Comment Re:Distro families (Score 1) 458
It uses kernel 2.6.32, grub 1,
Where can I sign up?! I remember the olden days when I could actually configure GRUB...
It uses kernel 2.6.32, grub 1,
Where can I sign up?! I remember the olden days when I could actually configure GRUB...
(it was more than a 386 but less than some 586 systems)
So it was a 486?
don't pretend that it isn't pretty often a good deal more optimistic than it really should be
D'oh! Well, now that just looks stupid...
Hell, I love me some good sci-fi. I just don't pretend that it's pretty often a good deal more optimistic than it really should be, honestly.
Trolls Slashdot appear me rage makes incoherent with on it when!!?!!
That must be a pretty epic gun if it's able to create life...
"I'll take Fiction Peddled As Fact for $400, Alex."
SG-1 was on Showtime until season 5.
I assume The Programmers could handle a try-catch.
I had heard about the Isis thing, yeah. It's an interesting theory.
Catholicism vs. Protestantism was at one point basically "believe what we tell you because we won't let you read the actual Bible" versus "we're sick of this, we're going to read it ourselves and draw our own conclusions." So in the fight between tradition maintained by powerful bishops, popes, etc. and "Scripture alone, faith alone, grace alone," I come out on the side of reading the actual book. As you might have guessed, I have been a Lutheran.
Of course, then there's the problem of whether to include certain books that may contradict the rest......
Thank you for the references! They both come from a book that the church "de-canonized"...from which one can argue either viewpoint, I suppose. Either you believe that the writers of *this* gospel were involved in a conspiracy by creating the book, or the mainstream church was involved in a conspiracy to cover it up. Depending on your level of cynicism, I can see how arguments could be made for both.
The whole Gnostic "secret knowledge" claim seems to me a human construct rather than anything God would have wanted..."want all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" etc. however there's of course power in influencing how people think.
I always enjoy it when somebody whips out the "oh, it was distorted all along, the translation is a conspiracy, but I HAVE THE *TRUE* MEANING!"
This whole ~nirvana thing you're pushing seems to be rather at odds with the recurring "I am the Way...only through me" messages, but after all, you know better.
Unfortunately, paul corrupted the church in it's formation, laying the groundwork for doublespeak that would chain the masses in ignorance.
The Catholics kind of consider Paul the founder of the entire freakin' church...can you even say that the founder "corrupted" it if it didn't exist prior?
One can only wonder at the manipulation needed to still include Jesus saying we are god/part of god in the bible and yet convince the masses that only Jesus is God.
I would be very interested in seeing verses that you quote in support of this. The Bible as far as I've ever seen emphasizes the ability of the reader to have a relationship with God, but it's at best as a confidant, and usually as an authority to be obeyed. God and/or Jesus (Trinity, y'know), angels, and man are rather clearly delimited as separate classes of beings.
Except it isn't my definition. It's the definition at the top of every spiritual/religious path.
[citation needed]. This sounds very dependent on which religions you're talking about and/or subjective.
Yes, if you make your own definition, it is possible to disprove said definition.
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones
