My wife has a multitude of degrees (focused in Social science/humanities) and I have a hard science and experimental background. We made the decision to be "poor" so that my wife can stay home with the kids and further their education because the school system simply is too broken to keep our daughter engaged. If we relied on the public schools entirely then she would be one of those high IQ kids with straight D's, simply because she would be bored to death.
Have you considered homeschooling? If you want your daughter to experience school, you could still do it for a few years to give her an intellectual head start.
There is no promise from god to send all the people to hell that aren't in a particular group. Any biblical statement along those lines should be seen as instruction to the believer, not a binding commitment on god.
That is an interesting logical construct.
It's a very common way of thinking but people tend not to apply it to god. If we had an agreement that required me to deliver a product to you, common understanding is that I am required to deliver it. If we had an agreement that allowed me to bill you $50, I can waive that charge at my own discretion. This is pretty much a universal understanding of contract and ethics. Presuming the bible is true, if god, at his own discretion, decided not to send someone to hell (for any reason of his own) who is the injured party to complain about it?
Since a non-trivial portion of Jesus preaching was criticizing the religious people of the day and telling them the non-religious people were more acceptable to god than they were I don't think there is a very solid biblical basis to think that if Jesus was walking around now he would be molly codling the christians and condemning everyone else. Obviously I am no longer explaining christian teaching as taught or agreed by most denominations. It seems to be lost on most people (regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof) that the people who had the most virulent hatred of Jesus were the religious leaders.
What were the requirements to be a preacher in the church you grew up in, and did Jesus meet those requirements? It would be a rare church if you say yes. He had no theological training, no bible college, he was a tradesman. Some churches require you to have a degree before they'll let you into their theological training. Not only would Jesus not qualify, but almost none of the prophets and apostles either. I challenge anyone to show me a biblical basis for believing that such an organisation could have a monopoly on god's favour. I don't even need clever logical constructs, I can tear that apart with bible quotations alone, such as Luke 4: 23-28.
I apologise for calling you weasely now that I understand what was going on
I accept your apology.
In everyday terms 'mortal' generally just refers to the death of the body, and applies to everyone
Yes. If you have another look at my first post in this thread http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1165905&cid=27250619 you will find it to be stating that exact situation.
"When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost immortality. Being mortal creatures, all their offspring are mortal. Being mortal, those offspring have no power within themselves with which to produce eternal life. Therefore, all the descendants of Adam and Eve will die as a result of sin, independent of any action or lack thereof of their own. They are born in a state of sin, ie: mortality."
For the post original sin world, I do not mention eternal life other than to point out the everyone, without exception, cannot produce it. I didn't even refer to people as "dead in sin" but as mortal, referring to the death of the body, which I consider to be sufficiently clear, even to non-theologians. I used immortality to describe Adam and Eve's state before "original sin", which with the absence of physical death was well within what people here would have understood by that word.
My attitude to the bible's teaching... If you want to make light of that and imply that I'm stupid, go right ahead - but consider then that it might not just be me that's being an ass.
Fair enough.
Incidentally, for your information:
Romans 2: 14,15 (for when Gentiles who don't have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them)
Matthew 21: 28-31 But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said, 'Son, go work today in my vineyard.' He answered, 'I will not,' but afterward he changed his mind, and went. He came to the second, and said the same thing. He answered, 'I go, sir,' but he didn't go. Which of the two did the will of his father?""
They said to him, "The first."
Jesus said to them, ""Most certainly I tell you that the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering into the Kingdom of God before you.
There is no promise from god to send all the people to hell that aren't in a particular group. Any biblical statement along those lines should be seen as instruction to the believer, not a binding commitment on god.
Really? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1165905&cid=27255499"I know fine what dead in their sins means"
If you knew what that meant, you wouldn't argue with me about whether it is christian doctrine or not. This is irrespective of whether either of us believe that teaching.
your use of the words mortal and immortal were very twisted from my perspective...
Which is quite ok, since I wasn't explaining your perspective, I was explaining a point of christian theology.
...as I haven't heard them used like that. And if I haven't, then most people haven't.
Yes, if you haven't heard of something, it couldn't possibly be correct. I'll clue you in on something, preaching is not theology. Preaching is to theology what a sales brochure is to a technical manual. Much preaching is worded to cater to people who are completely ignorant of the topic. I didn't say most people would agree, I said theologians from most denominations would agree. What would it take for you to understand that sentence? I'm not holding out for a miracle, you're going to have to think.
