But the difference is - if Europe were to dismantle its entire train system, it would have zero effect on the US. When England makes changes to English, we just write our own dictionary. But if the US were to dismantle its back bone, Europe would suddenly lose a vast majority of its content and be crippled. This isn't a "we invented it, so everyone that uses the technology is our property" it's a "you're using/playing on our property so play by our rules."
Actually, the Internet was developed to combat the USSR by the decidedly American DOD. It was created by Americans, for Americans. Obviously it has since expanded into something else entirely, but America invented, developed, and spent 30+ years laying the groundwork for it starting back with ARPA in the 60's - it wasn't until CERN in 1991 that the idea of a global network was even brought up.
Umm, why does everyone say that ICANN is just a puppet of the Bush administration? Most of the board members have been there since the Clinton years...
Not true. The latest accepted date for any of the 27 canonical NT books is circa 90-100 AD, that being John's Revelation. The gospels were written in the 50's and 60's, Paul's books also around that time, and then John's come later. A quick Google search found this table of dates you might find informative.
Preists being celebate is an invention of the Catholic church, one of several of their doctrines I find to be at least stretching the Bible's stance... Paul specifically states in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 that leaders of the church are to be "a husband of one wife." And in 1 Corinthians 7, he actually says that it's wrong for a married couple not to have sex!
I can see where you're coming from with the New Testament having a lot more single heroes than the Old Testament, but remember two things: first, Christianity accepts both Old and New Testaments as one Gospel. One is not more important than the other. Without one, the other would be meaningless, so to divide them isn't really fair. Second, the teachings in the New Testament are important, and they most definitely include and encourage marriage.
The passage I believe you refer to is Matthew 19:11-12 - "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." Note that in the context of the passage (you might read the passage if you want specifics) Jesus is replying to his disciples' comment that God's standards for marriage were high - so high that maybe it wasn't worth getting married. He wasn't saying that they shouldn't get married, only that marriage is a responsibility, and it's okay not to get married. Being single isn't superior to being married, or vice versa.
Why would Jesus have had to be married in order for Christians to view sex as good? From the beginning, God created sex, there's a whole book dedicated to sex, there's myriad teaching on the topic, heck, Paul even instructs married couples to have sex - and often! As you point out, Christianity has many married "heroes" to look up to. Why does the fact that Jesus was not married mean that singleness is better?
And you're right, some teachers have been against it. But you can find a famous theologian to back up most any viewpoint. I don't place my trust in theologians, I place it in the Bible.
I find that most posts involving a conservative view of religion and/or politics get modded flamebait or troll no matter what the content. It's kinda sad, really. If it weren't for the useful information you find around here on occasion I'd have given up long ago. =P
One key difference between the Coptics and the Canon is that every book in the Canon was written within 40 or so years of Christ's death, while the Coptics were mostly written in the 2nd century or later. That does tend to lend a bit of credibility to the Canon as it was written right around the time of Christ's death, so there would be plenty of people to discredit or refute the writings having been there themselves. Also, facts written nearer to the time of the event tend to be (not always, but usually) more accurate than what's written later.
Also, the Gospels of Thomas and many other Coptic gospels were (largely) regarded as heresy during the time they were written, as well as later.
By the way, thank you for being civil. It's much appreciated.
Christianity doesn't hate sex, it celebrates it. It just confines it to marriage. There are plenty of secular reasons for binding it to marriage as well - health reasons, psychological reasons, what have you. The Bible does not hate sex in any way.
And you're right, God created man with the capacity to choose between right and wrong. Between obeying God and not obeying God. I agree with that.
Based on that comment, I'd say I've done a whole lot more research than you. For example, the "gospel of Mary" was not written by Magdalene. but in fact written no earlier than mid-2nd century AD. Also, you just repeated what I said about the Council of Nicea.
Instead of being blinded by hatred for religion, why don't you just ignore it, or at least be civil in your criticism?
The Bible says he did NOT sin. It does not say he did NOT urinate. Your argument is invalid.
The Bible is complete. The First Council of Nicea spent a great deal of time finalizing this. And if you bring up Luther, remember, his canonical changes did little to nothing to affect doctrine.
here are books that say aliens were behind JFK's assassination. Your point?
God created sex, man created porn. God created rules, man learned to break them. Sin is not a thing; it is the absence of rightness, much as darkness is the absence of light.
