SuperCachetes
Mar 27, 09:35 AM
You need to learn how to read quoted text before reading a response.
You obviously seem to be missing the extremely simple point here, I was merely pointing out that in Catholicism priests are expected to be celibate so expecting a gay person to be celibate is not exactly unheard of in a religious context.
The fact that some people have the opinion that being gay is OK as long as you are not a practicing gay follows the same logic as priests being expected to remain celibate and also shares some of the reasons why as well.
If you had followed the thread you would see where the original comment came from.
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting. If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You obviously seem to be missing the extremely simple point here, I was merely pointing out that in Catholicism priests are expected to be celibate so expecting a gay person to be celibate is not exactly unheard of in a religious context.
The fact that some people have the opinion that being gay is OK as long as you are not a practicing gay follows the same logic as priests being expected to remain celibate and also shares some of the reasons why as well.
If you had followed the thread you would see where the original comment came from.
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting. If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
Santabean2000
May 2, 08:57 AM
Annoyingly this type of thing will become all too common. Damn Apple and their great products, making themselves popular and that.
I liked the security through obscurity world we've come from...
I liked the security through obscurity world we've come from...
Multimedia
Sep 26, 11:52 PM
Yes, Intel will be shipping Clovertowns then - but when will Apple get around to putting them in systems? (November - well, that can wait for The Lord God Jobs' keynote in January, for sure.)
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...Maybe I'm just naive and overly optimistic or just plain dumb. I always think of MacWorld as a consumer event so I thought Steve wouldn't care to present the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro there. But I guess you're probably right. Nevertheless, I feel there is good reason to feel optimistic and happy about the prospect of 8-core computing in 2007.
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...Maybe I'm just naive and overly optimistic or just plain dumb. I always think of MacWorld as a consumer event so I thought Steve wouldn't care to present the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro there. But I guess you're probably right. Nevertheless, I feel there is good reason to feel optimistic and happy about the prospect of 8-core computing in 2007.
bushido
Mar 18, 10:54 AM
i wonder how many people actually read the contract ^^ i know i don't lol
MacBram
Aug 29, 12:15 PM
...Apple performs poorly on product take back and recycling...
Yeah, Apple's problem is a bit like Land Rover's - 78% of the vehicles they have ever made are still on the road. (I know my old Apples are.) Dell, by contrast, performs very highly in product take back and recycling. :)
Yeah, Apple's problem is a bit like Land Rover's - 78% of the vehicles they have ever made are still on the road. (I know my old Apples are.) Dell, by contrast, performs very highly in product take back and recycling. :)
macwannabe
Oct 13, 11:19 AM
Saying that the 2.8GHz P4 is no good because it is based on 25 year old architecture is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
calsci
May 5, 08:28 PM
they never seem to be on top of this issue.
yg17
Mar 26, 09:27 AM
And all this coming from the organization who protects a bunch of child rapists. Why are people taking them seriously anymore?
Mord
Jul 12, 01:54 PM
I am very disappointed in you Hector , you of all people should know better then to post something like this. Do u not realise that the Intel deal ment apple dosen't have to do it's own R&D anymore when it came to chip sets.
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
any and ever motherboard has been designed with the chips lay out and logic requested by the vendor, in this case apple, the fact that they don't develop their own electronics changes nothing, freescale/IBM made the chipsets before the switch nothing has changed, apple outsourced the design of the board to intel sure but they are paying intel to do so somehow, anyway, the cost of support and manufacture rockets up too.
more i'm disappointed in you, i haven't seen you post in a year or so and your still the same childish n00b who completely misses the point.
the mac pro will be a pro machine, apple has never done a consumer tower and likely never will.
woodcrest is just conroe with SMP, overclocking is exactly the same, as in non existent due to EFI. professionals do not overclock their macs.
go play with your toys.
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
any and ever motherboard has been designed with the chips lay out and logic requested by the vendor, in this case apple, the fact that they don't develop their own electronics changes nothing, freescale/IBM made the chipsets before the switch nothing has changed, apple outsourced the design of the board to intel sure but they are paying intel to do so somehow, anyway, the cost of support and manufacture rockets up too.
more i'm disappointed in you, i haven't seen you post in a year or so and your still the same childish n00b who completely misses the point.
the mac pro will be a pro machine, apple has never done a consumer tower and likely never will.
woodcrest is just conroe with SMP, overclocking is exactly the same, as in non existent due to EFI. professionals do not overclock their macs.
go play with your toys.
CalBoy
Apr 22, 08:35 PM
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
koobcamuk
Apr 8, 11:24 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Yeah, a million FPS clones on a 3.5" touchscreen sounds just greeaaat :rolleyes:
Yeah, a million FPS clones on a 3.5" touchscreen sounds just greeaaat :rolleyes:
EricNau
Sep 21, 05:00 PM
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
No. :(
-Clive
No. :(
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 07:58 PM
I think part of the problem may have to do with the fact that the plants are designed by engineers. Engineers' focus is elegance: accomplishing the most in the most minimalist way. Nuclear power plants need much less minimalism and elegance than just about anything else humans can make, but costs and other limitations tend to guide the design toward what engineers are best at. Redundancy and over-building are desirable, I believe we end up with too much elegance instead.
