GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Many, which (again) are easily found, if you tried to look. And I don't consider hundreds (if not more), studies by people with FAR more qualificiations on the subject than you or I to be a 'sorry source' of information. But, you will not look, and continue to insist you're right due to belief rather than fact. Just ONE reference; and scoff all you want at Wikipedia...it's the bibliography you should read/reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...e_Bible#Isaiah
Isaiah is well covered, all three authors. And why, exactly, are they "sorry sources"?? Because you don't agree with them, or because you don't understand them?
Amazing the double-standards you apply; you say there is "mountainous debate" for what YOU agree with...but what you DISagree with is because it's done by biased skeptics.
Hundreds of man-years of research by thousands of scholars who know more about history and culture than I EVER will. The facts that these people have actually SEEN the documents, and have done extensive research on their provenance.
Oh?? Wasn't this you?
While you're *technically* correct, anyone reading what you posted certainly would not take away your 'true meaning', would they?
Sorry, but you're again wrong. Historians and archeologists enter into things with something you are apparently unfamiliar with: an open mind. They HAVE to view things objectively, and NOT let bias take over. If they do, they will not be taken seriously in their chosen profession, and (most likely), not be ABLE to work in those fields. EVERYTHING has to be researched, documented, and as close to certain as they can get it, before any publishing takes place. Science is not for speculation...that's why its science. Speculation and belief are checked at the door for any serious scientist or scholar.
Again, you're wrong. YOU have a 'view'...the rest of us have what actually IS fact. Documented, tangible facts. Saying they're not true because it's inconvenient for you, or it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't make them lies. Wave your arms all you like...it doesn't make it so. If you're going to argue about a topic, you need to have FACTS...not belief or bias. Facts don't need to be proven...they ARE. Saying the sky is blue isn't a 'view' or 'belief'...it's a fact, and one that can be proven.
Before I attempt to spoil your curiosity Tbone do you mind summarizing the question(s)?
And spare me...you've been told SEVERAL TIMES in the past what a troll is. And is Google broken where you live? Because if you truly DON'T know, what is preventing you from looking it up??? Wasn't this response from TWO YEARS AGO sufficient for you??? http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post4405014
Actually that's very helpful TBone. Thank you.
In response, yes, quite often my intent in part is to inflame, but never to sow discord. So by definition I am not.
Technically, a Jew is someone physically descended from Abraham's grandson Jacob or listed in the genealogic record of the Jews including converts to Judaism.
Even these things are a good bit more complex than they initially appear, because of course people want to be "ticketed passengers on the ship that's gonna take them to pie-in-the-sky by-and-by," and not the one that's going to "that other place."
"1 Cor 3:15" is a sentence written in a letter that's supposedly written by a person who (like pretty much every other "author" in this famous text) can't actually be independently verified to be ... an authority, the author, or even an actual human being.
"Converts to Judaism" ... how do you know whether they converted or not? Of course you don't ... can't. Is some celestial someone gonna check the DNA of your corpse to figure out whether or not to let you in?
All of these things are the same "Fire Insurance" arguments that are only bolstered by other examples ... such as the cryptic "144,000" in the only well-known example of Apocalyptic Literature that everyone's heard of, titled (at least) "The Revelation of St. John."
And ... "they are what they are." Make of them whatever you please. Like so many other cases, it's really not about what these fragments of text say, but rather, about "what other influential people say they say," and about the people who (dutifully?) believe them (as 'canon'?). That is where the human-sociology rubber hits the road. The "certainty," from a pure data point-of-view, simply isn't there. But people are "certain," nonetheless, and even quite-outspokenly so. (And since these are real people we're talking about, they and their beliefs must be treated with utmost respect. "Do not cause your brother to stumble," whether-or-not you are "right.")
Sorry, but you're again wrong. Historians and archeologists enter into things with something you are apparently unfamiliar with: an open mind. They HAVE to view things objectively, and NOT let bias take over. If they do, they will not be taken seriously in their chosen profession, and (most likely), not be ABLE to work in those fields. EVERYTHING has to be researched, documented, and as close to certain as they can get it, before any publishing takes place. Science is not for speculation...that's why its science. Speculation and belief are checked at the door for any serious scientist or scholar. ...
