OT: Will non net-neutrality kill the internet?

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

gays weren't teriibly well treated in yhe Soviet Union

In the USSR, there was a _criminal law article_ against "sexual intercourse of man and another man".

In modern Russia, there is none, and the _governement_ says nothing bad on gays.

 

[Chris H]

In message <[email protected]

I don't happen to agree. Religion has restrained social madness,
preserved social cohesion, given hope, built cathedrals and preserved
knowledge.

Some have such as Islam.

Christianity on the other hand Destroyed vast amounts of knowledge in
libraries and suppressed learning for centuaries.

 

[Chris H]

Not understanding everything about God is no excuse for willful
ignorance of His laws and purpose.

DO you believe in God or are you a Christian?

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

Christianity on the other hand Destroyed vast amounts of knowledge in

libraries and suppressed learning for centuaries.

This is because learning is not 100% absolute good for Christianity (unlike the modern civilization where it nearly is).

 

[Chris H]

Amazing how you can read the mind of a deity.
Where did you learn that?

Quite so... he has proved my point!

The question is how does he know the word of God.... some religious
books, the Bible for instance, are political documents that were put
together by two distinct factions the Eastern Orthodox and western
Christian Churches. Large numbers of books of the Bible were dropped and
others added. I have seen churches with carved relief's of "Bible
stories" that are no longer in the Bible (but were when they were
carved) This is why it took so long for the bible to become a single
standard document. Even now there are many differing versions.

I was looking for something historical and discovered that three
mainstream Bible say different things!

This is why the Koran says that Mohammed was sent by God as the Jews and
the Christians had subverted the scriptures..... I can see a log of
religious books written by men and mess about by other men.

So how do you know "The Word of God"?

 

[Chris H]

Anyone can read the Bible. But few do.
It was penned by men but authored by God.

All religions claim that about their religious books.

The Bible the Christians use has a very chequered history and has been
messed about and changed many times.

As for reading the Bible I do. I had to do some research on some
historical points and discovered that several main stream Bibles
disagreed on important factual points.

The foolish say "there is no
God"

True.

 

[Chris H]

And claiming to know what your god(if he exists) thinks,
is the ultimate arrogance.

I agree completely. It puts Man on a par with God. Which is where we
came in.

If God really exists then you can have absolutely no comprehension what
it thinks.

 

[Chris H]

In message <[email protected]

and what is satan? does he live in your parallel dimension as well? Or
is he a talking snake?

Satan is a corruption of the religion of Saturnalia... a competitor for
Christianity in the early days.

Just wait until we get on to Lucifer. (Lucifer == Jesus)

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

Yet many people will tell you what God says and worse still what God
intended those words to mean.

Worse, they insist on punishing you in this life for violating what they
_think_ their God meant, even though their own beliefs say that God will
punish you adequately in the afterlife if they're right.

S

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

Anyone can read the Bible. But few do.

Reading the Bible does not equate to reading the mind of God. At most,
it gives you insight into the minds of the mortal men who wrote it.

It was penned by men but authored by God. The foolish say "there is no
God"

Prove that it was authored (or even inspired) by God.

But if there is no God, then why does the universe exist at all? Why is
there not merely a void of nothingness? Mathematically, is a void of
nothingness more probable than a universe consisting of matter? Can you
devise a proof, or counter proof?

It's simplest to fall back on the anthropic principle here. There may,
in fact, be (or have been) millions of different universes, all with
different properties; we see the properties of _this_ universe as they
are because it's the only one that would allow us to exist and ask the
question.

S

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

Yet we have a large number of practising Homosexuals as clergy in the
Anglican Church up to the level of Bishop.

Of course in the Roman Catholic Church there appears to be more child
abusers than homosexuals.

Many have theorized that the RCC's requirement of celibacy for priests,
combined with the total ban on homosexuality, unintentionally recruits
homosexuals to be priests, who then molest children (mostly boys, it
seems from the news) when they are unable to restrain their urges
because it's easier to threaten children into silence than adults.

S

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

he seemed to have had a big change in attitude though...

We have no idea if God's attitude changed, or even what his actual
attitude was during either time period. All we have to go on are the
supposed words of the mortal men who wrote the Bible.

Actually, what we have are the moods of the mortal men who _selected_
which _existing_ writings would end up in the Bible, which was assembled
hundreds (NT) to thousands (OT) of years after those words were written.

There is a theory that Saul/Paul deliberately designed Christianity as a
"kinder, gentler" form of Judaism that would be more acceptable to the
Romans occupying the Holy Land and thus reduce persecution of Jews, with
the whole Jesus thing being a smoke screen.

how many years separate BC and AD?

Zero, of course. Everything before Jesus was supposedly* born is BC by
definition, and everything after is AD by definition.

(* Nobody knows exactly when that happened, though, and the scholars who
calculated the date of Jesus' birth in 525AD when devising the new
calendar were most likely off by several years. Last I heard, the best
guess was that he was born in September of 7 BC, but it changes
regularly as archaeologists make new finds that contradict the current
dating.)

That should be self-evident from the meaning of the various terms.

S

 

[s_dubrovich]

what I find astounding is a 21st century adult can believe anything
else. Mankinds only guide is mankind.

A blind guide it is then. And surely you don't dispute Maxim's
unquantifiable quotient, his _transcendental_s.

To believe anythign else is
just wishful thinking. Dangerous wishful thinking.