I do think calling sinners 'mortal' and Christians immortal is highly misleading from a Christian doctrine point of view. It's not accurate at all.
That's because after all that time in church you still have no clue what you are talking about. Don't feel bad, you're in the majority of churchgoers who don't really have any idea of what the basic doctrines of christianity are. I mean, come on, it took you 24 years of church to work out they were teaching people who don't believe go to hell and that you don't like that? You've got to admit you're not the quickest off the mark there, sunshine. If you hadn't been such and ass, calling me "weasely" and deceptive for no reason, I might have been a bit more helpful with bible references to back up what I said. I even told you: "Most christians don't know much about the bible or theology so you could talk to many and get disagreement, but the theologians of most denominations would likely not take issue with my explanation"
Nevertheless, if you read the first three books of Genesis with my original post handy, you can see it there. God pronounced their death on the day they ate the fruit, consistent with the NT references of being dead in sin, consistent with the explanation I gave, but not consistent with your understanding (or the common language use of those words).
You use these words the best you know how to describe your understanding. That doesn't make your understanding the reference by which I have to explain anything. My use of the bible and biblical context of words to explain a theological point was entirely appropriate.
I'm really starting to think Australia needs a civil war or something. Overthrow the government!
Historically, that's not the way we do things here. We break the law. We wait until Americans have a civil war, then, when the government is nervous about a similar thing happening, a small group can take up arms, the jurors refuse to convict any that make it to trial, then the leader of the rebel group gets elected. At least, that's the way it used to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_stockade.
The problem will be if they skip the trial part, which may happen now.
you referred to Christians as immortal and non-Christians as mortal. That was what I was complaining about.
If that was going to upset you then you shouldn't have read the comments on a story about religious people and death.
I don't care if you think people in heaven are alive and people in heaven are dead, they both would still exist and so you can't claim that one is immortal while the other is mortal.
I didn't claim that was the reality, I claimed that was biblical doctrine as opposed to something exclusively catholic. Ponder on the difference, you may become enlightened.
As for my terminology, if the bible can talk of death both literally and metaphorically, I don't see why I can't be allowed to mix the two either and say that those in hell are still alive eternally, even if they don't have "eternal life" as in access to the tree of life.
Be my guest, but if you do it in such a way to confuse the issue, even though you claim to understand the context in which I used the words, then you're being a troll and I'm going to call you on it.
personally I don't think there is any evidence for the Christian god being a reality.
Which has nothing at all to do with whether "original sin" is a catholic or christian doctrine, but thanks for sharing your heart warming story.
I would prefer that I actively seeked out truth than be happy with what I've been told my whole life.
Good, now why don't you go and do that rather than argue with me over terminology for no apparent reason and calling me "weasely" for no reason. I won't miss it, really.
your post is misleading due to the way you are using terminology which you yourself admit is rather specialised.
I was discussing a specialist topic, I make no apology for using the appropriate terminology. It was an explanation of the origin of a particular christian doctrine, not an appeal to the ignorant to join my flock. As such, I used words for technical accuracy rather than persuasion or for the benefit of people to lazy to understand context. This is a discussion site for nerds, get used to it or go to digg or facebook or somewhere.
Well apparently either: you don't, or you aren't willing to use relevant terminology to a specific subject.
Christian theology uses words in particular ways within itself that are different and irrelevant to other topics. It is impossible to discuss it by mixing up the terminology you use, just as it would be foolish when discussing computers to exclaim "I have a perfect ratio of rams to ewes" in response to being told you need more RAM. Buy a stick of ram? That's misleading, rams are an animal, they don't come in sticks!
I understand the distinction you are making between eternal life/death from a theological point of view
Yet for some reason you felt the reason to disagree and argue. I was explaining one narrowly defined theological point. I wasn't discussing the truth or otherwise of that point. I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything or evangelise anyone. I didn't water anything down or tell anybody anything about hell. I don't care what you agree or disagree with about any particular religion.
That may not have been your intended topic, but to my mind it is very relevant as it seemed a distorted way of explaining things when taken at face value.
On this of all sites I would have thought that people would understand that every field has its own terminology. The fact that you take "dead" to mean "not existing" is sensible enough but it ought to be obvious that is not the only meaning available when discussing theology. The fact you claim to have already understood this leaves you with no excuse to cause a fuss over it.
I have no problem with people being Christians if they decide to have faith, but I don't want anyone to be duped into believing the bible under false pretenses.
Since you don't believe the bible yourself then logically, from that position, the only way to believe it would be by being duped.
Letting people believe...
