So is the Old Testament the "Word of God" or not? Or can you pick and choose what you would like out of the Old Testament? Or is it that the Old Testament is the gospel, except when contradicted by the new testament? Or is it more of "you should believe the parts we tell you to believe"?
Remember, the Old Testament is a very bloody document including God punishing his true people because they did not kill all of the the women and children of a people he commanded them to slaughter.
I know that one of the commandments says that we are not supposed to think we can understand the mind of God, but it seems to me that all religion is attempting to do that, and that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament have fundamentally different ways of doing things. But it is because of the vast difference between the Old and New Testaments that we have to choose where our ideology lies. I know it must sound very pick-and-choose-ish of me. I'll put it this way - I read the Old Testament with a very filtered perception. Because when it talks about having slaves and marrying your brother's wife if he dies and such, I can't take that to heart. Not all of the Old Testament is like that, but there's a lot of very old cultural things there that no longer apply.
...are we supposed to accept the word of a mortal human as to how to interpet "the word of God"? Do whatever you want. You have free will, don't you? I don't care what you believe, and no one is forcing you to listen to me. But it's common sense that when Jesus professes love, and the Old Testament talks about righteously slaying your enemies, that Christ's word trumps the Old Testament.
And if you don't believe any of it in the slightest... well, this stuff shouldn't bother you.
I love how you people can take something completely out of context and sound like morons doing it, and when someone says something intelligent, all you can do is find some other smart ass comment to make. Old Testament != Christianity.
You're taking what I said out of context and trying to find sensational examples of why I'm wrong.
All I'm saying is the Old Testament was from a different time, and some of what it says no longer applies, especially when it is contradicted by the New Testament.
Not in the way they used to apply. And you're taking what I said out of context. Anything in the New Testament that contradicts the Old Testament wins. For example, Christ says "Love your neighbor and love you enemy," which contradicts the Old Testament's "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." Besides, there's so much of the Old Testament that can't be taken literally... though there are some Christians that still cling to the literal word-for-word translation of the Old Testament, and because of this they come across as very narrow minded (the most notable example is the flat-out refusal to acknowledge any form of evolution, even though scientific evidence overwhelmingly proves that creatures evolve over long periods of time).
Sadly, I've spoken to a few very misinformed Christians who have looked me square in the eye and told me that dinosaurs never existed. "What about all those bones, you think they just made them up?" I asked, and she answered, "Yeah." I was speechless.
Parent has an excellent point - the old testament != Christianity. While the Old Testament is still read, it isn't taken literally and anything that the New Testament says "overwrites" the Old. Nowhere did Christ say "kill the infidel."
dear citizens of the USA, seriously guys, the amount of stuff you're willing to put up with is freaking me out. a lot. perhaps you should so something about that government you've got? just a suggestion But at least we're allowed to gripe about our government. Or change things via democratic means, if we don't like it.
Nice attempt at being witty, though. Points for that.
Are we really more inclined to take away people's rights?
I think Americans are indeed more inclined to take away people's rights, but the Supreme Court won't let them. Without the Court, they would have all forms of abortion illegal, they would have striptease and pornography outlawed, they would have mandatory school prayer, and they would still put 16-year old killers in gas chambers. Why would they have mandatory school prayer, when we have a separation of Church and State, instead of allowing silent, personal prayer in school, which no one can stop anyway? You're making sweeping generalizations about Americans, based on some views that sound a little too reactionary even for most conservatives.
Well, the flaw with your statement, although it may be in jest, is that America -did- begin the invasion of Iraq. In WWI, Germany had to go to war because their allies went to war... Germany was aligned with Austria, and our allies (England et al) were allied with Serbia. Why Germany was punished the hardest (Treaty of Versailles) for a war they didn't start is beyond me...
Think about it like this: if some country was dumb enough to go to war with America, you can bet that our European friends would join the fight, for no other reason than being our allies - because they'd expect us to do the same for them.
At least with gaming there is more emphasis on skill and cunning; you have to truly outwit an opponent. In poker, it's a game of luck and knowing when to fold. That's about it (and not that there's anything wrong with poker, but watching gaming at least makes a bit more sense).
When you're married and have sex all the time anyway, MMOs seem a bit more exciting. Not that sex isn't good, but when it becomes a function as commonplace as eating, it loses its novelty.
