Wouldn't it be easier to just add EVERYONE to the terror list?

Maybe that's exactly the idea

Hey, that might be the case in the US, but in other parts of the world we Christians do expect the return of the Son of God, but:

1- We don't have any idea when and how it's going to be, things might happen in any order (people that think they got a clear idea of how things are going to be from reading Revelations really startle me) and it can be tomorrow as well as it could be in ten thousand years.

2- We don't try to make the apocalypse happen - people that think they have a roadmap on how to make it happen are walking a path of big arrogance. Nowhere in the bible does God ask for any help making such things happen. He only told us to love Him and to love others, and tell them about His love. There's nothing there about manipulating geopolitics to trigger anything or any crap like that. But I guess some people find all that love stuff boring and want to collaborate by invading some country or forcing someone to say they believe in Jesus.

ROFL. I think most software is like that, what surprises me is finding that some widely deployed software is well coded.

Laughable. Writing free software might be desirable, but it's very childish to think that anything other than your preferences is "unjustifiable". For all the bashing of religion people like Stallman do, it's funny how religious they get with their own desires and philosophies.

The fact that free software and open source are good things is shown in the results, the amount of people being served by such software every day. It would be just the same if we didn't have zealots telling people that any other choice is morally wrong, save for the lack of earbleed.

Free software is a convenient way of developing solutions for people. It's convenient for society, the economy, etc... I don't know if it fits all the cases. But convenient doesn't mean "The only morally acceptable way or else you are some kind of criminal".

sudo mod parent up. really

Einstein

The judges at Nuremberg did not agree with you.

mod parent up. Grandparent is arguing for the legality of anything written on a piece of paper, even if it is the mass deportation to extermination camps.

In practice it works. The fact that not so many people want to put it in practice is another issue. People can twist any belief system to suit irresponsability. That's why a big chunk of the new testament is devoted to warn people about being superficial with their faith: the seed that fell on rocky soil, the man who builds his house upon sand, the pharisees, the hypocrites, the ones who think its about fulfilling a couple of social norms and just that, the ones who think it's about condemning the evil they see in others, the ones who think its about finding whose fault it is (who sinned so that this man is blind, he or his parents?) instead of improving things for people; warnings about believing in ones present state of rightousness as sufficient and as cause to proclaim some kind of superiority above others.

Iit's not like Jesus taught something like "say you are a believer and everything will be fine" or any temporal utopia like that. So I think it's pretty fair to say that anyone who claims to be a christian and believes and acts persistently against such warnings is not a christian. Following Jesus and his teachings is the definition of being a christian. If He had said "well, I dont care what you do to kids" instead of "whoever harms one of these little ones it'd be better to tie himself to a rock and jump into a river" it would be fair to say that excluding people who persist in not taking responsability, doing evil, etc... from the "christian" category is a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. But Jesus demanded some very specific behaviors from His followers: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Mt 7:21).

Many christian leaders and movements would be far more threatened by an honest reading of scripture than from any atheist attack

On the other hand, it's pretty useful to look back in history and see all the errors made in the name of faith, to evaluate them and to take responsability so that we don't repeat them again. Not only its necessary, but in order to judge it unnecessary we christians would have to put ourselves in a "100% biblical christian category, unlike everyone else" that's far from reality and from what scripture says about our nature.

Errr... Someone else correctly pointed out Luke 16. I'll add Luke 13:28: "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out" That sounds pretty much conscious.

Big misrepresentation. That's how an inmature person acts, christian or not. A lot of us thank God for good things we find in life, strive to live better lives for us and the rest of people and take responsability for our actions. God's grace is actually a great motivation to take responsability of consecuences for past acts, as those consecuences dont inhibit being loved and signified by God. And it's a great motivation to take action in the present for better, as it gives meaning to efforts. If things go bad because I ruined them, I ruined them, period. Being a christian doesn't mean I didnt screw up. It means I should pick up, take responsability and move on. It means I don't have an excuse to stay in a state of depression and guilt, as all my sins were paid, and at the same time the God that gave me such gift expects and demands faith, love, responsability, virtue. And, being a christian also means that if things go bad for reasons outside my control, well, it's out of my control. Gotta accept that. Believing in God's sovereignty means accepting a lot of things are outside our control. Which is usually a good realization in order to act on the things we do control. Thinking "If it goes well its god's plan, if it goes shit then its god's plan." about stuff in which we have a say/possibility/responsability is BadTheology(TM).

I wonder what the motivation behind this is... is it to take a competitor out of the road? Or maybe it's more bening, such as gaining qualified employees?

And you are putting the enemy soldiers and the civilians of their nation together in the "the enemy" category. That, to many (including me) is inmoral.

If all that killing and intimidation doesnt get people to obey them or them to control territory (impose their will) then yes, they are losing.

I'm not bashing it being news, which it is. I'm bashing the summary for declaring him "above genius level".