I don't LET people believe anything, they believe or not based on their own free choice. I was simply clarifying whether "original sin" is a christian doctrine or specific to catholics by describing its origin in the bible. Hell would be one if the "derivative issues" I specifically did not comment on, much less mislead anyone over. I generally find it pretty hard to mislead people about something I don't even mention, YMMV.
Many Christians believe that even if you do die a non-believer you do get eternal life, only it's eternal life in hell.
No, that's referred to as eternal death. Thus Ephesians 2:1 and other places refer to people as "dead in transgressions and sins" talking about people prior to their conversion, not having received (eternal) life from god at that stage, and Revelation 20: 14 calling the lake of fire after the final judgement the "second death".
In christian theological terminology death != non-existence. That wouldn't have any bearing on your decision to not believe, being semantics, but my explanation is theologically correct. Most christians don't know much about the bible or theology so you could talk to many and get disagreement, but the theologians of most denominations would likely not take issue with my explanation, which neither requires nor eliminates the possibility of hell since that wasn't my topic.
Well-known US BDSM site, complying with all relevant US laws. Almost certainly not illegal in Australia, although I'm not an expert.
As far as I'm aware, depictions of actual sex acts are illegal here, so softcore only. Some exception for the ACT or something (where all the federal politicians are). You won't find hardcore in the newsagents, you can in the adult stores but they get raided from time to time.
The Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as valid religions.
Wrong. Islam teaches that Judaism and Christianity were valid religions, ie: Islam, but their versions of the Koran (having once been identical to the Muslim Koran) have been corrupted. The central claim of Christianity, that Jesus rose from the dead, is specifically refuted, as is the claim of Judaism to be the inheritors of the promise to Abraham, Islam claiming that inheritance passed to Ishmael rather than Isaac. Without these claims, Judaism and Christianity essentially do not exist and certainly aren't valid. That is why Islam teaches that a person converting to Islam from any other religion is acceptable, but converting from Islam to any other religion, including Judaism and Christianity, is a punishable offence.
Why are they trying to censor links to the content, though? Isn't censoring the content itself enough?
There are four things that are never satisfied, and a fifth one in a category worse than the others: The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; the fire that never says, It is enough; and the government seeking to expand its control over the people.
Well, let's go over the claims I made so you can point out exactly what you don't believe then.
Red Hat 7.0 for me. I feel the same way, until I have to do some work on my brother in laws windows box.
Are you claiming I didn't start with RH 7.0, that I don't feel the same way as lennier about the flaws of linux distros or that my feelings don't change when I work on my brother in laws windows box?
I'm not an IT pro, like most people I find it easier to use what I'm familiar with.
Are you claiming that I am an IT pro, or that most people find it easier to use something they are unfamiliar with?
Windows is too difficult, it doesn't even have decent package management.
The statement of difficulty is a subjective judgement based on my own experience, so could you provide a link where I can download a package manager for windows comparable to what is available on linux distros? Something that with a single command or a few mouse clicks will update the whole system? I'd really appreciate it!
Third party applications will download automatically but won't install unless you are running with admin privileges.
So are you claiming that third party applications won't download updates or that those updates will install without admin privileges? Because thunderbird and firefox will download updates but neither will install them unless I do it as admin. Again, if you can tell me how so set them to autoupdate without running as admin, I'll appreciate it.
Limited user accounts can't initialise his 3G usb modem without running an app as admin, and even then if you switch to another users account that will disconnect and have to be done again.
It's a Telstra Turbo 7 Series Modem. I don't have it with me so I can't tell you what it is rebranded from. To connect you use the Telstra Turbo Connection Manager software which exits with an access violation error if it is run without admin rights. Logging out or switching user from the account it was started from (either using runas or if it was started from an admin login) closes the connection. The Telstra Turbo Connection Manager software must be closed in that account to successfully run it from another account. I have read that the connection settings can be used without the software but have not been successful doing so. Again, if you can solve that for me, I'd be grateful, it is in no way "bullshit" though. I'd willingly admit the problem may lie with me being unfamiliar with MS Windows but I've spent hours trying to get it to work in a more suitable fashion.
Seriously, if things as basic as updating software and connecting to the internet aren't done right...
So do you think updating software and connecting to the internet are not basic functions? You don't have any reason at all for your comment. Windows and linux both have benefits and flaws, and from a linux users perspective the difficulties of using windows are non-trivial. Mostly you don't hear about it because many linux users are IT pros who are also familiar with windows. For those of us who aren't, it is a quite difficult system to use.