What's the lesson here? I think it's just that countries sometimes support bad guys in order to go after worse guys. It's as true in office politics as in geopolitics.
In terms of killing, Stalin was way worse than Hitler. So, we teamed up with a really bad guy to go after a really bad guy. It was convenient.
Slate is running article lamenting the fact that, despite World of Warcraft's popularity, it is a deeply flawed game.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the game is deeply flawed... but there are certainly better MMORPGs out there. Why, then, is this game doing so well? I think it has to do with a few things - timing, name recognition, and balance. WoW came out and was relatively unchallenged... The only other major MMO at the time (that I can think of, I'm sure there were others) was Final Fantasy XI, which was suffering a bit from Real-Money Trade and people getting tired of the amount of grinding required to actually get anywhere. Grinding has been slightly alleviated, but it doesn't matter, because WoW has developed a huge playerbase and its growth doesn't seem to be slowing down. So while I might feel that FFXI is a superior game, my claim doesn't matter too much when you look at the number of subscribers - FFXI's highest was roughly around 650,000 (it has now retreated back down to around 500,000), where WoW is 7.5 million and still growing.
Another thing that WoW has going for it is its name. WarCraft is disputably one of the most praised RTS series ever. I know when I heard about World of Warcraft, I was psyched, because I loved the previous WarCraft games.
WoW seems to have found that sweet spot where it's easy enough for casual gamers to keep playing, but it has enough content to keep hardcore players addicted. And the formula works - with my work and my classes keeping me busy,leaving only a few hours here and there to play, WoW doesn't leave me completely and utterly frustrated like FFXI does.
So what if WoW is flawed? Apparently 7.5 million people don't mind it too much.
Maybe these politicians have no love for gaming or protecting gamers' rights, but there's no evidence that's there's going to be anything significant done to alienate gamers. When it's all said and done, nothing will be significantly different from when the Republicans were in control. Politicians are politicians, and despite party differences, both sides are exceptionally good at not getting anything done.
The AC has a good point. More anti-$ony, anti-Blu-ray fanboys need to hear this, before they go spouting off about stuff they didn't do any research on.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, the Old Testament is a very bloody document including God punishing his true people because they did not kill all of the the women and children of a people he commanded them to slaughter.
I know that one of the commandments says that we are not supposed to think we can understand the mind of God, but it seems to me that all religion is attempting to do that, and that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament have fundamentally different ways of doing things. But it is because of the vast difference between the Old and New Testaments that we have to choose where our ideology lies. I know it must sound very pick-and-choose-ish of me. I'll put it this way - I read the Old Testament with a very filtered perception. Because when it talks about having slaves and marrying your brother's wife if he dies and such, I can't take that to heart. Not all of the Old Testament is like that, but there's a lot of very old cultural things there that no longer apply.
...are we supposed to accept the word of a mortal human as to how to interpet "the word of God"? Do whatever you want. You have free will, don't you? I don't care what you believe, and no one is forcing you to listen to me. But it's common sense that when Jesus professes love, and the Old Testament talks about righteously slaying your enemies, that Christ's word trumps the Old Testament.And if you don't believe any of it in the slightest... well, this stuff shouldn't bother you.
I love how you people can take something completely out of context and sound like morons doing it, and when someone says something intelligent, all you can do is find some other smart ass comment to make. Old Testament != Christianity.
You're taking what I said out of context and trying to find sensational examples of why I'm wrong.
All I'm saying is the Old Testament was from a different time, and some of what it says no longer applies, especially when it is contradicted by the New Testament.
New Testament > Old Testament
Not in the way they used to apply. And you're taking what I said out of context. Anything in the New Testament that contradicts the Old Testament wins. For example, Christ says "Love your neighbor and love you enemy," which contradicts the Old Testament's "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." Besides, there's so much of the Old Testament that can't be taken literally... though there are some Christians that still cling to the literal word-for-word translation of the Old Testament, and because of this they come across as very narrow minded (the most notable example is the flat-out refusal to acknowledge any form of evolution, even though scientific evidence overwhelmingly proves that creatures evolve over long periods of time).
