Bear in mind that the Christian God is, indeed, believed by me and others to be a genuine, literal being, existing eternally outside of his creation. Yes. And that he did in fact concieve his son, Jesus, who in fact did live on Earth, and all that.
I have to understand both the literal and metaphorical.
There are a multitude of original manuscripts available and used to assemble the modern Bible we have.
I use the NIV, one carefully translated, and from the best available sources.
Yes, even the Aramaic where it still exists, and Greek where that was indeed the original some of the Epistles. Only the Pentateuch offers us really, really old and original texts, though some book have remarkably excellent sources. Overall, the Bible has more trustworthy sources than many old classics that are nonetheless considered definitive and above reproach.
First, I reject prosperity gospels pretty much entirely, if for no other reason than wealth is unnecessary for salvation.
But more to the point, the Christian Bible, the New Testament in particular, was written largely by lay persons. Only Paul could claim to have a through and approved theological education, and his turned out to be informative but not definitive.
Inconsistencies do challenge exegesis. We easily study so hard and deep that we forget the fundamentals, and next thing you know you've twisted Matthew 15:11 into proving that afflictions are caused by what we say. The text reads, in one version:
"it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person."
I would read 'defiles' as 'causes to sin', or 'leads to unbelief'. Not physical defilement, but spiritual defilement, as indeed the words we say, by themselves, are not of power, but their meaning, the spirit conveyed, is the purpose and effect. The potential excusing of genocide is another example. It is indeed hard to read that God intended to destroy peoples pre-existing in Israel before the Hebrews came, but he actually used them and other means to accomplish what HE wanted to do. In the absence of the clear word of God reverberating across the land, or a prophet such as Moses, one who could plainly demonstrate the power of God, well, I would not be claiming God's authority to destroy a peoples. And yes, this means discerning between lawful or defensible war and murder. That question is thoroughly answered by others, and I will not try to improve on their efforts here. You can find sufficient reasoning to satisfy curiosity, and come to your own conclusions.
Luther in particular would applaud your willingness to permit scripture to be read by believers.
And I disagree that the Bible and Christian faith are not a starting point for a viable society. But it does not, by itself, offer a sufficient framework for government. that requires men to use their faith to inform them as they consider how to organize their affairs. Few other religions would ever protect the rights of unbelievers so carefully.
"And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him."
Your focus on the disciples' question is instructive, in two ways. First, while you caught that, you seem to have not read Jesus' response. Second, while the disciples indeed are considered to be reliable sources of accurate and true theology, when this incident occurred, they still were not entirely sure of Jesus and His true nature, nor were they yet Apostles, not even yet Christians. And so, you focus on the disciples' question, and not Jesus own response, the response that is certain and true, the one upon which you should in fact base your understanding of the event, and the message you should indeed take away from it.
You in fact thoroughly prove my point - even better than I might be able to, for you seem to intentionally ignore the most important part of the quotation. It is common, to this day, for people to misinterpret Scripture, to misinterpret Jesus' words, to sometimes entirely miss the actual and true point, which you have done so very well. Reconsider, if you would, the entire passage. Jesus stated plainly that, in that instance, that the man's blindness was truly an opportunity, prepared in advance, (Ephesians 2:10), that Jesus could again demonstrate His authority on Earth. It seems as if you deliberately ignored Jesus' works so that you might make a point that would be otherwise refuted. Not good exegesis, I think, but you are invited to make a defense.
Similarly, while I could offer an explanation that Stephen Hawking's illness in some way enabled him to more fully pursue his scientific explorations, that actually is in no way necessary. The fallen status of our world is a sufficient explanation for sickness and disease, not the least of which are the damaged states of our souls, in so many different ways. But to think disease is a punishment for sin is somewhat questionable, for if God is real, and Jesus also, and repentance leads to eternal life, while rejection of God leads to eternal damnation, consider this. God would punish us in this life, why, so He could then exact an eternal punishment upon our death?
That last question I actually have no answer for. Others have studied the question far more thoroughly than I ever could, and may offer some insight, but I need not answer that to be satisfied as to God's existence, and His intentions towards me. Understanding that disease is not necessarily the result of anyone's specif or even general sin is, however, useful, for it certainly reminds me I should care for those who need care, and never, ever think for a moment that I am in any way circumventing or opposing God's will. Ever.