All who think that linux users aren't helpful (RTFM) please take note of the above posters response to me having trouble using windows.
I use Ubuntu, I went cold turkey from Windows eleven years ago with Red Hat 5... and I'm *still* just deeply frustrated at how many silly little things aren't on anyone's priority list to get fixed.
Red Hat 7.0 for me. I feel the same way, until I have to do some work on my brother in laws windows box. I'm not an IT pro, like most people I find it easier to use what I'm familiar with. Windows is too difficult, it doesn't even have decent package management. Third party applications will download automatically but won't install unless you are running with admin privileges. Limited user accounts can't initialise his 3G usb modem without running an app as admin, and even then if you switch to another users account that will disconnect and have to be done again. Seriously, if things as basic as updating software and connecting to the internet aren't done right...
That doesn't mean we shouldn't reach for higher standards, but I find the difficulties of linux to be overrated, comparatively.
(c)you are just basically selfish and lament that you won't have them around anymore, even though they are better off.
Generally (c). They don't need your help anymore. We are all basically selfish to some degree. That doesn't exclude altruism, but I'd bet that altruism happens a lot more once peoples basic needs are met.
No, it's a biblical idea. It's a fairly straightforward concept and not nearly so offensive as many take it to be. The idea is that each creature reproduces its own kind. When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost immortality. Being mortal creatures, all their offspring are mortal. Being mortal, those offspring have no power within themselves with which to produce eternal life. Therefore, all the descendants of Adam and Eve will die as a result of sin, independent of any action or lack thereof of their own. They are born in a state of sin, ie: mortality.
Various christian sects may explain it differently but there would be basic agreement on that explanation as far as I can tell, although with varying emphasis on personal feelings of guilt and other derivative issues. The differences are more based on how that situation is dealt with by the individual and/or god than how it came about.
Yes, and look at how safe Thailand and Israel are!
How safe is Israel? What is the death rate to terrorism and murder? This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rates lists them as 80th out of 122 for murder rates, two below the UK and one above Canada. I don't know if that includes deaths from suicide bombings etc. But since you are making the claim it is very unsafe there, can you back that up with anything?
Hell, even shooting rampages have been rarely need ended because of an armed populace. A quick search on Google and all of them seem to have been ended by suicide or police action.
Now check how many of those shooting rampages happened in "gun free zones". There is a reason that not many shooting rampages happen at firing ranges.
Big deal, people stocked up on assault rifles before they were banned as well. So far, they haven't revolted.
As you say, so far. They have made preparations however.
And typically the mechanism to get states to comply with federal government directives is money.
If you don't see any possibility of a problem with this method, you haven't been paying very much attention.
I've been paying a lot of attention actually. This is common. This has been going on for probably well over 100 years. This is actually a good way to do things. What other enforcement mechanism would you recommend a federal government use on the states? You want them to send in troops for every disagreement? That's just stupid.
Actually, I was referring to the state of the US dollar. If you wanted to persuade me to do something, you might need to offer me something other than US dollars as an incentive right now. If you don't understand why, then as I said, you haven't been paying attention. The US has a somewhat Mugabean approach to economics right now. Got a financial problem? Print money!
I respect economic power much more than rifles in the hands of the citizens. Money will decide independence way before a bullet. Of course, both are often required.
So given bullets and money as methods of influence, what do you think will happen if the dollar becomes worthless, as seems imminently possible? I'm not predicting it, I'm not hoping for it, I'm just saying I think it's a possibility and it wouldn't surprise me if it does happen.
You really believe that the people of the US are such panzies? That amazes me. Ok... so say we have another great depression. 25% unemployment. You think our country is so weak that we disintegrate a la "Mad Max Road Warrior"? It didn't happen in the 30's... so why now?
Pansy isn't a connotation I made at all, that's entirely your own. I wouldn't exactly describe people who take up arms against their own government as pansies anyway. There are a number of differences between now and the thirties. The massive forced transfer of wealth from the people to the failing banks not being the least of them.
Like I said, I hope it doesn't happen, I just think it's a possibility. I don't think it's the ranting of a madman, I think it's something your government would do well to take into account.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife has a multitude of degrees (focused in Social science/humanities) and I have a hard science and experimental background. We made the decision to be "poor" so that my wife can stay home with the kids and further their education because the school system simply is too broken to keep our daughter engaged. If we relied on the public schools entirely then she would be one of those high IQ kids with straight D's, simply because she would be bored to death.
Have you considered homeschooling? If you want your daughter to experience school, you could still do it for a few years to give her an intellectual head start.