Actually, your "conveniently edited out scripture" is not scripture in any sense or any translation. They're part of the Coptics, if I recall (or perhaps the Pseudepigrapha), and as such have always been labeled as heresy by both Catholic and Protestant churches. Its only claim to being Gospel is that of the author, nothing more. And for the record, I am a Protestant, have read the Apocrypha more than most Catholics, and also read most of the Coptics as well.
So warm water = more energy. Learned that in 6th grade.
More energy = more potential for hurricanes to grow. Duh.
Yet the article then jumps from there to "It's America's fault for creating all this global warming!!" No real science. Just politics. Why is this even posted on/.?
Yeah, but the difference between DVD and HD-DVD isn't nearly as clear as VHS to DVD. When I bought my DVD player I remember plugging it in and being shocked at the picture quality. To get a difference in picture quality with HD-DVD you'll need an HD-TV and even then it won't be all that different, from what I've seen. Too much money for too little improvement, in my opinion.
But... no releases for three weeks? That's three weeks of wasted advertising, shelf space, and cost to retailers, and while the first three movies are all great movies, how many people will pay over a hundred bucks for a new player and another thirty to watch a movie they probably own already in marginally better quality?
So they're saying that APPLE hardware can't be limited to APPLE software? Hasn't that been what they've doing with their computers for the last twenty years? Isn't it what every video game console ever released has done?
I don't doubt that it is a big part of the problem; I just think its very far from the only problem. I'd guess that union interference is just as big a problem overall, if not bigger, over the last several years.
Actually, its more due to the fact that their profit margins have plummeted on these gloriously inefficient yet mysteriously popular (yes, they still sell!) vehicles even as prices rise. These kind of union stories give an idea as to why.
Your post would be 100% true if the majority of the populace cared about value and efficiency versus style and ease. Ford and GM put nicer interiors, sound systems, and gizmos into their cars than the Asian companies do. It's the same reason Linux will never take a significant chunk of the home computing market unless something drastic changes; end users like that flashy, bloated, and ultimately useless crap that sits in the system tray of Windows letting them know it's 58 degrees outside and their friend just sent them a nudge.
I actually converted a friend to Linux, installed Ubuntu on his computer, and all was going well until he wanted to install his instant messengers. I ended up having to install Windows XP on his machine because he simply HAD to use the MSN Messenger 7; GAIM wasn't pretty enough, and didn't have the "cool features." That kind of thinking is why GM can sell H2s, Windows controls 95% of the market, and why a company that sells food that appears to be designed to kill is worth over $40 billion.
So you base your facts on your unfounded assumption that anyone who kills in the battlefield is psychopathic... and if they don't make it obvious, they must just be hiding it well? Congratulations, I've lost all respect for you in this debate. Good-day.
I personally have had several friends and family members serve in the military in positions where they did "pull the trigger," and not one of them is "psychotic" or even mildly dysfunctional. In fact, those who I know that have served in the military are commonly MORE socially functional than those who are not. Good job with the propaganda though; might wanna make sure you've got some truth to ground it next time.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what the reaction would be if I went and created a "Heterosexual and Proud" guild.
But the difference is - if Europe were to dismantle its entire train system, it would have zero effect on the US. When England makes changes to English, we just write our own dictionary. But if the US were to dismantle its back bone, Europe would suddenly lose a vast majority of its content and be crippled. This isn't a "we invented it, so everyone that uses the technology is our property" it's a "you're using/playing on our property so play by our rules."
Actually, the Internet was developed to combat the USSR by the decidedly American DOD. It was created by Americans, for Americans. Obviously it has since expanded into something else entirely, but America invented, developed, and spent 30+ years laying the groundwork for it starting back with ARPA in the 60's - it wasn't until CERN in 1991 that the idea of a global network was even brought up.
Umm, why does everyone say that ICANN is just a puppet of the Bush administration? Most of the board members have been there since the Clinton years...
Not true. The latest accepted date for any of the 27 canonical NT books is circa 90-100 AD, that being John's Revelation. The gospels were written in the 50's and 60's, Paul's books also around that time, and then John's come later. A quick Google search found this table of dates you might find informative.
I can see where you're coming from with the New Testament having a lot more single heroes than the Old Testament, but remember two things: first, Christianity accepts both Old and New Testaments as one Gospel. One is not more important than the other. Without one, the other would be meaningless, so to divide them isn't really fair. Second, the teachings in the New Testament are important, and they most definitely include and encourage marriage.