What is dangerous to you is not stepping outside your thinking for a
moment to see that your comments prove my point. quod erat
demonstrandum.

it's a fairy story. In the same class as gingerbread cottages and who
Luke Skywalker's father was.

Don't try and give me that bogus point. Fairy story or no, has
nothing to do with something as a motivator.

There may not be a fire in the theater, but yelling "Fire!" in a
theater is a motivator regardless. 'Group think' is studyable, the
Bible is studyable, non-words are studyable, even UFO's are studyable
as motivators in society that generate real effects on behavior.

fwiw,

Steve

 

[John Kelly]

On Aug 9, 2:43 am, Nick Keighley <[email protected]>
wrote:

Don't try and give me that bogus point. Fairy story or no, has
nothing to do with something as a motivator.

There may not be a fire in the theater, but yelling "Fire!" in a
theater is a motivator regardless. 'Group think' is studyable, the
Bible is studyable, non-words are studyable, even UFO's are studyable
as motivators in society that generate real effects on behavior.

Without God, the only alternative is survival of the fittest.

What if I'm bigger, stronger, and meaner than you? Suppose I kill you,
rape your wife, and enslave your children?

Who needs morals if Darwin was right.

 

[Squeamizh]

I agree completely.  It puts Man on a par with God. Which is where we
came in.

If God really exists then you can have absolutely no comprehension what
it thinks.

Really poignant commentary, Chris. It's so refreshing to read a
religious debate in a technical forum, especially when you're here to
offer such original ideas.

Does there exist a font where that makes this not look f-ed up?

 

[BGB / cr88192]

which liberals and atheists say this?

I thought that promoting promiscuous behavior (such as encouraging people to
become physically involved prior to marrying, ...) and socialist economics
(central planned economies, promoting the welfare system, ...) was one of
the major central points of liberalism?...


as for atheists, AFAIK the central claim is that only the material world
exists, and for example, supernatural entities don't exist due to there
being a lack of evidence or any real verifiable mechanism for their
existence, ...

but, I am not sure if I am missing something here.

 

[BGB / cr88192]

Without God, the only alternative is survival of the fittest.

What if I'm bigger, stronger, and meaner than you? Suppose I kill you,
rape your wife, and enslave your children?

Who needs morals if Darwin was right.

possibly.

but, assuming if darwin were right, then humans having morals would seem to
imply that this is better (WRT survival, ...) than humans not having morals.

like, organisms would act in ways which best benefit survival, and if
survival is improved via having morals, then this is what will be done.


although, I will go on the belief that the creator created humans, somehow,
but the exact mechanism or timeframe is left more as an open issue.

it is like, humans can use genetic algorithms as well, and still generally
take credit for the results (like, it is "possible" that a genetic algorithm
were used to create most organisms, possibly with occasional intervention or
tweaking or similar, but hell, who knows?...). (or maybe even life was
created via copy/paste?...).

but, then one gets into the issue of whether Genesis was literal or
allegory, ...

 

[Nick Keighley]

We have no idea if God's attitude changed, or even what his actual
attitude was during either time period.  All we have to go on are the
supposed words of the mortal men who wrote the Bible.

I was responding to someone who was claiming a lot more to the bible
than that. And in particular that the transition from OT to NT was
particularly seamless.

Actually, what we have are the moods of the mortal men who _selected_
which _existing_ writings would end up in the Bible, which was assembled
hundreds (NT) to thousands (OT) of years after those words were written.

is there a special smiley to use when you're being patronised?

..-
..-|

There is a theory that Saul/Paul deliberately designed Christianity as a
"kinder, gentler" form of Judaism that would be more acceptable to the
Romans occupying the Holy Land and thus reduce persecution of Jews, with
the whole Jesus thing being a smoke screen.

I'm pretty sure Saul/Paul (who can trust a guy with aliases?) was on
the grassy knoll as well.

Zero, of course.  Everything before Jesus was supposedly* born is BC by
definition, and everything after is AD by definition.

right, so BC and AD aren't in different time frames. It's a dumb thing
to say. 1BC would be damn neatly the same as 1AD and both would be
vastly different from 2010AD.

did you actually think I didn't know the definition of these terms?
..-
..-|

That should be self-evident from the meaning of the various terms.

bollocks. Most of the OT is written a considerably long time before
1AD/1BC. Like a thosand years? The NT purports to describe events that
occured early AD but were written some time later. So AD is *not*
generally the NT timeframe which is 2000 years long. And BC is not the
OT timeframe which is effectivly unbounded but practically is a few
thousand years.

 

[Nick Keighley]

parts of it are excellent

Reading the Bible does not equate to reading the mind of God.  At most,
it gives you insight into the minds of the mortal men who wrote it.


Prove that it was authored (or even inspired) by God.

you are confused. The existence of god is a separate question from the
question of the authorship of the bible.

how did you calculate that probability?

Somewhere there must be a pithy quote to apply to people who have such
a misconception of probability.

It's simplest to fall back on the anthropic principle here.

another daft religion. Is there no end to them?

 There may,
in fact, be (or have been) millions of different universes, all with
different properties; we see the properties of _this_ universe as they
are because it's the only one that would allow us to exist and ask the
question.

how do you know?

 

[Nick Keighley]

In message <[email protected]


Satan is a corruption of the religion of Saturnalia... a competitor for
Christianity in the early days.

Just wait until we get on to Lucifer.  (Lucifer == Jesus)

I actually textually searched an online version of the bible. "satan"
does appear but not in Genesis. It just amazes me that religious
people don't know this stuff!