There is no promise from god to send all the people to hell that aren't in a particular group. Any biblical statement along those lines should be seen as instruction to the believer, not a binding commitment on god.
That is an interesting logical construct.
It's a very common way of thinking but people tend not to apply it to god. If we had an agreement that required me to deliver a product to you, common understanding is that I am required to deliver it. If we had an agreement that allowed me to bill you $50, I can waive that charge at my own discretion. This is pretty much a universal understanding of contract and ethics. Presuming the bible is true, if god, at his own discretion, decided not to send someone to hell (for any reason of his own) who is the injured party to complain about it?
Since a non-trivial portion of Jesus preaching was criticizing the religious people of the day and telling them the non-religious people were more acceptable to god than they were I don't think there is a very solid biblical basis to think that if Jesus was walking around now he would be molly codling the christians and condemning everyone else. Obviously I am no longer explaining christian teaching as taught or agreed by most denominations. It seems to be lost on most people (regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof) that the people who had the most virulent hatred of Jesus were the religious leaders.
What were the requirements to be a preacher in the church you grew up in, and did Jesus meet those requirements? It would be a rare church if you say yes. He had no theological training, no bible college, he was a tradesman. Some churches require you to have a degree before they'll let you into their theological training. Not only would Jesus not qualify, but almost none of the prophets and apostles either. I challenge anyone to show me a biblical basis for believing that such an organisation could have a monopoly on god's favour. I don't even need clever logical constructs, I can tear that apart with bible quotations alone, such as Luke 4: 23-28.
I apologise for calling you weasely now that I understand what was going on
I accept your apology.
In everyday terms 'mortal' generally just refers to the death of the body, and applies to everyone
Yes. If you have another look at my first post in this thread http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1165905&cid=27250619 you will find it to be stating that exact situation.
"When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost immortality. Being mortal creatures, all their offspring are mortal. Being mortal, those offspring have no power within themselves with which to produce eternal life. Therefore, all the descendants of Adam and Eve will die as a result of sin, independent of any action or lack thereof of their own. They are born in a state of sin, ie: mortality."
For the post original sin world, I do not mention eternal life other than to point out the everyone, without exception, cannot produce it. I didn't even refer to people as "dead in sin" but as mortal, referring to the death of the body, which I consider to be sufficiently clear, even to non-theologians. I used immortality to describe Adam and Eve's state before "original sin", which with the absence of physical death was well within what people here would have understood by that word.
My attitude to the bible's teaching ... If you want to make light of that and imply that I'm stupid, go right ahead - but consider then that it might not just be me that's being an ass.
Fair enough.
Incidentally, for your information:
Romans 2: 14,15 (for when Gentiles who don't have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them)
Matthew 21: 28-31 But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said, 'Son, go work today in my vineyard.' He answered, 'I will not,' but afterward he changed his mind, and went. He came to the second, and said the same thing. He answered, 'I go, sir,' but he didn't go. Which of the two did the will of his father?""
They said to him, "The first."
Jesus said to them, ""Most certainly I tell you that the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering into the Kingdom of God before you.
There is no promise from god to send all the people to hell that aren't in a particular group. Any biblical statement along those lines should be seen as instruction to the believer, not a binding commitment on god.
I said I understand what eternal life means
Really? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1165905&cid=27255499 "I know fine what dead in their sins means"
If you knew what that meant, you wouldn't argue with me about whether it is christian doctrine or not. This is irrespective of whether either of us believe that teaching.
your use of the words mortal and immortal were very twisted from my perspective ...
Which is quite ok, since I wasn't explaining your perspective, I was explaining a point of christian theology.
...as I haven't heard them used like that. And if I haven't, then most people haven't.
Yes, if you haven't heard of something, it couldn't possibly be correct. I'll clue you in on something, preaching is not theology. Preaching is to theology what a sales brochure is to a technical manual. Much preaching is worded to cater to people who are completely ignorant of the topic. I didn't say most people would agree, I said theologians from most denominations would agree. What would it take for you to understand that sentence? I'm not holding out for a miracle, you're going to have to think.
I do think calling sinners 'mortal' and Christians immortal is highly misleading from a Christian doctrine point of view. It's not accurate at all.