The passage I believe you refer to is Matthew 19:11-12 - "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." Note that in the context of the passage (you might read the passage if you want specifics) Jesus is replying to his disciples' comment that God's standards for marriage were high - so high that maybe it wasn't worth getting married. He wasn't saying that they shouldn't get married, only that marriage is a responsibility, and it's okay not to get married. Being single isn't superior to being married, or vice versa.
And you're right, some teachers have been against it. But you can find a famous theologian to back up most any viewpoint. I don't place my trust in theologians, I place it in the Bible.
I find that most posts involving a conservative view of religion and/or politics get modded flamebait or troll no matter what the content. It's kinda sad, really. If it weren't for the useful information you find around here on occasion I'd have given up long ago. =P
Also, the Gospels of Thomas and many other Coptic gospels were (largely) regarded as heresy during the time they were written, as well as later.
By the way, thank you for being civil. It's much appreciated.
And you're right, God created man with the capacity to choose between right and wrong. Between obeying God and not obeying God. I agree with that.
Instead of being blinded by hatred for religion, why don't you just ignore it, or at least be civil in your criticism?
Actually, your "conveniently edited out scripture" is not scripture in any sense or any translation. They're part of the Coptics, if I recall (or perhaps the Pseudepigrapha), and as such have always been labeled as heresy by both Catholic and Protestant churches. Its only claim to being Gospel is that of the author, nothing more. And for the record, I am a Protestant, have read the Apocrypha more than most Catholics, and also read most of the Coptics as well.
Do you have memory intensive apps running now that weren't running before? Yeah, Windows XP.
More energy = more potential for hurricanes to grow. Duh.
Yet the article then jumps from there to "It's America's fault for creating all this global warming!!" No real science. Just politics. Why is this even posted on /.?
Wouldn't it work in the same way any copyright works, just like you wouldn't be able to reproduce CNN.com's stories without permission?
Yeah, but the difference between DVD and HD-DVD isn't nearly as clear as VHS to DVD. When I bought my DVD player I remember plugging it in and being shocked at the picture quality. To get a difference in picture quality with HD-DVD you'll need an HD-TV and even then it won't be all that different, from what I've seen. Too much money for too little improvement, in my opinion.
excuse me, upwards of FIVE hundred bucks... Honestly...
But... no releases for three weeks? That's three weeks of wasted advertising, shelf space, and cost to retailers, and while the first three movies are all great movies, how many people will pay over a hundred bucks for a new player and another thirty to watch a movie they probably own already in marginally better quality?
So they're saying that APPLE hardware can't be limited to APPLE software? Hasn't that been what they've doing with their computers for the last twenty years? Isn't it what every video game console ever released has done?
I don't doubt that it is a big part of the problem; I just think its very far from the only problem. I'd guess that union interference is just as big a problem overall, if not bigger, over the last several years.
Your post would be 100% true if the majority of the populace cared about value and efficiency versus style and ease. Ford and GM put nicer interiors, sound systems, and gizmos into their cars than the Asian companies do. It's the same reason Linux will never take a significant chunk of the home computing market unless something drastic changes; end users like that flashy, bloated, and ultimately useless crap that sits in the system tray of Windows letting them know it's 58 degrees outside and their friend just sent them a nudge.
I actually converted a friend to Linux, installed Ubuntu on his computer, and all was going well until he wanted to install his instant messengers. I ended up having to install Windows XP on his machine because he simply HAD to use the MSN Messenger 7; GAIM wasn't pretty enough, and didn't have the "cool features." That kind of thinking is why GM can sell H2s, Windows controls 95% of the market, and why a company that sells food that appears to be designed to kill is worth over $40 billion.
So you base your facts on your unfounded assumption that anyone who kills in the battlefield is psychopathic... and if they don't make it obvious, they must just be hiding it well? Congratulations, I've lost all respect for you in this debate. Good-day.
I personally have had several friends and family members serve in the military in positions where they did "pull the trigger," and not one of them is "psychotic" or even mildly dysfunctional. In fact, those who I know that have served in the military are commonly MORE socially functional than those who are not. Good job with the propaganda though; might wanna make sure you've got some truth to ground it next time.
Around the same time people stop assuming the worst about other forum posters, I'd guess.