"often indistinguishable from legitimate political debate."
So, often are in fact legitimate political debate, being indistinguishable.
For, if the syrup you pour on your cakes for breakfast is indistinguishable from real, natural, from-a-tree maple syrup, are you in any way not actually enjoying the taste of maple? And if so, are you not, in any way, diminished having been given a not natural, but indistinguishable syrup?
So these sources, while in Facebook's view being somehow illegitimate, are indistinguishable, and so are, for their users, the same thing as the so-called and left-alone 'legitimate' sources.
Bear in mind that these 'legitimate' sources may differ only in that they use links, postings, and dissemination in a way that is approved of. For the mainstream media, this is to engage each other with the identical language, quote one another exclusively, and reinforce their common points and opinions. All of which is link farming and much of which would be well defined as using "multiple accounts to generate traffic, or to inflate their popularity.", though perhaps merely among friends, and not the blatant 'fake accounts' that Facebook is alluding to.
For we know well that CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and others would never stoop to using false premises to propagate their influence, of course, and neither would the smaller entities that they join with and refer to constantly. Of course not, they somehow are ethical, where their opposition is not, because political discourse is an unequal, asymmetrical game, where only a few philosophies are corrupt, and others are without redemption, and the difference is in the eye of the beholder. Oh, wait, I meant to write 'the difference is obvious and indelible'.
Walmart will give you receipts of varying length. Home Depot and Lowes also.
Since Walgreens is in the same business, they fear no receipt.
Supermarkets in the US are legendary for receipts, but these are itemized, so that's understandable. Many (and Walgreens) print additional offers and coupons. You may not have room in the bag for those. JK.
We can be sure that Chinese, if they did indeed sponsor implanting chips as described, already know if we know.
And we can be certain that the truth of this has been known for a while, by the agencies interested, globally. And for a while, possibly months. Keeping the knowledge quiet is important to fully understanding the problem, since the target servers would likely be reconfigured to obscure their true purposes, then quietly killed. And the data being sent would need to be evaluated with live examples to understand the capabilities and guess at the intentions.
Of course this could all be an elaborate ruse, to either prevent an effort - describing the possible exploit methods, and so rendering them fairly useless, or at least being able to put the opposition on notice that 'we are watching'. But I doubt this.
This news is most likely an unexpected and unwanted disclosure. We should have heard about this through indictments, plentiful evidence, and the already-launched mitigation, most likely black holing the destinations and then writing specific rules to block the outbound traffic. That's done a lot for lesser threats, Cisco in particular would be working on that, and core transport would be involved. At least everywhere but the perpetrator states.
So this is known to be true or not, and I expect the authorities to delay confirming this for a variety of reasons, some not mentioned above. Certainly to get as much information as possible about the sponsors.
I flashed Cyanogen Mod on my G1 back in 2008 or 2009, I forget, when HTC/TMobile/Google decided it wasn't worth any more updates, after 2 years. And that's still a problem for phones, but another discussion.
It wasn't long before I had to get gapps separately, because Google back then (2010?) decided they would not permit these ROM developers to bundle it - proprietary software and all. Not a big deal,just another step, and it worked.
This is less than new. The EU could have figured this out 8 years ago, but the money wasn't there yet. Now it is.
Money grab. That's what this is. Look for the EU to figure out how get Google, Apple, etc. to have to be licensed to sell in the EU. Licensed *BY* the EU. This also is not a new concept.
If it's not worth the effort, even the perceived effort, for the payoff, even the perceived payoff, it won't be done.
Locks don't keep the honest and law-abiding out, they discourage the criminals and prevent the less competent ones.
There is no absolute security for virtually anything. Just a sufficient amount to make the risk acceptable. And less security is needed when the value of the protected asset is less, or when recovery or replacement is cheap enough.
The Shuttle was uniquely suited to these missions.
I doubt the Orion, Dragon, or Starliner have the necessary capabilities.
You know, the US has only made 4 different manned flight space capsules ever... Interesting. The Russians, really only 3. The Chinese, one. India plans one, and we have three new ones in competition. Russia has one planned also... Not sure the Iranian project is serious.
Apparently DST ends in Australia this past weekend. Three different change dates I know now, thanks gang.
