, or any state, maybe it's different, but for real people claiming to follow Jesus it is very clear: love others. Do not kill others, even to defend yourself. Period.
This was the topic at hand. Do the world's religion's teachings line up with the actions of their followers? Are most Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. hypocrites or are the source texts vauge and allow for some interpretation? How can we go to war to "defend" tenets such as "thou shall not kill?" My position is if you look at the source texts (e.g. the bible, the gita) then you will find that there are legitimate differences between the various religions, AND that the "common practices" and various bits of dogma (such as WWJK, Who Would Jesus Kill?) bear very little resemblance to the original source text. Christ taught non-violence, if you think Paul did not, fine, but Paul does not quote Christ in his letters, not once. (As I remember. I could of course be wrong about that.)
And Paul couldn't quote him anyway. He claims that he only met the ghost of Jesus, and at that only once. The synoptic books claim to make an attempt at a faithful (accurate) rendition of Christ's actions and sayings, verbatim. I'm not sure there is any way to prove if they were successful or not. My "person opinion" is that they are accurate renditions. The "logic" goes like this: the council of nicaea came a couple of hundred years after these words were written down. What is canon and what is not canon was determined by men, mere humans, well after the fact. I do not reference these people as an authority on what to believe. I read everything I can, apocrypha, heresy, everything. The people who wrote these words down most likely belived what they were writing. I do not think they made many errors, or lied (very much). Who knows? Not the men of Nicaea, that's for certain.
If you reject the Council of Nicaea, how do you determine canon? Personal opinion?
Well, uh, yes, actually. Personal opionion is all I have. I must take responsibility for everything I believe, even if it is to only appeal to some authority. You mistakenly assume that I believe that "the bible" is infalible. I don't. I can't believe that when I don't even know who wrote it. But something in Christ's words resonated with me, and I became a believer in Him. There is some faith here, but it is not a faith in editors and dead bishops from Asia Minor that I have.
And regardless of authorship issues, what is canon, or not, all we have now are the words. And Christ's words do not "call for violence." Ever.
Calls for violence in the NT: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html
If these paraphrased scriptures are supposed to be "calls for violence" (not one of them is of course) because they obliquely reference "blood," "death," "hell" or "God's wrath" then we'll n