We're talking about using the tax code to punish behavior. That is what I take exception to. If Congress votes to ban incandescent bulbs, I would be against it, but that is another matter entirely.
You're introducing something new. The question wasn't banning incandescent bulbs, it was whether or not the government should use the tax code to make them economically unfeasible.
The tax code was not created as a tool for the government to use in directing people's behavior. It was created to give the government revenue to serve the people. The government was created for the people-- not the people for the government.
We're already paying income taxes. Our income taxes should go to provide for essential government services. I for one think the government has already done too much to influence our behavior. I not convinced that mercury containing light bulbs are the best way to benefit our society either.
I would rather see the tax code used to raise a reasonable amount of revenue to meet the true needs of our country (defense, roads and other infrastructure), things that government really needs to do. Other than that, the government should keep its hands out of people's pockets.
I have to agree with the original poster. Usually Microsoft is criticized for taking someone else's work and adding their own proprietary elements (e.g., their own version of Java) which is incompatible with what everyone else is doing. It may not please their developer community, but it may lead to other people willing to develop for their platforms.
I perceive that further discussions will not be fruitful. I disagree with your conclusions, but I wish you the best, and as I end my participation on this topic, I will pray (privately;) ) that God will give you a love for his Son Jesus Christ and his best for you life.:-)
You must have my response mixed up with someone else's. I don't believe the two passages contradict one another, and I said so. Jesus was not forbidding public prayer-- he was forbidding public prayer for the sake of drawing attention to one's own piety. If Jesus was forbidding public prayer, the Church could not get together to pray corporately, as it clearly did at times in the Book of Acts.
I guess we disagree on what prayer is. To me, prayer is communicating with God, whether it is giving thanks, making a request, or confessing sin. In my view, petition is an important form of prayer, but not the only one.
Godwin's Law doesn't judge the validity of a given argument, but only on the likelihood that a comparison or reference to the Nazis will be made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
My purpose is not to debate every alleged contradiction in Scripture. My purpose was to reply to the statement that was made earlier, i.e., your implication that there is a contradiction between the passage where Jesus condemns hypocritical prayers offered for the sake of impressing others and other passages where the Church is shown praying publicly.
If a person's motives for praying are glorifying God, asking for personal needs to be met, asking for the needs of others to be met, the spreading of the Gospel, and other legitimate motives that God has approved of, there is no problem. Such things are good to proclaim.
Please also see Acts 1:14. Also, Acts 12:5. If Jesus was forbidding public prayer, the Church could never join together in corporate prayer. What Jesus was forbidding was using prayer as a means of drawing attention to oneself.
Jesus also specifically said not to pray in public (maybe you should have actually READ that book you keep yammering about). Good luck trying to explain to him someday why you repeated defied one of the most prominent commands in the most important sermon of his career.
If you think Jesus was forbidding public prayer, perhaps you should read John chapter 6 where Jesus prays in public.
The summary writer describes trying various Linux distributions and concludes that results under FOSS are poor. But FOSS comprises more than just Linux.
I disagree.
I strongly believe the producing an internet-specific version of libel/slander would re-invigorate the paradigm, enable a net-new market, and actualize synergies of cross-medium defamation that would allow a best-of-breed convergence of mission-critical turnkey insult infomediaries while recontextualizing frictionless compelling channels.
You left something out. You forgot to mention anything about "leveraging our key assets"
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking about using the tax code to punish behavior. That is what I take exception to. If Congress votes to ban incandescent bulbs, I would be against it, but that is another matter entirely.
How is a regular income tax an attempt to change the behavior of taxpayers?
I didn't say they weren't needs. I said we shouldn't use the tax code to influence people's behavior.
You're introducing something new. The question wasn't banning incandescent bulbs, it was whether or not the government should use the tax code to make them economically unfeasible.
The tax code was not created as a tool for the government to use in directing people's behavior. It was created to give the government revenue to serve the people. The government was created for the people-- not the people for the government.
We're already paying income taxes. Our income taxes should go to provide for essential government services. I for one think the government has already done too much to influence our behavior. I not convinced that mercury containing light bulbs are the best way to benefit our society either.
I would rather see the tax code used to raise a reasonable amount of revenue to meet the true needs of our country (defense, roads and other infrastructure), things that government really needs to do. Other than that, the government should keep its hands out of people's pockets.
Books are good, but magazines can be a big time waster though.
I have to agree with the original poster. Usually Microsoft is criticized for taking someone else's work and adding their own proprietary elements (e.g., their own version of Java) which is incompatible with what everyone else is doing. It may not please their developer community, but it may lead to other people willing to develop for their platforms.
Yes, but will it be made out of human feces???
Sorry, I can't get over that one....
Please try a little harder.
I perceive that further discussions will not be fruitful. I disagree with your conclusions, but I wish you the best, and as I end my participation on this topic, I will pray (privately ;) ) that God will give you a love for his Son Jesus Christ and his best for you life. :-)
You must have my response mixed up with someone else's. I don't believe the two passages contradict one another, and I said so. Jesus was not forbidding public prayer-- he was forbidding public prayer for the sake of drawing attention to one's own piety. If Jesus was forbidding public prayer, the Church could not get together to pray corporately, as it clearly did at times in the Book of Acts. I guess we disagree on what prayer is. To me, prayer is communicating with God, whether it is giving thanks, making a request, or confessing sin. In my view, petition is an important form of prayer, but not the only one.
and don't try to connect the two without any proof beyond your say-so.
Why can't he? Haven't you just got through saying that right and wrong are merely people's opinions?
Godwin's Law doesn't judge the validity of a given argument, but only on the likelihood that a comparison or reference to the Nazis will be made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
My purpose is not to debate every alleged contradiction in Scripture. My purpose was to reply to the statement that was made earlier, i.e., your implication that there is a contradiction between the passage where Jesus condemns hypocritical prayers offered for the sake of impressing others and other passages where the Church is shown praying publicly.
If a person's motives for praying are glorifying God, asking for personal needs to be met, asking for the needs of others to be met, the spreading of the Gospel, and other legitimate motives that God has approved of, there is no problem. Such things are good to proclaim.
I'm not sure how you can discern the motives of multiple millions of people have for their praying.
There is no contradiction.
Giving thanks to God using one's voice is prayer. Please see this link for a definition of prayer: http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1&nord=1#sclient=psy&hl=en&nord=1&site=webhp&source=hp&q=define%3Aprayer&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=a17560d1ef61d5f5&ion=1&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=a17560d1ef61d5f5&ion=1&biw=740&bih=515
Please also see Acts 1:14. Also, Acts 12:5. If Jesus was forbidding public prayer, the Church could never join together in corporate prayer. What Jesus was forbidding was using prayer as a means of drawing attention to oneself.
Jesus also specifically said not to pray in public (maybe you should have actually READ that book you keep yammering about). Good luck trying to explain to him someday why you repeated defied one of the most prominent commands in the most important sermon of his career.
If you think Jesus was forbidding public prayer, perhaps you should read John chapter 6 where Jesus prays in public.
don't forget if you're using Linux/FreeBSD, etc, you can download the next full version for free.
The summary writer describes trying various Linux distributions and concludes that results under FOSS are poor. But FOSS comprises more than just Linux.
confirmed it? :)
You left something out. You forgot to mention anything about "leveraging our key assets"