Commissar

hate to tell you but communism cannot be implemented "correctly" as long as humans have free will. any and all socialist based systems suffer from an inability to curb demand, which is a byproduct of free will. capitalism curbs demand by raising prices... taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, more accurately, communism cannot be implemented correctly as long as people use their free will to try and better themselves at the potential expense of others.

I'm not Jewish. I am, however, rather opposed to national socialism.

What are you talking about?

I only recognize two of those names. Tell me who the others are and I'll think about it. The hexology is in my house at the moment, so I can go back through the movies and look for them if you tell me where.

Yes, I was born into a Jewish family, making the middle name of 'Christian' highly ironic and, at times, a fun party joke.

I think what you're missing is that in Christianity, how one ends is always more important than how one began. A person can live a morally clean life after being immoral. In fact, Catholics believe that the state into which one is born is inherently immoral and tainted. You have to work up from there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think that interpretation would conflict with the track record on recent canonizations, but I could well be wrong; none of them were pirates, so I wouldn't know.

In Luke's story of the prodigal son, the prodigal son symbolizes humanity. All of the popes come from that group. Catholics believe in Original Sin; with few exceptions, no one escapes that. If you think that's true, you haven't read many vitae. Many saints lived lives full of error. St. Francis and St. Augustine were particularly wayward. Saints exemplify heroic virtue, but they are still (were) human beings. Similarly, the popes are also human beings. Even Catholics believe that their popes are part of the same mass of sinners that they are. Certainly the things that popes say gives the impression that [i[they[/i] believe they are sinners. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm just taking my orders from the rulebook, man. Morally clean living and heroic virtue have to be demonstrated for a beatification to continue. But you're right, I haven't read too many saints' biographies. I tend to prefer stories about pirates.

The parable basically goes like this: a guy has two sons. One's basically good and upright, but the other absconds with some cash off to some other city, and basically has a hell of a time. He eventually runs out of money, realizes the error of his ways, and comes home to apologize. He can't even apologize before his father is forgiving him, and holding a feast, and all sorts of other stuff. The good son gets mad, and the father explains that they should be glad that the bad son realized the error of his ways, and not needlessly punish him. Illustrates the possibility of salvation despite having sinned, or some such.

It's a parable, from Luke, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean, but the entire basis of Christian redemption comes from rising above a history of error. It's why the father is joyous at the return of the prodigal son. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure, but the prodigal son never became God's representative on earth. Since you seem to want to discuss this in a serious manner, I suppose I'll actually have to throw out an argument. In order to be beatified, a person must have lived a life above any possible moral reproach; should the standards be lower for the head of the actual church?

Soteriology, likewise, is for sissies.

I agree. It's probably something of a normal human response. Good to know that the leader of the Catholic church is nothing but normal, though. You wouldn't expect an exceptional man to hold such a post. Nothing of the hero...the commoners like a man of the people. Strong moral compasses are for sissies, not leaders of the faithful.

Well, it was also mandatory for 16 year-old Warsaw Jews to get on the trains. But some of 'em took a stand.

My first thought: So ****ing what? He's an old man with a funny hat. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't forget former Nazi.

So your messiah is an ADHD-addled technophobe who also apparently lacks the ability to keep an internal monologue internal. And you wonder why I'll never see this Firefly trash.

"If there are Gods, you can only hope that their ultimate plan is world socialism administered by evolutionist school boards under the command of Hugo Chavez." -J&J Long

Most people tend to go with their hometown team, if they have one - or if they had one. I'm a Seahawks and Chargers fan because I've lived in their home cities, but I don't like the Panthers and Redskins, even though they're geographically closest at the moment. A few teams have a more widespread following, sort of like the Yankees or the Red Wings - I attribute it mostly to bandwaggoning. Everybody liked the 49ers when they were winning big, and the same goes for the Cowboys. The Patriots have been in vogue for the past couple of years, but I think support will drop off now that they're starting to suck. Plenty of people - myself included - root for teams that have players they like. I want Denver to win because I'd like to see Jake Plummer finally get some recognition. I like Atlanta because of Vick and Dunn.

It's already been decided that we're going to drink nothing but Canadian beer and shout as many derogatory things about Mark Messier as possible, even though he's not involved on either side.

I don't know if I'd read too much into somebody asserting they heard a rifle, rather than a pistol, shot. I haven't actually seen the episode myself - stopped watching because they've decided to move the storyline at a snail's pace this season - but it could simply have been that a rifle shot was what they had stock sound effects for.

Managed to talk a couple of the boys around here into going to the Caps - Lightning game on the 23rd. 24th is the only day everyone would have off, so we're planning on taking the train in and getting blitzed. Only trouble is I'll be hung over and likely bitter for Thanksgiving, but since I was out of the country for the last two, I'm assuming everyone save the wife will forgive me. Oh, and the seats suck, but I hear Caps' attendance has been horrid, so maybe we'll mosey on down to center ice during the second period. Here's hoping Ovechkin notches a hat trick.

Figures that you'd reply ten minutes after I decided to bite the bullet and re-up my subscription to CA's eTrust. I liked Kaspersky when I had it, but it seemed too slow for me. Of course, that was on my old machine, whereas eTrust blazes through scans on my new one...probably should've taken that into account. C'est la vie.

Yeah, my anti-spyware stuff's good for another six months. So let's say I didn't care about free or commercial...what's the best antivirus out there? I was using Kaspersky, and it seemed like something of a system hog.

A couple of months ago there was a good thread on here about all sorts of free software, and a couple of anti-virus programs were mentioned. My subscription for Computer Associates' antivirus suite just ran out, and I figure I'll give these other free guys a shot, if anybody can happen to remember the names.

Actually, we're advocating that it be taught as scientific theory...you know, how it's taught currently. Edit: And I know how to sail, if need be.

You have just proven my point with your "inconsistencies as any theory" line. Evolution (or Darwinism) is a theory. It is not fact. It should be taught as a theory, but nothing more. I might be able to get my point across better if I put it like this: No theory (scientific, religious, or otherwise) can be proven to be fact. This is because we simply DO NOT know. I am a Christian. I believe that God created the universe. I believe that this world, and the things in it, have evolved over time. I also believe that modern science and technology is a wonderful things, and should not be wasted. But my point is, "Evolution" or any other scientific theory has not been proven through science, and should not be presented as fact. Be it to a an 8th Grade athiest, or to an 80 year old minister. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Inconsistencies in the sense that we don't have all the answers yet. But instead of throwing our hands up and saying, "Why, this gull's rib cage is much more flexible than any other bird I've encountered...yet I cannot fathom a reason why, so I shall chalk it up to God's will," science says, "We don't have an answer for this yet, so let's find one." There's not a doubt in my mind we'll be able to fill in the comparatively few blanks at some point. And I think that's exactly the sort of thing that truly terrifies you guys. Furthermore, evolution is taught as theory - I've never yet come across a textbook that calls it, "the law of evolution." It remains, however, a scientific theory, rather than an attempt by the religious to shoehorn their beliefs into public school. Edit: Oh, and things like gravity, Newtonian physics, etc...they were all theories before they became laws. What do we currently think of the nutjobs who tried to suppress Galileo's views when they were in the theory stage?