Um, I do actually know how software can be tested, but forgot the/s flag for you.
And just for future reference, when I burn an omelette I often realize it before it comes out of the pan. But that's just me. I actually flip it once more before I slide it out of the pan. Easy test, and the plate is avoided.
Oh, and if GPS time is such a problem, oh, wait, what?/sarcasm.
Coastal flooding already forces humans to either build differently or move to higher ground.
Species such as coral are proving somewhat more resilient than expected, but even if they are not it isn't evident that the demise of coral will destroy the biome.
Conifers are surprisingly resilient also, though having sugar maples further north will mostly change the farms' locations. Conifers are overrated anyways...
And more 'fresh' water in the oceans?
Why is it that change is so bad, when our planet has experience more massive changes in the past? You expected all this to last forever?
0. The reversal of state surveillance can be accomplished without physical violence, maybe, but not without effort. The ballot box will need to be employed in dramatic and overwhelming fashion, and that will take an effort equal to the effort put forth by the Left in America.
1. If it does come down to physical violence, unthinkable as that is, it will be the Second American Revolution. The first one wasn't won so much by force of arms as by perseverance, cunning, and good fortune. Plenty of examples of our nation's military being defeated by 'lesser' forces lately.
2. Assuming our Second Revolution would be fought between our military and civilians assumes much that is not obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
Bear in mind that the Christian God is, indeed, believed by me and others to be a genuine, literal being, existing eternally outside of his creation. Yes. And that he did in fact concieve his son, Jesus, who in fact did live on Earth, and all that.
I have to understand both the literal and metaphorical.
There are a multitude of original manuscripts available and used to assemble the modern Bible we have.
I use the NIV, one carefully translated, and from the best available sources.
Yes, even the Aramaic where it still exists, and Greek where that was indeed the original some of the Epistles. Only the Pentateuch offers us really, really old and original texts, though some book have remarkably excellent sources. Overall, the Bible has more trustworthy sources than many old classics that are nonetheless considered definitive and above reproach.
First, I reject prosperity gospels pretty much entirely, if for no other reason than wealth is unnecessary for salvation.
But more to the point, the Christian Bible, the New Testament in particular, was written largely by lay persons. Only Paul could claim to have a through and approved theological education, and his turned out to be informative but not definitive.
Inconsistencies do challenge exegesis. We easily study so hard and deep that we forget the fundamentals, and next thing you know you've twisted Matthew 15:11 into proving that afflictions are caused by what we say. The text reads, in one version:
"it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person."
I would read 'defiles' as 'causes to sin', or 'leads to unbelief'. Not physical defilement, but spiritual defilement, as indeed the words we say, by themselves, are not of power, but their meaning, the spirit conveyed, is the purpose and effect. The potential excusing of genocide is another example. It is indeed hard to read that God intended to destroy peoples pre-existing in Israel before the Hebrews came, but he actually used them and other means to accomplish what HE wanted to do. In the absence of the clear word of God reverberating across the land, or a prophet such as Moses, one who could plainly demonstrate the power of God, well, I would not be claiming God's authority to destroy a peoples. And yes, this means discerning between lawful or defensible war and murder. That question is thoroughly answered by others, and I will not try to improve on their efforts here. You can find sufficient reasoning to satisfy curiosity, and come to your own conclusions.
Luther in particular would applaud your willingness to permit scripture to be read by believers.
And I disagree that the Bible and Christian faith are not a starting point for a viable society. But it does not, by itself, offer a sufficient framework for government. that requires men to use their faith to inform them as they consider how to organize their affairs. Few other religions would ever protect the rights of unbelievers so carefully.
In the absence of a specific designation, I tend to assume a reference to 'God' is a reference to the Christian God. And I am rarely wrong.
The quote I offered was, in its entirety:
"And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him."
Your focus on the disciples' question is instructive, in two ways. First, while you caught that, you seem to have not read Jesus' response. Second, while the disciples indeed are considered to be reliable sources of accurate and true theology, when this incident occurred, they still were not entirely sure of Jesus and His true nature, nor were they yet Apostles, not even yet Christians. And so, you focus on the disciples' question, and not Jesus own response, the response that is certain and true, the one upon which you should in fact base your understanding of the event, and the message you should indeed take away from it.
