Well then, we should be upset that they took the idea of wacky sounding names and made them look bad. I mean just when they were starting to get credibility, like GNU, Linux, KDE, GIMP, someone has to spoil the goldmine in names that WANdisco should have been! I mean really, WAN (haha get it, it's like a LAN, but bigger) and then disco(par-tae!)! I'm on the Internet, bopping along!/only trying to be half funny.
I don't see Christianity as an organization. To me it is just something you are, specifically a believer that Christ is our savior. I think that implies many other things for that to be true though, not just mouthing the words.
And you are right; a thief is a thief, it doesn't mean he is in a thieves guild.
So, do you believe that GOD sent some non-Christian agents to stop the Nazi's, or that obeying Christian's were also used to forcefully prevent global genocide?
I ask because this was debated with a friend of mine recently.
I don't understand this question in the context of your post and link. But to answer it, no, I recognize that our sensing devices (biological or technological) can give us input which our brains misinterpret.
It was a reference to the comic, that the mountains prove what they imply that it does. And you are right, we misinterpret input and in the name of science make (often) wild claims. Same thing with "religion". Hopefully we all seek the truth enough that we don't make judgment without all the facts, or we reserve some judgment for when we make the mistake of doing so.
What Penn is saying is that, from the moral point of view of a theist who believes in eternal life or damnation, evangelism is imperative. He doesn't respect the non-evangelist because they don't fully embrace their belief system. He still thinks their belief system is nutty. Basically what he's saying is that the non-evangelist is a hypocrite. And I'm not sure how that acts as a counterpoint to what I said. My position is that the evangelist who effects real change in the world can (and usually does) do harm by infringing on others' rights.
He never said the good man's belief system was nutty.
My position is that the atheist who effects real change in the world can (and usually does) do harm by infringing on others' rights.
I've never known a true Christian evangelist to infringe on anyone intentionally. (i.e. mistakenly enter somewhere prohibited, or something) Perhaps I should also mention I make the distinction between evangelizing and bigotedly pressing your ideas (not GOD's words), similar to how even atheists often do.
No, you said a problem with them (hucksters) does not indicate a problem with the priests. That would contradict what you said about making your point stronger?
You also didn't address where slavery was condoned...
The police are setup with a backwards business model anyhow. Reward for collars only sets up a need for more crime, instead of reward for crime to collar ratio and reduction of overall crime.
I won't be surprised when drivers of vehicles with it on start to be targeted (with violence?) and others put it on their vehicle who are not in law enforcement. I thought this was a local thing when someone pointed it out to me. A quick Google shows it is national. There are so many words I can describe for this concept, but I am not even gonna try to begin.
I have always wondered if that was true about Saturday... heard contradictions, etc.
I am not familiar with the term vicar, but a quick lookup and I have to say I have an issue with anyone getting paid and others not. People in the church should get paid for teaching and things related to commencing that imho. But hey, I know they do things differently over there in England.
Here, we have a Wed. night dinner for $4, but that goes to the church itself and not directly to the Pastor.
I dislike so many words in the English language, or maybe a little more precisely how we've been conditioned to misuse them; most often negatively. For me, things are rarely overboard, at least as people use the the word. If that is the rule, that is the rule, for example. Do not bend the rule. If the rule is bad, then change it. When you blur the line in the sand, after awhile there is no longer a line. Hence, I don't see how you can literally go overboard with a rule. Fail to recognize it is a failure, sure. But then call it that.
I tried to find the one about the woman trespassing with the purpose of seeing him naked, and I am pretty sure I read it on Slashdot as well as somewhere else. But I often can't find articles I am looking for on Slashdot...
Christians don't want marriage being turned into something it is not. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with not wanted something to be perverted into something it isn't. That is a strong word, but fits the definition.
You confuse religious with GOD fearing. I can religiously read Slashdot. I can religiously spread hate under the guise of GOD. That doesn't mean I spread truth.
One can be religiously athiest, but would you be here saying "Whither goes atheist persons also goes death and tyranny."? Just because someone claims to believe in a GOD doesn't mean they wouldn't do the same sort of things without claiming to believe in GOD. History proves that.
Backwards thinking is the product of confusion and lies from Satan. Seek the truth and you will find it. Or, believe what you see and read with scant and incomplete evidence and little real thought to the validity of things of this world.
Sorry, but that is as absurd as balancing the rights of the victim against the innocent. If it meant a guilty man had to walk, let him before you incarcerate an innocent man. That is why we have due-process.
My rights end, where yours begin. We all have a right to life, and choosing to take one's (the unborn) is like choosing to take an innocent man's away just to punish the guilty. Is it bad the guilty walks? Sure, but it is a graver tragedy that the innocent perish.
The funny thing about computers is, never say never. Anything built has a fault or weakness. But you first would have to have an open mind to ever escape your prison. I think being caught up in the world's lies and confusion is similar to a Romulan Holodeck actually. (Similar to how the Matrix was an interpretation of the Bible.) Even if I am still inside, I know I will be leaving eventually.
Thanks for the new word by the way - Antitheist. It is always good to be clear and precise.