I was paraphrasing something a nuclear physicist once told me. I didn't get the sense that he thought it mattered what type of human was involved.
I was paraphrasing something a nuclear physicist once told me. I didn't get the sense that he thought it mattered what type of human was involved.
SDAVE
Apr 13, 12:31 AM
Wrong forum to talk about users who use FCP professionally (ie. Angus Wall, etc. etc.)
Gelfin
Mar 27, 10:45 PM
Dr. Spitzer is an intelligent, nonreligious psychiatrist who believes that some can change their sexual orientations.
You just quoted me as saying something I did not say. Please correct it.
You just quoted me as saying something I did not say. Please correct it.
RedReplicant
Apr 5, 05:30 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
~Shard~
Oct 26, 09:25 AM
Great news! Let's hope it's true, as it would be nice to see Apple forge forward with frequent updates in this manner as they have already done to an extent. The days of waiting months for a 100 MHz PPC speed bump are long gone! :D
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 05:28 PM
It's easily possible for a European atheist to not be exposed to religion, grow up happily with their own set of ethics and morals, and never be challenged over their lack of belief. Intellectually lazy? Not really... why should anyone have to jump through hoops to prove the non existence of a god?
You're quite right, and I agree that people are free to believe whatever they want. However, if they just believe something because "it's always been that way" or some other arbitrary reason then I don't have to respect them or take their beliefs seriously.
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting, some of the others are of the "God doesn't exist, meh" camp, who I just ignore.
You're quite right, and I agree that people are free to believe whatever they want. However, if they just believe something because "it's always been that way" or some other arbitrary reason then I don't have to respect them or take their beliefs seriously.
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting, some of the others are of the "God doesn't exist, meh" camp, who I just ignore.
stoid
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
dnedved
Sep 12, 05:26 PM
You're crazy! Jobs just demoed a wireless replacement for a $5.00 cable that connects your computer to your TV. If you think this will change everything you're nuts!
And the iPod is just like an overpriced walkman, nobody is going to buy it.
I can get this device + a decent sized flat panel for 600 USD. What else is out there that lets me sit on the couch with a remote in my hand and watch the video content on my NAS? Sure there's Mac mini which I was about to buy ($$$ and a full computer to maintain), Myth front-end (did I mention hassle?), a modded Xbox (not enough CPU for big h.264), and probably some ugly M$ thing, but not at this cost, and not with the hassle-free user-friendliness that Apple builds into their products. And not in a sleek little package that I can hide behind a wall-mounted LCD, wireless and silent-running to boot. I'm going to have at least 2 of these, I don't want a full-function computer to maintain in each room I want to watch video, I want an appliance.
In otherwords, don't disconnect your cable, over-the-air antenna, or satellite antenna anytime soon.
I already did over a year ago in anticipation of this device, and don't miss it. I've got my NAS filling up right now. Sure I may "watch TV" on my 17" PB for now, but only because this device isn't out yet. I'm glad I waited and didn't get the mini.
If you don't get it, then you just don't get and I can't make you understand. I can't make it any clearer for you. The world just changed. All assuming they actually release this product that is!
And the iPod is just like an overpriced walkman, nobody is going to buy it.
I can get this device + a decent sized flat panel for 600 USD. What else is out there that lets me sit on the couch with a remote in my hand and watch the video content on my NAS? Sure there's Mac mini which I was about to buy ($$$ and a full computer to maintain), Myth front-end (did I mention hassle?), a modded Xbox (not enough CPU for big h.264), and probably some ugly M$ thing, but not at this cost, and not with the hassle-free user-friendliness that Apple builds into their products. And not in a sleek little package that I can hide behind a wall-mounted LCD, wireless and silent-running to boot. I'm going to have at least 2 of these, I don't want a full-function computer to maintain in each room I want to watch video, I want an appliance.
In otherwords, don't disconnect your cable, over-the-air antenna, or satellite antenna anytime soon.
I already did over a year ago in anticipation of this device, and don't miss it. I've got my NAS filling up right now. Sure I may "watch TV" on my 17" PB for now, but only because this device isn't out yet. I'm glad I waited and didn't get the mini.
If you don't get it, then you just don't get and I can't make you understand. I can't make it any clearer for you. The world just changed. All assuming they actually release this product that is!
ryme4reson
Oct 8, 11:54 AM
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology.