You in fact thoroughly prove my point - even better than I might be able to, for you seem to intentionally ignore the most important part of the quotation. It is common, to this day, for people to misinterpret Scripture, to misinterpret Jesus' words, to sometimes entirely miss the actual and true point, which you have done so very well. Reconsider, if you would, the entire passage. Jesus stated plainly that, in that instance, that the man's blindness was truly an opportunity, prepared in advance, (Ephesians 2:10), that Jesus could again demonstrate His authority on Earth. It seems as if you deliberately ignored Jesus' works so that you might make a point that would be otherwise refuted. Not good exegesis, I think, but you are invited to make a defense.
Similarly, while I could offer an explanation that Stephen Hawking's illness in some way enabled him to more fully pursue his scientific explorations, that actually is in no way necessary. The fallen status of our world is a sufficient explanation for sickness and disease, not the least of which are the damaged states of our souls, in so many different ways. But to think disease is a punishment for sin is somewhat questionable, for if God is real, and Jesus also, and repentance leads to eternal life, while rejection of God leads to eternal damnation, consider this. God would punish us in this life, why, so He could then exact an eternal punishment upon our death?
That last question I actually have no answer for. Others have studied the question far more thoroughly than I ever could, and may offer some insight, but I need not answer that to be satisfied as to God's existence, and His intentions towards me. Understanding that disease is not necessarily the result of anyone's specif or even general sin is, however, useful, for it certainly reminds me I should care for those who need care, and never, ever think for a moment that I am in any way circumventing or opposing God's will. Ever.
"For centuries, it was believed that disabled people like me were living under a curse that was inflicted by God,"
From John 9:2:
And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him."
And Stephen Hawking has surely increased our understanding of the Universe.
I suppose it's all in how carefully you read the text, for many books, many authors, many stories are misunderstood.
Lightening strikes usually result in liftoff and sometimes an abrupt crash, equally devastating, and fire is a common feature...
"often indistinguishable from legitimate political debate."
So, often are in fact legitimate political debate, being indistinguishable.
For, if the syrup you pour on your cakes for breakfast is indistinguishable from real, natural, from-a-tree maple syrup, are you in any way not actually enjoying the taste of maple? And if so, are you not, in any way, diminished having been given a not natural, but indistinguishable syrup?
So these sources, while in Facebook's view being somehow illegitimate, are indistinguishable, and so are, for their users, the same thing as the so-called and left-alone 'legitimate' sources.
Bear in mind that these 'legitimate' sources may differ only in that they use links, postings, and dissemination in a way that is approved of. For the mainstream media, this is to engage each other with the identical language, quote one another exclusively, and reinforce their common points and opinions. All of which is link farming and much of which would be well defined as using "multiple accounts to generate traffic, or to inflate their popularity.", though perhaps merely among friends, and not the blatant 'fake accounts' that Facebook is alluding to.
For we know well that CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and others would never stoop to using false premises to propagate their influence, of course, and neither would the smaller entities that they join with and refer to constantly. Of course not, they somehow are ethical, where their opposition is not, because political discourse is an unequal, asymmetrical game, where only a few philosophies are corrupt, and others are without redemption, and the difference is in the eye of the beholder. Oh, wait, I meant to write 'the difference is obvious and indelible'.
Sure.
And all ISS supplies are well stocked, because they anticipate having to survive at least one failed mission.
Walmart will give you receipts of varying length. Home Depot and Lowes also.
Since Walgreens is in the same business, they fear no receipt.
Supermarkets in the US are legendary for receipts, but these are itemized, so that's understandable. Many (and Walgreens) print additional offers and coupons. You may not have room in the bag for those. JK.
Soyuz delivers (virtually) no supplies. that's the Cygnus and Progress mostly, and those are on schedule.
We can be sure that Chinese, if they did indeed sponsor implanting chips as described, already know if we know.
And we can be certain that the truth of this has been known for a while, by the agencies interested, globally. And for a while, possibly months. Keeping the knowledge quiet is important to fully understanding the problem, since the target servers would likely be reconfigured to obscure their true purposes, then quietly killed. And the data being sent would need to be evaluated with live examples to understand the capabilities and guess at the intentions.