Action or inaction, either is a choice. So is believing and not believing. I don't know or agnosticism is reserving judgment until you receive more facts. All are a choice. Athiests on the other hand want others to believe that there is no way possible that something (i.e. GOD) could exist, without having been to every corner of the universe. That idea is as sound as the Sun revolving around the Earth.
Hey BobMcD - can you email me at my throw-away email and then reply here please? I will respond from my personal. I really appreciate how you (actually) think, and you may be interested in a project I am working on.
The interest of his state is the truth. Perhaps he knows more than you do if he believes the earth is 6,0000 years old? No, he is only a senator, it isn't possible. Mountains prove everything. If someone has an STD it proves they had sex, there is no other possibility like they were born with it.
The burning bush was presented to a man who was a believer. You are not a believer. In other words, would you even know GOD if you saw him? The Bible teaches we know GOD through the things that are unseen, i.e. invisible. If you rely on your eyes alone, you will never find him.
I think his theory is based on the observation that once the law got involved, it was then opened to attempts to be twisted and distorted into something it isn't, confusing people and having fruitless discussion that really shouldn't command time as it is ludicrous when you think about it.
Maybe you are right, it will never change. That doesn't mean he is wrong, and that is not the way it should be. Always stick to your principals, or you are apt to fall for anything.
Christians are against changing the meaning of a word and devaluing what it means. A bond between a man and a woman.
It matters little when the word we use today was invented, the concept was introduced with Adam and Eve. That is what it is, like a rose is a rose. I'd get upset if you called it stinkbush, as it would cause confusion for no good reason.
The reason why they didn't want a state religion was for freedom of religion, not so that religion would not have any influence of the state. That idea is preposterous. Just look at the wording of many of the documents used by the founding fathers. Unfortunately that idea is spread around by those who are evil with the intent to confuse.
Not sure what relokgious is, but judging by "perdson" I would say you were letting your frustration get in the way of you saying someone who is religious is not deserving of respect. The thing is, we all deserve respect, yes even a KKK member. How else will you ever get him to respect you? Love is the only power that can conquer hate my friend.
Slashdot Mirror
Well then, we should be upset that they took the idea of wacky sounding names and made them look bad. I mean just when they were starting to get credibility, like GNU, Linux, KDE, GIMP, someone has to spoil the goldmine in names that WANdisco should have been! I mean really, WAN (haha get it, it's like a LAN, but bigger) and then disco(par-tae!)! I'm on the Internet, bopping along! /only trying to be half funny.
CmdrTaco, you duped the links, which appears to be an accident.
I don't see Christianity as an organization. To me it is just something you are, specifically a believer that Christ is our savior. I think that implies many other things for that to be true though, not just mouthing the words.
And you are right; a thief is a thief, it doesn't mean he is in a thieves guild.
So, do you believe that GOD sent some non-Christian agents to stop the Nazi's, or that obeying Christian's were also used to forcefully prevent global genocide?
I ask because this was debated with a friend of mine recently.
Do you believe everything you see?
I don't understand this question in the context of your post and link. But to answer it, no, I recognize that our sensing devices (biological or technological) can give us input which our brains misinterpret.
It was a reference to the comic, that the mountains prove what they imply that it does. And you are right, we misinterpret input and in the name of science make (often) wild claims. Same thing with "religion". Hopefully we all seek the truth enough that we don't make judgment without all the facts, or we reserve some judgment for when we make the mistake of doing so.
Even an intelligent master magician who is an atheist believes in evangelism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdvES4_MJ5Y
What Penn is saying is that, from the moral point of view of a theist who believes in eternal life or damnation, evangelism is imperative. He doesn't respect the non-evangelist because they don't fully embrace their belief system. He still thinks their belief system is nutty. Basically what he's saying is that the non-evangelist is a hypocrite. And I'm not sure how that acts as a counterpoint to what I said. My position is that the evangelist who effects real change in the world can (and usually does) do harm by infringing on others' rights.
He never said the good man's belief system was nutty.
My position is that the atheist who effects real change in the world can (and usually does) do harm by infringing on others' rights.
I've never known a true Christian evangelist to infringe on anyone intentionally. (i.e. mistakenly enter somewhere prohibited, or something) Perhaps I should also mention I make the distinction between evangelizing and bigotedly pressing your ideas (not GOD's words), similar to how even atheists often do.
No, you said a problem with them (hucksters) does not indicate a problem with the priests. That would contradict what you said about making your point stronger?
You also didn't address where slavery was condoned...
The police are setup with a backwards business model anyhow. Reward for collars only sets up a need for more crime, instead of reward for crime to collar ratio and reduction of overall crime.
I won't be surprised when drivers of vehicles with it on start to be targeted (with violence?) and others put it on their vehicle who are not in law enforcement. I thought this was a local thing when someone pointed it out to me. A quick Google shows it is national. There are so many words I can describe for this concept, but I am not even gonna try to begin.
I have always wondered if that was true about Saturday... heard contradictions, etc.
I am not familiar with the term vicar, but a quick lookup and I have to say I have an issue with anyone getting paid and others not. People in the church should get paid for teaching and things related to commencing that imho. But hey, I know they do things differently over there in England.