That's because after all that time in church you still have no clue what you are talking about. Don't feel bad, you're in the majority of churchgoers who don't really have any idea of what the basic doctrines of christianity are. I mean, come on, it took you 24 years of church to work out they were teaching people who don't believe go to hell and that you don't like that? You've got to admit you're not the quickest off the mark there, sunshine. If you hadn't been such and ass, calling me "weasely" and deceptive for no reason, I might have been a bit more helpful with bible references to back up what I said. I even told you: "Most christians don't know much about the bible or theology so you could talk to many and get disagreement, but the theologians of most denominations would likely not take issue with my explanation" Nevertheless, if you read the first three books of Genesis with my original post handy, you can see it there. God pronounced their death on the day they ate the fruit, consistent with the NT references of being dead in sin, consistent with the explanation I gave, but not consistent with your understanding (or the common language use of those words).
You use these words the best you know how to describe your understanding. That doesn't make your understanding the reference by which I have to explain anything. My use of the bible and biblical context of words to explain a theological point was entirely appropriate.
I'm really starting to think Australia needs a civil war or something. Overthrow the government!
Historically, that's not the way we do things here. We break the law. We wait until Americans have a civil war, then, when the government is nervous about a similar thing happening, a small group can take up arms, the jurors refuse to convict any that make it to trial, then the leader of the rebel group gets elected. At least, that's the way it used to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_stockade.
The problem will be if they skip the trial part, which may happen now.
It does what it needs to, and loads very fast.
So what is the problem exactly? I also haven't figured out the problem of black text on white background. It's been working for books for a long time.
you referred to Christians as immortal and non-Christians as mortal. That was what I was complaining about.
If that was going to upset you then you shouldn't have read the comments on a story about religious people and death.
I don't care if you think people in heaven are alive and people in heaven are dead, they both would still exist and so you can't claim that one is immortal while the other is mortal.
I didn't claim that was the reality, I claimed that was biblical doctrine as opposed to something exclusively catholic. Ponder on the difference, you may become enlightened.
As for my terminology, if the bible can talk of death both literally and metaphorically, I don't see why I can't be allowed to mix the two either and say that those in hell are still alive eternally, even if they don't have "eternal life" as in access to the tree of life.
Be my guest, but if you do it in such a way to confuse the issue, even though you claim to understand the context in which I used the words, then you're being a troll and I'm going to call you on it.
personally I don't think there is any evidence for the Christian god being a reality.
Which has nothing at all to do with whether "original sin" is a catholic or christian doctrine, but thanks for sharing your heart warming story.
I would prefer that I actively seeked out truth than be happy with what I've been told my whole life.
Good, now why don't you go and do that rather than argue with me over terminology for no apparent reason and calling me "weasely" for no reason. I won't miss it, really.
your post is misleading due to the way you are using terminology which you yourself admit is rather specialised.
I was discussing a specialist topic, I make no apology for using the appropriate terminology. It was an explanation of the origin of a particular christian doctrine, not an appeal to the ignorant to join my flock. As such, I used words for technical accuracy rather than persuasion or for the benefit of people to lazy to understand context. This is a discussion site for nerds, get used to it or go to digg or facebook or somewhere.
I know fine what dead in their sins means
Well apparently either: you don't, or you aren't willing to use relevant terminology to a specific subject.
Christian theology uses words in particular ways within itself that are different and irrelevant to other topics. It is impossible to discuss it by mixing up the terminology you use, just as it would be foolish when discussing computers to exclaim "I have a perfect ratio of rams to ewes" in response to being told you need more RAM. Buy a stick of ram? That's misleading, rams are an animal, they don't come in sticks!
I understand the distinction you are making between eternal life/death from a theological point of view
Yet for some reason you felt the reason to disagree and argue. I was explaining one narrowly defined theological point. I wasn't discussing the truth or otherwise of that point. I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything or evangelise anyone. I didn't water anything down or tell anybody anything about hell. I don't care what you agree or disagree with about any particular religion.
That may not have been your intended topic, but to my mind it is very relevant as it seemed a distorted way of explaining things when taken at face value.
On this of all sites I would have thought that people would understand that every field has its own terminology. The fact that you take "dead" to mean "not existing" is sensible enough but it ought to be obvious that is not the only meaning available when discussing theology. The fact you claim to have already understood this leaves you with no excuse to cause a fuss over it.
I have no problem with people being Christians if they decide to have faith, but I don't want anyone to be duped into believing the bible under false pretenses.
Since you don't believe the bible yourself then logically, from that position, the only way to believe it would be by being duped.
Letting people believe ...
I don't LET people believe anything, they believe or not based on their own free choice. I was simply clarifying whether "original sin" is a christian doctrine or specific to catholics by describing its origin in the bible. Hell would be one if the "derivative issues" I specifically did not comment on, much less mislead anyone over. I generally find it pretty hard to mislead people about something I don't even mention, YMMV.
well, the point is to get people to test it so you can know if it's carp or not
Damn straight. I always want to know if there's anything fishy about the software I use.
