I-Am-Annoyed

Registered bored user

I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
7eggert I hadn't gone to the whole original sin thing yet, if you want to discuss it, I'm all for it. Let me know which translation you prefer (or if you want to use the original hebrew/greek if you'd like, there are lots of arguments about translation).

From what i understand of Christian theology, the emphasis seems to be more that Jesus's life work was to return people to god, which the taking up of sins was the last thing he could do on the way out. I put it this way to say that the emphasis should be on Jesus attempting to return people to god.

All of the 613 commandments were for solely for the Jews (Semite is a broader racial term), and the explanation in Judaism has to do with cruelty.
Prohibition- Exodus 34:26 “Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”

The explanation - "The inclusion of the term “its mother” comes to teach us the reason [for the law], for it would be cruelty to cook the flesh of a kid in the milk of [the mother] which raised it."

The only portion of the old testament that applied to anyone other than the Jews were the 7 laws of Noah. 

When homosexuality is discussed in the new testament (Corinthians, Timothy, Jude), there are either references to the old testament directly or through the word ἀρσενοκοίτης, which gets translated as homosexual. The issue is that this word is a neologism (a new word invented to fill a gap in language), since the Greeks did have a word for homosexuality. Breaking it down, it means man who lies with another man, aka Leviticus 20:13.

Logically, it would make sense that what god found abominable in the old testament would still be abominable in the new, but wouldn't that also apply to those things god found unclean?
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
monkwarrior John 3:35-36 35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

Genesis 17:21 21 But your son Isaac will be born about this time next year, and the promise I am making to you and your family will be for him and his descendants forever.
Religious Jews still hold to their covenant, they are circumcised at eight days, attempt to follow the commandments that were placed on them, and are condemned to hell for all eternity in the eyes of Christians.

Isn't the best way to learn something to speak to someone who knows more? If you're attempting to persuade people that your point of view is correct, try to explain what their misconceptions are, rather than castigating them.

The question I had about pork vs homosexuality was very deliberate, given the topic of this post. If you are arguing from a biblical standpoint, why is it ok to eat pork, yet not ok to be a homosexual? Both are explicitly forbidden by the source of theistic morality. Wouldn't it be more consistent to either shun or accept both pork and homosexuals?

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

And the pig, because it has a split hoof, but does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You shall neither eat of their flesh nor touch their carcass. 

I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
monkwarrior Circling back to my original post, from what I have studied of the new testament, god did in fact change his mind. Jesus was sent both to show people the path to god, as well as to show his father (or depending on how you view the trinity, himself) that he needed to change. 

So yes, god can change.

Also, seriously why cherry pick homosexuality over pork? If anything, Jesus's message (god is love) should encourage homosexuals to seek out true, lasting love, rather then be pressed into clandestine affairs by societal pressures.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
monkwarrior If the commandments of the old testament no longer apply after the coming of Jesus, why do the prohibitions? And if the prohibitions do apply, why don't Christians follow all of them (eating pork for example)?
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
monkwarrior Except if you look at what the Jews hold to be law, there are 613 commandments given from god to follow. If Jesus covers the 10 commandments, why do Christians not follow the other 603?
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
monkwarrior If god doesn't change, why was Jesus sent down to earth? Why are god's commandments from the old testament no longer binding?
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
normalfreak2 To be honest, I'd think player injury is one of the less important factors in play here.
NFL viewers are mostly age 45+ males, and are more likely to be republicans. This is the demographic that objects to protesting the anthem most.

Business wise, the NFL's biggest issue is the aging fan base. Younger people just don't watch football in nearly the same rates. I think the 2017 season was a trial run to see if they could attract the attention of the younger, politically active crowd that failed. If anything, these would be the types that would care about player injury.

TL;DR- The NFL is acting to preserve as many of its older viewers, since they can't attract younger ones to replace them.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
muert Don't have the exact numbers on me atm, but the other day when I was looking up the viewership stats the numbers for advertising income decreased for the first time in years. Streaming may bring in views, but their money is made on TV ads (at least so far).
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
david-morris I'm not sure that I've spun anything here. NFL viewership took a dip in 2012, then improved annually until 2016 (when taking a knee became a thing). 2016 viewership was slightly below the 2012 numbers, while 2017 numbers were lower still.
source

Regardless of how who made it a talking point, people apparently listened, and it is reaching a point where the franchise is losing money. 
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
david-morris Less about trump than the decaying viewer base and lost ad revenue I think.

