The braided hair and gold and pearls is most likely a reference toward dressing like a hooker at the time. Or maybe it was just fashion extremes.
Exactly. My point is that people treat the two passages differently without realising that they are. One is explained as being cultural, the other is taken at face value.
It's a problem because of the 2000 year culture gap, and the fact that these things were written in foreign languages.
Here's a quote from one of my commentaries on 1 Tim 2:11 that is interesting:
"Silence" is an unfortunate translation because it gives the impression that believing women were never to open their mouths in the assembly. This is the same word that is translated "peaceable" in 1 Timothy 2:2. Some of the women abused their newfound freedom in Christ and created disturbances in the services by interrupting.
Wiersbe, W. W. 1996, c1989. The Bible exposition commentary. "An exposition of the New Testament comprising the entire 'BE' series"--Jkt. Victor Books: Wheaton, Ill.
So we have hermeneutics.
http://www.probe.org/docs/hermen.html
Here's a quote I think is particularly good:
Luther argued that a proper understanding of what a passage teaches comes from a literal interpretation. This means that the reader must consider the historical context and the grammatical structure of each passage, and strive to maintain contextual consistency. This method was a result of Luther's belief that the Scriptures are clear, in opposition to the medieval church's position that they are so obscure that only the church can uncover their true meaning.
Calvin agreed in principle with Luther. He also placed great importance on the notion that "Scripture interprets Scripture," stressing that the grammar, context, words, and parallel passages found in the text were more important that any meaning we might impose on them. He added that, "it is the first business of an interpreter to let the author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say.
Working with the idea that you can use Scripture to interpret Scripture--taking a passage that is easier to understand and using it to cast light on the more difficult passage--we can see that the idea that women should not lead men anywhere isn't biblical.
Acts 18:26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
Gotta get back to work. we should probably move this discussion to a journal. I put a copy in mine if you want to post there: journal entry
wow... you caught me off guard. I was expecting flames and trolls.
I hadn't heard that view about genesis before--about the thought that the earth was floating in a sphere of water. I don't think it really fits though. I always took those verses to be speaking of atmospheric vs oceanic water, but I hadn't pondered it too deeply.
Yeah, 1 Tim 2 is interesting. It shouldn't be taken to say that women can't teach men in any way shape or form though. It's specifically talking about leading ministry in church. There are other examples in the bible of women teaching other women as well as men.
I'm grappling with some sovereignty issues right now. When I get through these, maybe I'll take a closer look about women in ministry.
The braided hair and gold and pearls is most likely a reference toward dressing like a hooker at the time. Or maybe it was just fashion extremes. Take a look at 1 Peter 3:3-4.
I don't know what denominations are prevelant in Australia... I know that methodists ordain female ministers. My church has deaconesses. I can't say I'm too excited about that, but it's not something I've really spent time thinking about. They've made some decisions that make life a little harder for me, so that may be all it is.
I agree these aren't gospel issues, as you put it, but they are important.
"Most people believe that the bible represents a guide and isn't to be taken absolutely literally."
I think that's a true statement, but if you spend any time studying the bible, you'll find that it claims for itself that it is literal. There are things that are abstract and symbolic, but there are usually pretty good indicators of that. Sometimes not. Among christians there is much debate about how literal Revelation is.
I can't say that I believe these things anymore but if you can believe that there is an almighty being that created us, why can't you also believe that this being crafted the universe as we know it now, and all the wonders it contains that science as yet to scratch the surface on?
Well, I do believe that God crafted the universe as we know it, and all the wonders it contains. And I do believe that science has barely scratched the surface. After all, science has a pretty good track record of proving itself wrong all the time, usually couched in terms like, "we used to believe this, but thanks to these new measurements and this theory over here, so we were totally wrong before and we now believe this." And I'm not saying that as a troll. Look at the rise and fall and rise again of string theory.
"Why do people reject Evolution, when it could have been God that kickstarted the whole thing?"
I don't have too much trouble with evolution. From everything I can tell, the fossil record really doesn't support it on a macro scale, except for this one strange bird thing... I forgot what it's called, that people think might have attributes of a few different critters. It's debatable anyway. I'm sure someone else on here knows what I'm talking about.
