This is about as stupid as if someone were to go and sue gun manufacturers for the way they misused the gun they bought. Good thing we don't have any of THAT going on, as well as this bullshit.
And if it were so damn valuable, why dispose of it in a cab?
Yeah, I think I was trying to say that if someone found an expensive device they should try to return it to the owner instead of throwing it out. I was _not_ trying to say that someone should dispose of _anything_ in someone else's vehicle. That's just not nice. my $0.02
(And do you think she claimed it as an insured loss?)
I somehow doubt it. But, it's not really a big issue for me either way.
First, nobody believes that the Bible is completely historically inaccurate
Actually, I have met people who believe exactly that, and all I was saying is that they could be missing out on some valuable historical information, whether on purpose because of their beliefs, or by accident because of their wholesale dismissal.
Perhaps this misunderstanding began when you assumed something about my personal beliefs that was not true.
you are the one making an exception based on your own personal philosphy or set of belifs
To be clear, I think we're saying the same thing, just from different perspectives. I just made the mistake of saying wholesale dismissal of the Bible was wrong without also saying that wholesale acceptance of the Bible is also wrong.
I'm sorry if my post was unclear, I think we're on the same side of the issue here. The important point I was trying to make is that wholesale dismissal of any historical document, especially one written over such a long period of time is unwise when it could contain some usefull historical insight into both events and the lives of people durring that time. I was not trying to slam anyone, just pointing out that everyone needs to be careful not to line up on one extreme side or the other of the Bible. As you pionted out, there is equal potential for flaw in being completely pro-Bible as there is in being completely anti-Bible.
Except for the fact that a rectangular piece of plastic has little or no intrinsic value, as evidenced by your suggestion to use it as a ice scraper, a coaster, or a shim. A mobile phone _does_ have intrinsic value which is made obvious by the fact that later the mother claimed that she bought it ($50 worth of intrinsic value) from a shady subway merchant. (There have been many stories as to how the sidekick wound up in the possession of the girl, none of which I can believe because they are so wildly divergent from each other)
On a side note, I think this "disposable mentality" that one would simply dispose of a valuable electronic device because it requires the least amount of effort is quite a sad statement about both a man's respect for other men (and their possessions), and man's respect for the environment.
Agreed, those who dismiss the Bible as an unimportant, completely historically inaccurate book based solely on it containing some inexplicable events (miracles) or philosophical ideals are not actually interested in the truth. They have made up their mind, and no amount of "historical facts" that are found to be true in the Bible will convince them that a book who's philosophy is directly opposed to their own (atheism, etc.) could have any valid information whatsoever on any subject.
Slashdot Mirror
See #2, 4, and 5 Here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/man
Oh, and I think you may be confusing me with this person:
http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php/Bubs
Yeah, I think I was trying to say that if someone found an expensive device they should try to return it to the owner instead of throwing it out. I was _not_ trying to say that someone should dispose of _anything_ in someone else's vehicle. That's just not nice. my $0.02
I somehow doubt it. But, it's not really a big issue for me either way.
Whoa! 14 Remotes!
:-o
And I thought my remote table was crowded.
Perhaps this misunderstanding began when you assumed something about my personal beliefs that was not true.
To be clear, I think we're saying the same thing, just from different perspectives. I just made the mistake of saying wholesale dismissal of the Bible was wrong without also saying that wholesale acceptance of the Bible is also wrong.
I'm sorry if my post was unclear, I think we're on the same side of the issue here. The important point I was trying to make is that wholesale dismissal of any historical document, especially one written over such a long period of time is unwise when it could contain some usefull historical insight into both events and the lives of people durring that time. I was not trying to slam anyone, just pointing out that everyone needs to be careful not to line up on one extreme side or the other of the Bible. As you pionted out, there is equal potential for flaw in being completely pro-Bible as there is in being completely anti-Bible.
Except for the fact that a rectangular piece of plastic has little or no intrinsic value, as evidenced by your suggestion to use it as a ice scraper, a coaster, or a shim. A mobile phone _does_ have intrinsic value which is made obvious by the fact that later the mother claimed that she bought it ($50 worth of intrinsic value) from a shady subway merchant. (There have been many stories as to how the sidekick wound up in the possession of the girl, none of which I can believe because they are so wildly divergent from each other)
On a side note, I think this "disposable mentality" that one would simply dispose of a valuable electronic device because it requires the least amount of effort is quite a sad statement about both a man's respect for other men (and their possessions), and man's respect for the environment.
I'm not sure this article means what you think it means.
Agreed, those who dismiss the Bible as an unimportant, completely historically inaccurate book based solely on it containing some inexplicable events (miracles) or philosophical ideals are not actually interested in the truth. They have made up their mind, and no amount of "historical facts" that are found to be true in the Bible will convince them that a book who's philosophy is directly opposed to their own (atheism, etc.) could have any valid information whatsoever on any subject.