Comparing this season to last, viewership is down 10%, maybe more
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
The next part that's really fun is the demonstration of what happens when you've been at depth for some time, then surface rapidly. Imagine all those little bubbles that form when you open a bottle of soda, now picture that soda as being your blood. 

Moral of the story- if you're a diver, don't mess with Boyle's law or Henry's law ;p
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
daegog There is a PR slant to some releases of camera footage, but by this point I think most departments know when to accdept that they're just screwed. 
Other than that, most departments do not allow release of footage that may be used for an investigation or as evidence for a prosecution. This also applies to internal affairs investigations and disciplinary action, as these occasionally lead to charges being proffered against the officers.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
14/15, Had no idea about the great awakening (other than it wasn't the tv preacher ;p)
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
Besides the reductio ad absurdum going on here, something made me stop reading for a moment there-
one in five Chicago crime guns come from Indiana.
Where do the other 80% come from?
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
faustsshadow Don't worry, she'll learn how to make and handle a shank while she's away ;p
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
This is like a theater near where i live that actually kicks people out for talking too loudly or using their phones. Makes for an environment where you can actually enjoy your meal and company, without having to deal with shrieks and screams, as well as the kids belonging to the screamers.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
Didn't know that the rats had started to emigrate from NYC...
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
monkwarrior Yep, was more a musing on how a winding career path/retraining alters your though process.

INTP is probably the most common type in engineering, then as I made the swap to healthcare, the different focus forced me out of my shell and learn a bit more about empathy ;p
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
“THE CAMPAIGNER” (ENFP-A)
Which sort of amuses me. Over time my personality has changed from INTP, to ENTP, now ENFP.

I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
Apparently the engine went up 30 minutes into the flight, which nixed my first thought which was FOD (foreign object debris, random crap that gets sucked in and damages the engine), unless it was a tiny piece that just slightly damaged a turbine section. The engines these use is about as reliable as you get, really surprised me to hear about this. Most likely would be maintenance error, followed by a bad part that made it past QA.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
To my knowledge, he was the only marine to receive an honorary promotion post retirement to the rank of gunnery sergeant. Ran into him once years back, was a great guy.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
Personal opinion here, but one of the reasons I think dogs are a popular pet is due to the brow like ridges they have, which allow them to convey expressions similarly to the way we do. Solitary hunters like cats do not have these, which make it harder for us to read their body language and emotions.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
prichards114 Except that race does not enter into the law in any way. What you have is a fairly common misconception- even if a law is applied in a biased manner, this does not make the law itself biased.

The sort of amusing thing is this is actually the same concern that gun rights advocates have, that laws designed to protect people could be applied in a biased manner to deprive others of the rights without recourse.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
skypirate The point of the law is that without the original felony having been committed, the justifiable homicide would never have occurred. Thus, the person who is responsible for the felony shares in the responsibility for the death of the accomplice. Since they did not have a legally acceptable reason to kill that person, it is not justifiable for them, and counts as a murder.

More or less it comes down to how our legal system shares responsibilities when a crime has been committed.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
Against an unaware target, any weapon is more effective. In a race to draw/disable/kill, knives generally win at close ranges. At anything over 20', a gun will win if the person carrying it is trained, aware, and doesn't panic (adrenaline is a hell of a drug).

A lot of people who own a gun for defensive use rely on it more as a talisman to give them confidence and courage, but don't put in the time training that they need to. IMO anyone who owns a weapon that doesn't hit a range a few times a year is potentially placing themselves or others in danger. Anyone who regularly carries, especially concealed, should try to do monthly range time, as well as spending non-range time practicing their draw and disengagements. This said, I may be a bit overboard with the frequency of training here, but old habits are hard to break. 

Always keep one rule in mind, no matter the legality of the situation, a weapon should be your absolute last resort, when retreat, appeasement, and bribery don't work. Only ever draw a weapon if you are sure it is a matter of life or death. Once it comes out, it will force everyone involved into survival mode.