The problem many christians have, is if you take the bible literally (as it claims for itself), then the theory of evolution is a direct contradiction of the account of creation in the old testament. On a macro scale, evolution is contradictory to the bible. (not so on a micro scale)
Another problem the more educated christians have is that evolution isn't taught as a theory. It's taught as fact, when it isn't proven. I think any true scientist can appreciate that objection.
So many people will immediately balk at the idea that evolution isn't a proven theory, because it is all they have been taught and it has become axiomatic. It looks like there is pretty good proof of evolution on the micro scale... birds beaks getting longer, and things like that. And it's even biblical. But you don't see a bird turning into a cow, or any evidence of it.
They date rock layers by the index fossils they have in them. and they date the fossils by what layers they are in... doesn't make any sense. You can do some searching and find examples of petrified trees standing straight up through millions of years of layers of rock. I think the term is polystrate fossils.
It's a scary time when the few people with extreme religious views can change the life of everyone to suit their needs.
I'd be more pissed at the movie theatre people for caving in.
I didn't bother reading your whole post... so hopefully I didn't miss anything.
I probably qualify as a fundamentalist, in the sense that I believe the christian bible is true and literal. But I certainly don't think the world is moving too fast.
I'm actually impatient for computers to finally get to the point of being really useful. I'd love to see some alternative display technologies take off. I like the portability of wearable computers, although I'm not really interested in wearing them all the time. But it would be great to finally get rid of monitors and go with head mounted displays, and alternative keyboards and such. Be nice for flights and things like that.
I'm also a geek by the general definition of slashdot. Although I design asics, and don't do a lot of programming, per se. And while some may argue the point, I would say that I'm not stupid (from an intelligence persepective, and not a making bad decisions perspective).
I think there is a lot of evil in the world... it's pretty hard to deny. But I don't think there is more now than there was in the past. I don't see people being disembowled or crucified on a daily basis, for example. Today, common torture consists of humiliation rather than any kind of physical pain. Not too long ago, a common torture was to have one's limbs pulled off.
I think there are tons of christians who are very misguided, and it sounds like your relatives might fit that category, if your descriptions are accurate.
I also think there are tons of non-christians who are very good people, in the sense that they desire to help those in need, and so forth.
That depends on a lot of factors. There are a lot of optimized structures in a xilinx part that a lot of fabs don't have in their libraries. Potentially negated if you are doing full custom, and are good at it.
The weak spot that I see with the mini is the slow cpu, and the cost of ram from apple, and that it *seems* that you aren't allowed to open it.
I bought a small form factor amd64 3000+, and it came with a wireless mouse & keyboard, radeon with more ram, and a tv tuner. That cost $900 a few months ago. But I wanted more, so I upgraded the video card and ram. I could get a faster cpu too.
That option doesn't exist on this mac... I mean, I can upgrade the ram from the factory, but that seems to be the limit. Regardless, I'm probably going to get one. I've wanted a mac for a while. I'll just have to evaluate if it would be a better buy to get the imac (at least it's a g5)
I think the immediate usefulness of this in regards to a cpu would be the IO. I think the chip core would still be traditional, but instead of having 1000 pins or whatever, you could change buses to be serial and reduce the pin count considerably.
The speed of electricity varies with voltage and current, but I think the generally accepted value is 1/3*c. So there would be first order speed gains.
But there is also bandwidth too, much more information can be encoded and sent over fiber than can be sent over metal. So now you could have very large parallel memory interfaces. The width might be measured in hundreds of Kbits instead of bits in the near future. The limit would be the speed of the shift registers on the silicon side of the cpu and memory.
There are also benefits from being electrically isolated... ground bounce could be a problem of the past with this.
And electromagnetic radiation could be less of a problem too (spies as well as cross talk).
Also, in the same amount of time, say a nanosecond, electricity only travels 10cm (approx), where as light travels 30cm. So you can make faster systems on a larger area (distributed or monolithic even)
So there is a lot more too this and an all light cpu.