Many Christians believe that even if you do die a non-believer you do get eternal life, only it's eternal life in hell.
No, that's referred to as eternal death. Thus Ephesians 2:1 and other places refer to people as "dead in transgressions and sins" talking about people prior to their conversion, not having received (eternal) life from god at that stage, and Revelation 20: 14 calling the lake of fire after the final judgement the "second death".
In christian theological terminology death != non-existence. That wouldn't have any bearing on your decision to not believe, being semantics, but my explanation is theologically correct. Most christians don't know much about the bible or theology so you could talk to many and get disagreement, but the theologians of most denominations would likely not take issue with my explanation, which neither requires nor eliminates the possibility of hell since that wasn't my topic.
Well-known US BDSM site, complying with all relevant US laws. Almost certainly not illegal in Australia, although I'm not an expert.
As far as I'm aware, depictions of actual sex acts are illegal here, so softcore only. Some exception for the ACT or something (where all the federal politicians are). You won't find hardcore in the newsagents, you can in the adult stores but they get raided from time to time.
If you're a Muslim, please don't kill me.
I'm not a Muslim, so I take it this request doesn't apply to me.
The Islam accepts Judaism and Christianity as valid religions.
Wrong. Islam teaches that Judaism and Christianity were valid religions, ie: Islam, but their versions of the Koran (having once been identical to the Muslim Koran) have been corrupted. The central claim of Christianity, that Jesus rose from the dead, is specifically refuted, as is the claim of Judaism to be the inheritors of the promise to Abraham, Islam claiming that inheritance passed to Ishmael rather than Isaac. Without these claims, Judaism and Christianity essentially do not exist and certainly aren't valid. That is why Islam teaches that a person converting to Islam from any other religion is acceptable, but converting from Islam to any other religion, including Judaism and Christianity, is a punishable offence.
Why are they trying to censor links to the content, though? Isn't censoring the content itself enough?
There are four things that are never satisfied, and a fifth one in a category worse than the others: The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; the fire that never says, It is enough; and the government seeking to expand its control over the people.
Bull. Shit.
That is all.
Well, let's go over the claims I made so you can point out exactly what you don't believe then.
...
Red Hat 7.0 for me. I feel the same way, until I have to do some work on my brother in laws windows box.
Are you claiming I didn't start with RH 7.0, that I don't feel the same way as lennier about the flaws of linux distros or that my feelings don't change when I work on my brother in laws windows box?
I'm not an IT pro, like most people I find it easier to use what I'm familiar with.
Are you claiming that I am an IT pro, or that most people find it easier to use something they are unfamiliar with?
Windows is too difficult, it doesn't even have decent package management.
The statement of difficulty is a subjective judgement based on my own experience, so could you provide a link where I can download a package manager for windows comparable to what is available on linux distros? Something that with a single command or a few mouse clicks will update the whole system? I'd really appreciate it!
Third party applications will download automatically but won't install unless you are running with admin privileges.
So are you claiming that third party applications won't download updates or that those updates will install without admin privileges? Because thunderbird and firefox will download updates but neither will install them unless I do it as admin. Again, if you can tell me how so set them to autoupdate without running as admin, I'll appreciate it.
Limited user accounts can't initialise his 3G usb modem without running an app as admin, and even then if you switch to another users account that will disconnect and have to be done again.
It's a Telstra Turbo 7 Series Modem. I don't have it with me so I can't tell you what it is rebranded from. To connect you use the Telstra Turbo Connection Manager software which exits with an access violation error if it is run without admin rights. Logging out or switching user from the account it was started from (either using runas or if it was started from an admin login) closes the connection. The Telstra Turbo Connection Manager software must be closed in that account to successfully run it from another account. I have read that the connection settings can be used without the software but have not been successful doing so. Again, if you can solve that for me, I'd be grateful, it is in no way "bullshit" though. I'd willingly admit the problem may lie with me being unfamiliar with MS Windows but I've spent hours trying to get it to work in a more suitable fashion.
Seriously, if things as basic as updating software and connecting to the internet aren't done right
So do you think updating software and connecting to the internet are not basic functions? You don't have any reason at all for your comment. Windows and linux both have benefits and flaws, and from a linux users perspective the difficulties of using windows are non-trivial. Mostly you don't hear about it because many linux users are IT pros who are also familiar with windows. For those of us who aren't, it is a quite difficult system to use.