Well, that's not strictly true. "Science" only goes so far, and "scientists" certainly know that. Objectivity and rigor certainly are important parts of scientific discipline, but knowledge is everywhere, and it's a very different thing sometimes. Tomorrow, another discovery might turn topsy-turvy anything that today we "know." And there are a great many things that we simply can't "scientifically observe." The limits and boundaries of "science" are woefully small.
Intuition, social norms, all of these "fuzzy, amorphous things" are legitimate, too. All of us, "scientists" or not, are still human, and we need never to lose our capacity to wonder, to think outside the box, or simply to gaze at a sunset without seeing a thermonuclear reactor. And, yes, to pray, if we want to. "It's all good." It's all an integral part of being "people."
"And lean not to your own understanding." The more I consider that admonition, the more wise it reveals itself to be. We are all Blind Men, who will never even begin to comprehend "the Elephant." The Elephant knows this, and we should not forget it.
Before I attempt to spoil your curiosity Tbone do you mind summarizing the question(s)?
Go back and re-read it. But it's curious that you commented/responded on other posts, but omitted those. Why is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel
Actually that's very helpful TBone. Thank you.
In response, yes, quite often my intent in part is to inflame, but never to sow discord. So by definition I am not.
It was answered TWO YEARS AGO, and no one has hidden the definition from you, nor prevented you from looking it up. So, by definition, you ARE, and even admit to it. Based on things you post, you seem to think it's a good thing that people 'hate' you, and think we 'fear' you. You're wrong on both counts, and can't admit to it.
You seem to think that yours is the only 'truth', and can't wrap your head around the fact that it ISN'T. You CHOOSE to be ignorant and unlearned, and seem almost boastful of it. Even when presented facts, you ignore them if they don't fit your pre-defined 'ideas'. You do not appear interested in rational discourse or debate, since you can't admit that ANYONE has ANYTHING true to say, if it doesn't agree with YOUR point of view.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel
1 Cor 3:15
Out of context.
-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel
Technically, a Jew is someone physically descended from Abraham's grandson Jacob or lissted in the genealogic record of the Jews including converts to Judaism.
The term Jew (in any language) as a name (noun) for a group of people started during the time of the Later Roman Empire (i.e. after the Biblical text was supposedly finished). Before this time the people you call Jews were either Hebrews or Judeans (person from the land of Judah).
Inadequate answer. Try without quoting your favourite book.
You asked me why the quotation marks. That excerpt is my best answer. But if you insist--not every "Jew" in fact most "Jews" aren't by New Testament standards. Members of Christ are "grafted in" where "Jews" who reject Christ are severed. So the physical Israel is not, but those of the faith of Abraham are.
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,900
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegospel
What!
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL
TobiSGD & k3lt01:
I cannot let an innocent Christian soul suffer the blame for that tag. Mea culpa.
I'm sorry Blue for unfairly thinking that was you. I was unaware that someone other than the OP could add tags to a thread. Please accept my humble apology.
I'm sorry Blue for unfairly thinking that was you. I was unaware that someone other than the OP could add tags to a thread. Please accept my humble apology.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
My understanding was that all this will happen. Heaven will pass. So it makes me think of the big bang where at some point the entire universe will collapse back to nothing.
"My understanding was that all this will happen. Heaven will pass. So it makes me think of the big bang where at some point the entire universe will collapse back to nothing.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
My understanding was that all this will happen. Heaven will pass. So it makes me think of the big bang where at some point the entire universe will collapse back to nothing.
Rev 21:1--"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea."
in our day n age philosophy, religion and fear\* are intertwined mostly by the blind
The Biblical notion is this:
God gives warning. Human heeds warning. Human takes up sanctuary in God.
OR
God gives warning. Human disregards warning. Human goes to their destruction.
I myself would classify the latter as blind.
"God$"\traditions slow evolution and don't want educated people, they want.
The only good parts of religion i will ever see are for preschoolers\kids(\maybe a false sense of meditation for death) e.g. the golden (love that gold it can stop fishing, mmm dependence) rule but power and cash are uneducated...
Last edited by jamison20000e; 06-29-2013 at 07:33 AM.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