What is the connection between the men in the first list and the women in the second list?
They are movie stars that have acted together in the same movie.
Each pair uses it's own alphabet for substitution:
GMTHYL IKUBGMFPTPSSPM YVTLG UGZVYNHT ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER LINDA HAMILTON
Re:how about "creationism" crap?
on
Bad Science Awards
·
· Score: 0, Troll
It says a lot, because it doesn't say "The Universe was formed" but rather "The Unvierse was formed in this specific way, this is the timeline, etc."
I hope you see the difference.
Nope. I don't. One says the universe was formed by God, about 6,000 years ago. The other says the universe exploded into existence anywhere from 5 to 20 billion years ago.
They look pretty much the same to me.... On the one hand you can say, "but who made God?" and on the other hand you can say, "but who made the dense matter blob that exploded?"
Shame you posted anonymously.
Re:how about "creationism" crap?
on
Bad Science Awards
·
· Score: 0, Troll
the problem i have with creationism is that it offers no scientific explanation. "how did the world begin?" "God made it." doesn't answer any question.
Well, to be fair, we must admit that the Big Bang does nothing more than that.
As a musician and classical violinist I have to wonder why the B# played in second position on the E string differs from 1) the simpler notation of C for the same note as B#
It depends on the key the music is in, right? I mean, yeah, B# and C are the same note, but the notation depends on the key. The key of C# has a B# and the key of F# has an E#, if I'm not mistaken.
I guess with the context of his message, we can't tell if he meant a B# as a part of a song, or by itself.
but they'd have no idea what I meant when I started describing the grain of the viola sound (looks a lot like highly-polished oak under a tungsten lamp), or the brilliant white light of a b# played in second position on a violin's E string.
At the risk of sounding like the Aspies over on kuro5hin, I'll make the comment that I have had similar experiences. I frequently perceive pain as sound, and sometimes color as well. I do sometimes see a color with certain sounds.
I assumed, and still do, that everyone is like this to some degree. Perhaps not everyone notices though.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a problem because of the 2000 year culture gap, and the fact that these things were written in foreign languages.
Here's a quote from one of my commentaries on 1 Tim 2:11 that is interesting:
So we have hermeneutics.
http://www.probe.org/docs/hermen.html
Here's a quote I think is particularly good:
Working with the idea that you can use Scripture to interpret Scripture--taking a passage that is easier to understand and using it to cast light on the more difficult passage--we can see that the idea that women should not lead men anywhere isn't biblical.
Acts 18:26
He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
Gotta get back to work. we should probably move this discussion to a journal. I put a copy in mine if you want to post there:
journal entry
wow... you caught me off guard. I was expecting flames and trolls.
I hadn't heard that view about genesis before--about the thought that the earth was floating in a sphere of water. I don't think it really fits though. I always took those verses to be speaking of atmospheric vs oceanic water, but I hadn't pondered it too deeply.
Yeah, 1 Tim 2 is interesting. It shouldn't be taken to say that women can't teach men in any way shape or form though. It's specifically talking about leading ministry in church. There are other examples in the bible of women teaching other women as well as men.
I'm grappling with some sovereignty issues right now. When I get through these, maybe I'll take a closer look about women in ministry.
The braided hair and gold and pearls is most likely a reference toward dressing like a hooker at the time. Or maybe it was just fashion extremes. Take a look at 1 Peter 3:3-4.
I don't know what denominations are prevelant in Australia... I know that methodists ordain female ministers. My church has deaconesses. I can't say I'm too excited about that, but it's not something I've really spent time thinking about. They've made some decisions that make life a little harder for me, so that may be all it is.
I agree these aren't gospel issues, as you put it, but they are important.
"Most people believe that the bible represents a guide and isn't to be taken absolutely literally."
I think that's a true statement, but if you spend any time studying the bible, you'll find that it claims for itself that it is literal. There are things that are abstract and symbolic, but there are usually pretty good indicators of that. Sometimes not. Among christians there is much debate about how literal Revelation is.