For all purposes I think the PPC is a fast architecture, BUT and here is the but lets say the factor is 1.2 or 1.3, or 2.0 (for BACKTOTHEMAC) All that was well and fine when the clock speed was not a HUGE gap as it is today. Now I have the fastest Single Proc and my 933 is NOT NOT NOT the same speed as a 1.8PV or Athlon 1800+ Also, the 933 was offered by Apple only a few months ago, where a 1.8 can be had in the low end lines on the PC world where the iMac is supposed to compete.
My 933 on the 133 bus is only going to do so much. With the 933 they increased the pipelines(just like PV to scale MHZ) and increased the cache. As far as speed, I think Windows itself is fast software(2K and XP, and the x86 as an entire arch is fast (SYS, MEM, CPU, etc) It may not be the most effecient, or crash proof but who cares, its 2-3X in terms of speed FASTER(Machine speed, not actual). OSX.x may never be as fast as its Microsoft counterpart, but the services and UI are of greater importance.
Also, while intel released 3.0GHZ and new tech after new tech, are you still going to say Apples newest offering in 4 months say (Dual 1.4, with 2 SUPERDRIVES, or some other goodie to direct you away from its slow speed increase) is going to keep up?
Face it, as it stands x86 is CHEAPER, and FASTER, BUT I avoid PC's at all costs. 1. I live in Cupertino (Home of Apple) 2. I am more than an Apple user, I am a fan of its products.
This is an Apple site, and I am on an Apple as we speak, but I will not fall for the fallacious arguments you are trying to make
For all purposes I think the PPC is a fast architecture, BUT and here is the but lets say the factor is 1.2 or 1.3, or 2.0 (for BACKTOTHEMAC) All that was well and fine when the clock speed was not a HUGE gap as it is today. Now I have the fastest Single Proc and my 933 is NOT NOT NOT the same speed as a 1.8PV or Athlon 1800+ Also, the 933 was offered by Apple only a few months ago, where a 1.8 can be had in the low end lines on the PC world where the iMac is supposed to compete.
My 933 on the 133 bus is only going to do so much. With the 933 they increased the pipelines(just like PV to scale MHZ) and increased the cache. As far as speed, I think Windows itself is fast software(2K and XP, and the x86 as an entire arch is fast (SYS, MEM, CPU, etc) It may not be the most effecient, or crash proof but who cares, its 2-3X in terms of speed FASTER(Machine speed, not actual). OSX.x may never be as fast as its Microsoft counterpart, but the services and UI are of greater importance.
Also, while intel released 3.0GHZ and new tech after new tech, are you still going to say Apples newest offering in 4 months say (Dual 1.4, with 2 SUPERDRIVES, or some other goodie to direct you away from its slow speed increase) is going to keep up?
Face it, as it stands x86 is CHEAPER, and FASTER, BUT I avoid PC's at all costs. 1. I live in Cupertino (Home of Apple) 2. I am more than an Apple user, I am a fan of its products.
This is an Apple site, and I am on an Apple as we speak, but I will not fall for the fallacious arguments you are trying to make
bigwig
Oct 27, 06:01 PM
At the rate SGI is going, I could probably buy SGI myself for whatever is in my pocket within the next year. Talk about a company that failed to follow the industry and adapt with the times.
Probably true, and quite sad really. SGI was a heck of a company in its day. I'm not sure they could have adapted. Once everybody else abandoned MIPS SGI couldn't afford new processor revisions by themselves, and the false promise that was (and is) Itanium irrevocably doomed them. Itanium basically killed off all the competition when the Unix vendors all hopped on the Itanium bandwagon, and Intel's complete failure to deliver on Itanium's promises looks in hindsight to have been Intel's plan all along. Just think of the performance a MIPS cpu would have were it given the development dollars x86 gets.
No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway.
SGI's technology isn't so much obsolete (who else sells systems with the capacity of an Altix 4700?) as it is unnecessary. 4 CPU Intel machines do just fine for 99.9% of people these days, and the kind of problems SGI machines are good at solving are a tiny niche. That's not just number crunching, a big SGI machine has I/O capacity that smokes a PC cluster.
Probably true, and quite sad really. SGI was a heck of a company in its day. I'm not sure they could have adapted. Once everybody else abandoned MIPS SGI couldn't afford new processor revisions by themselves, and the false promise that was (and is) Itanium irrevocably doomed them. Itanium basically killed off all the competition when the Unix vendors all hopped on the Itanium bandwagon, and Intel's complete failure to deliver on Itanium's promises looks in hindsight to have been Intel's plan all along. Just think of the performance a MIPS cpu would have were it given the development dollars x86 gets.
No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway.
SGI's technology isn't so much obsolete (who else sells systems with the capacity of an Altix 4700?) as it is unnecessary. 4 CPU Intel machines do just fine for 99.9% of people these days, and the kind of problems SGI machines are good at solving are a tiny niche. That's not just number crunching, a big SGI machine has I/O capacity that smokes a PC cluster.
gopher
Oct 7, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by TheT
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
I don't dispute that.
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
I don't dispute that.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
No comments:
Post a Comment