All who think that linux users aren't helpful (RTFM) please take note of the above posters response to me having trouble using windows.
I use Ubuntu, I went cold turkey from Windows eleven years ago with Red Hat 5... and I'm *still* just deeply frustrated at how many silly little things aren't on anyone's priority list to get fixed.
Red Hat 7.0 for me. I feel the same way, until I have to do some work on my brother in laws windows box. I'm not an IT pro, like most people I find it easier to use what I'm familiar with. Windows is too difficult, it doesn't even have decent package management. Third party applications will download automatically but won't install unless you are running with admin privileges. Limited user accounts can't initialise his 3G usb modem without running an app as admin, and even then if you switch to another users account that will disconnect and have to be done again. Seriously, if things as basic as updating software and connecting to the internet aren't done right ...
That doesn't mean we shouldn't reach for higher standards, but I find the difficulties of linux to be overrated, comparatively.
(c)you are just basically selfish and lament that you won't have them around anymore, even though they are better off.
Generally (c). They don't need your help anymore. We are all basically selfish to some degree. That doesn't exclude altruism, but I'd bet that altruism happens a lot more once peoples basic needs are met.
No, it's a biblical idea. It's a fairly straightforward concept and not nearly so offensive as many take it to be. The idea is that each creature reproduces its own kind. When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost immortality. Being mortal creatures, all their offspring are mortal. Being mortal, those offspring have no power within themselves with which to produce eternal life. Therefore, all the descendants of Adam and Eve will die as a result of sin, independent of any action or lack thereof of their own. They are born in a state of sin, ie: mortality.
Various christian sects may explain it differently but there would be basic agreement on that explanation as far as I can tell, although with varying emphasis on personal feelings of guilt and other derivative issues. The differences are more based on how that situation is dealt with by the individual and/or god than how it came about.
Okay, let's assume they are. Still seems a little naive to think that there would have been enough armed civilians to effectively stop them.
What do you base that on? How many times do you think they need to be shot before they are effectively stopped? Here's an example of it happening, at Virginia Tech, no less. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55326 here's another one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Church,_Colorado#Shooting Seems like you need one or two armed to do an "effective stop". Besides that, it is the gunman not knowing who, if anyone, is armed that provides the deterrent.
It was meant to be funny, not informative. Mods on crack.
Yes, and look at how safe Thailand and Israel are!
How safe is Israel? What is the death rate to terrorism and murder? This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rates lists them as 80th out of 122 for murder rates, two below the UK and one above Canada. I don't know if that includes deaths from suicide bombings etc. But since you are making the claim it is very unsafe there, can you back that up with anything?
Hell, even shooting rampages have been rarely need ended because of an armed populace. A quick search on Google and all of them seem to have been ended by suicide or police action.
Now check how many of those shooting rampages happened in "gun free zones". There is a reason that not many shooting rampages happen at firing ranges.
There are too many wackos around. Too many wackos who really should not be allowed to have a gun.
What proportion of those wackos join the police or military?
Good luck with hitting anything with an unguided rocket,
We'll make up for that by doing volume!
Big deal, people stocked up on assault rifles before they were banned as well. So far, they haven't revolted.
As you say, so far. They have made preparations however.
Actually, I was referring to the state of the US dollar. If you wanted to persuade me to do something, you might need to offer me something other than US dollars as an incentive right now. If you don't understand why, then as I said, you haven't been paying attention. The US has a somewhat Mugabean approach to economics right now. Got a financial problem? Print money!
I respect economic power much more than rifles in the hands of the citizens. Money will decide independence way before a bullet. Of course, both are often required.
So given bullets and money as methods of influence, what do you think will happen if the dollar becomes worthless, as seems imminently possible? I'm not predicting it, I'm not hoping for it, I'm just saying I think it's a possibility and it wouldn't surprise me if it does happen.
You really believe that the people of the US are such panzies? That amazes me. Ok... so say we have another great depression. 25% unemployment. You think our country is so weak that we disintegrate a la "Mad Max Road Warrior"? It didn't happen in the 30's... so why now?
Pansy isn't a connotation I made at all, that's entirely your own. I wouldn't exactly describe people who take up arms against their own government as pansies anyway. There are a number of differences between now and the thirties. The massive forced transfer of wealth from the people to the failing banks not being the least of them.
Like I said, I hope it doesn't happen, I just think it's a possibility. I don't think it's the ranting of a madman, I think it's something your government would do well to take into account.