I can't say that I believe these things anymore but if you can believe that there is an almighty being that created us, why can't you also believe that this being crafted the universe as we know it now, and all the wonders it contains that science as yet to scratch the surface on?
Well, I do believe that God crafted the universe as we know it, and all the wonders it contains. And I do believe that science has barely scratched the surface. After all, science has a pretty good track record of proving itself wrong all the time, usually couched in terms like, "we used to believe this, but thanks to these new measurements and this theory over here, so we were totally wrong before and we now believe this." And I'm not saying that as a troll. Look at the rise and fall and rise again of string theory.
"Why do people reject Evolution, when it could have been God that kickstarted the whole thing?"
I don't have too much trouble with evolution. From everything I can tell, the fossil record really doesn't support it on a macro scale, except for this one strange bird thing... I forgot what it's called, that people think might have attributes of a few different critters. It's debatable anyway. I'm sure someone else on here knows what I'm talking about.
The problem many christians have, is if you take the bible literally (as it claims for itself), then the theory of evolution is a direct contradiction of the account of creation in the old testament. On a macro scale, evolution is contradictory to the bible. (not so on a micro scale)
Another problem the more educated christians have is that evolution isn't taught as a theory. It's taught as fact, when it isn't proven. I think any true scientist can appreciate that objection.
So many people will immediately balk at the idea that evolution isn't a proven theory, because it is all they have been taught and it has become axiomatic. It looks like there is pretty good proof of evolution on the micro scale... birds beaks getting longer, and things like that. And it's even biblical. But you don't see a bird turning into a cow, or any evidence of it.
They date rock layers by the index fossils they have in them. and they date the fossils by what layers they are in... doesn't make any sense. You can do some searching and find examples of petrified trees standing straight up through millions of years of layers of rock. I think the term is polystrate fossils.
It's a scary time when the few people with extreme religious views can change the life of everyone to suit their needs.
I'd be more pissed at the movie theatre people for caving in.
I didn't bother reading your whole post... so hopefully I didn't miss anything.
I probably qualify as a fundamentalist, in the sense that I believe the christian bible is true and literal. But I certainly don't think the world is moving too fast.
I'm actually impatient for computers to finally get to the point of being really useful. I'd love to see some alternative display technologies take off. I like the portability of wearable computers, although I'm not really interested in wearing them all the time. But it would be great to finally get rid of monitors and go with head mounted displays, and alternative keyboards and such. Be nice for flights and things like that.
I'm also a geek by the general definition of slashdot. Although I design asics, and don't do a lot of programming, per se. And while some may argue the point, I would say that I'm not stupid (from an intelligence persepective, and not a making bad decisions perspective).
I think there is a lot of evil in the world... it's pretty hard to deny. But I don't think there is more now than there was in the past. I don't see people being disembowled or crucified on a daily basis, for example. Today, common torture consists of humiliation rather than any kind of physical pain. Not too long ago, a common torture was to have one's limbs pulled off.
I think there are tons of christians who are very misguided, and it sounds like your relatives might fit that category, if your descriptions are accurate.
I also think there are tons of non-christians who are very good people, in the sense that they desire to help those in need, and so forth.
I swear, all I hear from Bruce Schneier is how nothing works...blah, blah, This isn't the solution, blah, that isn't the savior.
How about giving us some ideas that *you* think will work.
I'll be interested when they can hit 30 fps, with more graphics complexity then Quake 3.
You consumers are lame. You need to start producing.
sed -e "s/should potentially/will/"
That depends on a lot of factors. There are a lot of optimized structures in a xilinx part that a lot of fabs don't have in their libraries. Potentially negated if you are doing full custom, and are good at it.
I guarantee that this thing will fail if they market it as the PPU, also known as the "who farted?" chip.
what is the deal with naming superheroes something-boy. Or the japanese fixation with something-boy in general.
It's got to be hard to feel like a kick-ass superhero when you have 'boy' in your name. Oh No! It's AtomicWussyPants, run away!
He's measuring the rate of drift, not how far your clock has drifted.