Sadly, I've spoken to a few very misinformed Christians who have looked me square in the eye and told me that dinosaurs never existed. "What about all those bones, you think they just made them up?" I asked, and she answered, "Yeah." I was speechless.
Parent has an excellent point - the old testament != Christianity. While the Old Testament is still read, it isn't taken literally and anything that the New Testament says "overwrites" the Old. Nowhere did Christ say "kill the infidel."
Nice attempt at being witty, though. Points for that.
Well, the flaw with your statement, although it may be in jest, is that America -did- begin the invasion of Iraq. In WWI, Germany had to go to war because their allies went to war... Germany was aligned with Austria, and our allies (England et al) were allied with Serbia. Why Germany was punished the hardest (Treaty of Versailles) for a war they didn't start is beyond me...
Think about it like this: if some country was dumb enough to go to war with America, you can bet that our European friends would join the fight, for no other reason than being our allies - because they'd expect us to do the same for them.
Offtopic, but... Libertarians would be much more likely to legalize things like marijuana than Democrats. Am I right here?
I know parent is a troll, but Sony -is- selling their console at a loss. Just in case anyone didn't know.
Star Fox: Command
LostMagic
I don't see why everyone freaks out about Friend Codes... maybe they're just misinformed.
At least with gaming there is more emphasis on skill and cunning; you have to truly outwit an opponent. In poker, it's a game of luck and knowing when to fold. That's about it (and not that there's anything wrong with poker, but watching gaming at least makes a bit more sense).
Married for 2 years and 4 months. I still get it all the time with no sign of slowing.
When you're married and have sex all the time anyway, MMOs seem a bit more exciting. Not that sex isn't good, but when it becomes a function as commonplace as eating, it loses its novelty.
And of course, the kid that introduced him to Zelda had thick glasses. Because only kids that are nearly blind know about video games.
What's the lesson here? I think it's just that countries sometimes support bad guys in order to go after worse guys. It's as true in office politics as in geopolitics.
In terms of killing, Stalin was way worse than Hitler. So, we teamed up with a really bad guy to go after a really bad guy. It was convenient.
Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
Nintendo is already in the black for the wii ( as far as I know ) they make something like $100 off each one they sell ( don't quote me )
Oops.
Slate is running article lamenting the fact that, despite World of Warcraft's popularity, it is a deeply flawed game.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the game is deeply flawed... but there are certainly better MMORPGs out there. Why, then, is this game doing so well? I think it has to do with a few things - timing, name recognition, and balance. WoW came out and was relatively unchallenged... The only other major MMO at the time (that I can think of, I'm sure there were others) was Final Fantasy XI, which was suffering a bit from Real-Money Trade and people getting tired of the amount of grinding required to actually get anywhere. Grinding has been slightly alleviated, but it doesn't matter, because WoW has developed a huge playerbase and its growth doesn't seem to be slowing down. So while I might feel that FFXI is a superior game, my claim doesn't matter too much when you look at the number of subscribers - FFXI's highest was roughly around 650,000 (it has now retreated back down to around 500,000), where WoW is 7.5 million and still growing.
Another thing that WoW has going for it is its name. WarCraft is disputably one of the most praised RTS series ever. I know when I heard about World of Warcraft, I was psyched, because I loved the previous WarCraft games.
WoW seems to have found that sweet spot where it's easy enough for casual gamers to keep playing, but it has enough content to keep hardcore players addicted. And the formula works - with my work and my classes keeping me busy,leaving only a few hours here and there to play, WoW doesn't leave me completely and utterly frustrated like FFXI does.
So what if WoW is flawed? Apparently 7.5 million people don't mind it too much.
Maybe these politicians have no love for gaming or protecting gamers' rights, but there's no evidence that's there's going to be anything significant done to alienate gamers. When it's all said and done, nothing will be significantly different from when the Republicans were in control. Politicians are politicians, and despite party differences, both sides are exceptionally good at not getting anything done.
Maybe if they get Cartoon Network and the Anime Network, they'll get my attention. Otherwise, not interested.
Yeah, that makes sense, since America is the reason there IS an internet...
It was posted on the 4th of November. But yes, I see the irony.
The AC has a good point. More anti-$ony, anti-Blu-ray fanboys need to hear this, before they go spouting off about stuff they didn't do any research on.