Here, we have a Wed. night dinner for $4, but that goes to the church itself and not directly to the Pastor.
I dislike so many words in the English language, or maybe a little more precisely how we've been conditioned to misuse them; most often negatively. For me, things are rarely overboard, at least as people use the the word. If that is the rule, that is the rule, for example. Do not bend the rule. If the rule is bad, then change it. When you blur the line in the sand, after awhile there is no longer a line. Hence, I don't see how you can literally go overboard with a rule. Fail to recognize it is a failure, sure. But then call it that.
No biggie, just as likely sentence construction fail on my part. :)
I recall seeing an actual article, but then again not everything published is true... anyhow this is the best I could do to get to the truth: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081104002820AAKoxtP
I tried to find the one about the woman trespassing with the purpose of seeing him naked, and I am pretty sure I read it on Slashdot as well as somewhere else. But I often can't find articles I am looking for on Slashdot...
Right, that is what I said.. impossible unlike almost everything else ingestible.
Christians don't want marriage being turned into something it is not. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with not wanted something to be perverted into something it isn't. That is a strong word, but fits the definition.
You confuse religious with GOD fearing. I can religiously read Slashdot. I can religiously spread hate under the guise of GOD. That doesn't mean I spread truth.
One can be religiously athiest, but would you be here saying "Whither goes atheist persons also goes death and tyranny."? Just because someone claims to believe in a GOD doesn't mean they wouldn't do the same sort of things without claiming to believe in GOD. History proves that.
Backwards thinking is the product of confusion and lies from Satan. Seek the truth and you will find it. Or, believe what you see and read with scant and incomplete evidence and little real thought to the validity of things of this world.
Sorry, but that is as absurd as balancing the rights of the victim against the innocent. If it meant a guilty man had to walk, let him before you incarcerate an innocent man. That is why we have due-process.
My rights end, where yours begin. We all have a right to life, and choosing to take one's (the unborn) is like choosing to take an innocent man's away just to punish the guilty. Is it bad the guilty walks? Sure, but it is a graver tragedy that the innocent perish.
The funny thing about computers is, never say never. Anything built has a fault or weakness. But you first would have to have an open mind to ever escape your prison. I think being caught up in the world's lies and confusion is similar to a Romulan Holodeck actually. (Similar to how the Matrix was an interpretation of the Bible.) Even if I am still inside, I know I will be leaving eventually.
Thanks for the new word by the way - Antitheist. It is always good to be clear and precise.
Action or inaction, either is a choice. So is believing and not believing. I don't know or agnosticism is reserving judgment until you receive more facts. All are a choice. Athiests on the other hand want others to believe that there is no way possible that something (i.e. GOD) could exist, without having been to every corner of the universe. That idea is as sound as the Sun revolving around the Earth.
Hey BobMcD - can you email me at my throw-away email and then reply here please? I will respond from my personal. I really appreciate how you (actually) think, and you may be interested in a project I am working on.
junk(dot)jason(AT)gmail.com
The interest of his state is the truth. Perhaps he knows more than you do if he believes the earth is 6,0000 years old? No, he is only a senator, it isn't possible. Mountains prove everything. If someone has an STD it proves they had sex, there is no other possibility like they were born with it.
Negative. You should never put your beliefs completely aside, for what is the point of having them?
Do you believe everything you see? Even an intelligent master magician who is an atheist believes in evangelism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdvES4_MJ5Y
The burning bush was presented to a man who was a believer. You are not a believer. In other words, would you even know GOD if you saw him? The Bible teaches we know GOD through the things that are unseen, i.e. invisible. If you rely on your eyes alone, you will never find him.
Marriage has been around since Adam and Eve. Christ just defined what a marriage is in the eyes of GOD. The Pagan's were obviously doing it wrong.
I think his theory is based on the observation that once the law got involved, it was then opened to attempts to be twisted and distorted into something it isn't, confusing people and having fruitless discussion that really shouldn't command time as it is ludicrous when you think about it.
Maybe you are right, it will never change. That doesn't mean he is wrong, and that is not the way it should be. Always stick to your principals, or you are apt to fall for anything.
The majority of PEOPLE are control freaks.
Christians are against changing the meaning of a word and devaluing what it means. A bond between a man and a woman.
It matters little when the word we use today was invented, the concept was introduced with Adam and Eve. That is what it is, like a rose is a rose. I'd get upset if you called it stinkbush, as it would cause confusion for no good reason.
The reason why they didn't want a state religion was for freedom of religion, not so that religion would not have any influence of the state. That idea is preposterous. Just look at the wording of many of the documents used by the founding fathers. Unfortunately that idea is spread around by those who are evil with the intent to confuse.
Not sure what relokgious is, but judging by "perdson" I would say you were letting your frustration get in the way of you saying someone who is religious is not deserving of respect. The thing is, we all deserve respect, yes even a KKK member. How else will you ever get him to respect you? Love is the only power that can conquer hate my friend.
By all means read the post this idiot linked to! (He didn't!)