You can sync all you want, but unless you are syncing every few hundred nanoseconds, the rate of drift will be apparent and measurable.
think that the only two browsers out there are IE and Netscape.
Unfortunately, no one can be told what Firefox is. You have to see it for yourself.
is there something ironic about me reading this article while I am at work?
If you're spending $6,999 on Maya, I don't think the additional purchase of a a three-button mouse is going to break your budget.
Dude, if it costs you $6,999 to download maya, it's time to switch ISPs.
eq2 was rocky, but to the rest I say AMEN!
The weak spot that I see with the mini is the slow cpu, and the cost of ram from apple, and that it *seems* that you aren't allowed to open it.
I bought a small form factor amd64 3000+, and it came with a wireless mouse & keyboard, radeon with more ram, and a tv tuner. That cost $900 a few months ago. But I wanted more, so I upgraded the video card and ram. I could get a faster cpu too.
That option doesn't exist on this mac... I mean, I can upgrade the ram from the factory, but that seems to be the limit. Regardless, I'm probably going to get one. I've wanted a mac for a while. I'll just have to evaluate if it would be a better buy to get the imac (at least it's a g5)
I think the immediate usefulness of this in regards to a cpu would be the IO. I think the chip core would still be traditional, but instead of having 1000 pins or whatever, you could change buses to be serial and reduce the pin count considerably.
The speed of electricity varies with voltage and current, but I think the generally accepted value is 1/3*c. So there would be first order speed gains.
But there is also bandwidth too, much more information can be encoded and sent over fiber than can be sent over metal. So now you could have very large parallel memory interfaces. The width might be measured in hundreds of Kbits instead of bits in the near future. The limit would be the speed of the shift registers on the silicon side of the cpu and memory.
There are also benefits from being electrically isolated... ground bounce could be a problem of the past with this.
And electromagnetic radiation could be less of a problem too (spies as well as cross talk).
Also, in the same amount of time, say a nanosecond, electricity only travels 10cm (approx), where as light travels 30cm. So you can make faster systems on a larger area (distributed or monolithic even)
So there is a lot more too this and an all light cpu.
Naturally there is a difference between "Your Rights Online" and "Your Online Rights"
You should consider a more grateful approach toward life.
They are movie stars that have acted together in the same movie.
Each pair uses it's own alphabet for substitution:
It says a lot, because it doesn't say "The Universe was formed" but rather "The Unvierse was formed in this specific way, this is the timeline, etc."
I hope you see the difference.
Nope. I don't. One says the universe was formed by God, about 6,000 years ago. The other says the universe exploded into existence anywhere from 5 to 20 billion years ago.
They look pretty much the same to me.... On the one hand you can say, "but who made God?" and on the other hand you can say, "but who made the dense matter blob that exploded?"
Shame you posted anonymously.
the problem i have with creationism is that it offers no scientific explanation. "how did the world begin?" "God made it." doesn't answer any question.
Well, to be fair, we must admit that the Big Bang does nothing more than that.
"There is only so much left in the strategic reserves."
l
There is enough helium in the US reserves to supply the states for 100 years, or the world for 10. I don't think this guy made a dent.
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis104/heliumup.htm
"which are remote controlled by children, who think that they are actually playing a total imersion video game."
go read ender's game
As a musician and classical violinist I have to wonder why the B# played in second position on the E string differs from 1) the simpler notation of C for the same note as B#
It depends on the key the music is in, right? I mean, yeah, B# and C are the same note, but the notation depends on the key. The key of C# has a B# and the key of F# has an E#, if I'm not mistaken.
I guess with the context of his message, we can't tell if he meant a B# as a part of a song, or by itself.
but they'd have no idea what I meant when I started describing the grain of the viola sound (looks a lot like highly-polished oak under a tungsten lamp), or the brilliant white light of a b# played in second position on a violin's E string.
At the risk of sounding like the Aspies over on kuro5hin, I'll make the comment that I have had similar experiences. I frequently perceive pain as sound, and sometimes color as well. I do sometimes see a color with certain sounds.
I assumed, and still do, that everyone is like this to some degree. Perhaps not everyone notices though.