Of course this could all be an elaborate ruse, to either prevent an effort - describing the possible exploit methods, and so rendering them fairly useless, or at least being able to put the opposition on notice that 'we are watching'. But I doubt this.
This news is most likely an unexpected and unwanted disclosure. We should have heard about this through indictments, plentiful evidence, and the already-launched mitigation, most likely black holing the destinations and then writing specific rules to block the outbound traffic. That's done a lot for lesser threats, Cisco in particular would be working on that, and core transport would be involved. At least everywhere but the perpetrator states.
So this is known to be true or not, and I expect the authorities to delay confirming this for a variety of reasons, some not mentioned above. Certainly to get as much information as possible about the sponsors.
Own nothing.
Control everything.
Gawd this is old.
I flashed Cyanogen Mod on my G1 back in 2008 or 2009, I forget, when HTC/TMobile/Google decided it wasn't worth any more updates, after 2 years. And that's still a problem for phones, but another discussion.
It wasn't long before I had to get gapps separately, because Google back then (2010?) decided they would not permit these ROM developers to bundle it - proprietary software and all. Not a big deal,just another step, and it worked.
This is less than new. The EU could have figured this out 8 years ago, but the money wasn't there yet. Now it is.
Money grab. That's what this is. Look for the EU to figure out how get Google, Apple, etc. to have to be licensed to sell in the EU. Licensed *BY* the EU. This also is not a new concept.
Seems more like Walmart is providing its security personnel earlier notification of potential threats.
Yes. It's economics.
If it's not worth the effort, even the perceived effort, for the payoff, even the perceived payoff, it won't be done.
Locks don't keep the honest and law-abiding out, they discourage the criminals and prevent the less competent ones.
There is no absolute security for virtually anything. Just a sufficient amount to make the risk acceptable. And less security is needed when the value of the protected asset is less, or when recovery or replacement is cheap enough.
The Shuttle was uniquely suited to these missions.
I doubt the Orion, Dragon, or Starliner have the necessary capabilities.
You know, the US has only made 4 different manned flight space capsules ever... Interesting. The Russians, really only 3. The Chinese, one. India plans one, and we have three new ones in competition. Russia has one planned also... Not sure the Iranian project is serious.
A service call to Hubble is out of scope for the first several SpaceX manned launches. It doesn't provide the same capabilities as the Shuttle at all.
But Elon might actually offer a solution, or at least offer to offer one.
Apparently DST ends in Australia this past weekend. Three different change dates I know now, thanks gang.
Um, I do actually know how software can be tested, but forgot the /s flag for you.
And just for future reference, when I burn an omelette I often realize it before it comes out of the pan. But that's just me. I actually flip it once more before I slide it out of the pan. Easy test, and the plate is avoided.
Oh, and if GPS time is such a problem, oh, wait, what? /sarcasm.
We're not doomed.
Coastal flooding already forces humans to either build differently or move to higher ground.
Species such as coral are proving somewhat more resilient than expected, but even if they are not it isn't evident that the demise of coral will destroy the biome.
Conifers are surprisingly resilient also, though having sugar maples further north will mostly change the farms' locations. Conifers are overrated anyways...
And more 'fresh' water in the oceans?
Why is it that change is so bad, when our planet has experience more massive changes in the past? You expected all this to last forever?
Please, stop that. It just feeds the trolls, and forces them to trot out their excuses.
I could make the case that all legal entrapment is in essence impersonation.
But I won't, for this should be obvious.
0. The reversal of state surveillance can be accomplished without physical violence, maybe, but not without effort. The ballot box will need to be employed in dramatic and overwhelming fashion, and that will take an effort equal to the effort put forth by the Left in America.
1. If it does come down to physical violence, unthinkable as that is, it will be the Second American Revolution. The first one wasn't won so much by force of arms as by perseverance, cunning, and good fortune. Plenty of examples of our nation's military being defeated by 'lesser' forces lately.
2. Assuming our Second Revolution would be fought between our military and civilians assumes much that is not obvious.
"Telepathy as generally defined by people is Not Real. Nor is homeopathy. Nor god."
Proof?
For homeopathy, it seems there is proof. For telepathy, I doubt anyone practicing it dare let it be known.
But, for God, you have proof God does not exist?
At least in the US you're innocent until proven guilty.
Oh, wait...