This raises more questions than it answers. There must be things that are sins, and things that aren't. How do we know?>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, this is something plainly spoken by Jesus and His disicples, as well as Paul and others. It isn't a list, but it does require an understanding of the mission of the Savior, the law, and the old and new covenants. Basically, when Jesus came He fulfilled the law in its entirety. When He went to the cross the law was nailed to it along with Him. Previously you could only receive forgiveness for sin by following the tenants of the law. Now Christians are justified by faith and not by the law, because Jesus has already made propitiation for all sin. We are merited by our faith in Him because it is through Him that we are forgiven, because of His substitutionary atonement.
The law was given to the jewish people to govern them in their covenant relationship with God. Jesus established a new covenant with the entire world, which is not by law but by grace. That anyone who believes in Him will have their sins forgiven and receive eternal life.
So, although Christians do not have a free pass to sin, we operate under the grace of God rather than the Mosaic law.

The bible always gives clarification in this way, that it gives a blanket distinction of what is right and wrong, (killing) and then further clarifies how this may be applied in different situations (self-defense).

As far your comment regarding blasphemy and the like, that is part of the Mosaic law which was given to the Jewish people. Christians are not under the Mosaic law because Jesus did away with it. That was only for the nation of israel in that time and place. If I killed someone for blasphemy I would be guilty of murder. Jesus told us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and murder I don't think would be very loving.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, there are some exceptions made, such as for self defense. I am not speaking of the law of the land but within the bible.
If the christian bible makes exceptions to "Thou shall not kill" then the distinction is the reader's choice. Many christians believe it is wrong to kill ever, even in self-defense. I tend to hold your view, that the moral justification is relative to the situation.
That's very similar to what Dawkins believes. People follow religious texts when they agree with them and ignore the parts they don't agree with. Would you feel morally justified killing someone for blasphemy or adultery if your god said it's the right thing to do? I doubt it (at least I would hope not).
Discussion about morality is a good thing. People are much more likely to behave morally when they understand why a certain behavior is positive or negative rather than simply being told to do (or avoid) a behavior.

Well, this is something plainly spoken by Jesus and His disicples, as well as Paul and others. It isn't a list, but it does require an understanding of the mission of the Savior, the law, and the old and new covenants. Basically, when Jesus came He fulfilled the law in its entirety. When He went to the cross the law was nailed to it along with Him. Previously you could only receive forgiveness for sin by following the tenants of the law. Now Christians are justified by faith and not by the law, because Jesus has already made propitiation for all sin. We are merited by our faith in Him because it is through Him that we are forgiven, because of His substitutionary atonement.

The law was given to the jewish people to govern them in their covenant relationship with God. Jesus established a new covenant with the entire world, which is not by law but by grace. That anyone who believes in Him will have their sins forgiven and receive eternal life.

So, although Christians do not have a free pass to sin, we operate under the grace of God rather than the Mosaic law.


>> ^messenger:
Which parts of the bible do apply today?
How did you determine which parts of the bible apply today and which ones don't apply today? Is there a formula, or a list? Where did this list or formula come from?>> ^shinyblurry:
@messenger
It doesn't preach any of those things. Yes, I will admit male homosexuality was condemned under Mosaic law within the Hebrew society. That doesn't apply today. There is no sex outside of marriage condoned in the bible at all. All men are equal under God according to Jesus:
•There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
Incest was rather unavoidable in the case of Adam and Eve and Noahs family. As far as women go, there isn't a single right that woman have today which is opposed in the bible. Although the bible does say that a woman should submit to their husband, that is between her and God, ie, it is her choice. It also says for the husband to love his wife like Christ loved the church. The bible absolutely does not condone the holocaust.

Which parts of the bible do apply today?

How did you determine which parts of the bible apply today and which ones don't apply today? Is there a formula, or a list? Where did this list or formula come from?>> ^shinyblurry:

@messenger
It doesn't preach any of those things. Yes, I will admit male homosexuality was condemned under Mosaic law within the Hebrew society. That doesn't apply today. There is no sex outside of marriage condoned in the bible at all. All men are equal under God according to Jesus:
•There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
Incest was rather unavoidable in the case of Adam and Eve and Noahs family. As far as women go, there isn't a single right that woman have today which is opposed in the bible. Although the bible does say that a woman should submit to their husband, that is between her and God, ie, it is her choice. It also says for the husband to love his wife like Christ loved the church. The bible absolutely does not condone the holocaust.

@messenger

It doesn't preach any of those things. Yes, I will admit male homosexuality was condemned under Mosaic law within the Hebrew society. That doesn't apply today. There is no sex outside of marriage condoned in the bible at all. All men are equal under God according to Jesus:

•There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

Incest was rather unavoidable in the case of Adam and Eve and Noahs family. As far as women go, there isn't a single right that woman have today which is opposed in the bible. Although the bible does say that a woman should submit to their husband, that is between her and God, ie, it is her choice. It also says for the husband to love his wife like Christ loved the church. The bible absolutely does not condone the holocaust.

Something about how the mosaic filter was applied here just looks like the guy who did it continuously flirted with the idea of sliding off her face quickly a couple times over the course of the interview.

Hey ghandi, remember me, the crazy guy with the crazy idea? I switched majors to biology but I keep on keeping on with the dreaming. Chemistry is a lot more interesting than a state university's current idea of computer science. My wait-and-see attitude, coupled with my tendency to only do things i enjoy, lets me stick to projects where I can make personally satisfactory progress. Other people will have to complete the LDP as I sort of always knew.

Check these out regarding logical discourse:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This seems like the perfect question to pose to Slashdotters: how would you foster more dynamic spaces for online news discussion? How would you preserve the context of online discussions and stamp out trolls? " Sound familiar?

http://ask.slashdot.org/story/11/05/09/203221/Ask-Slashdot-Going-Beyond-Comment-Threads

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truthy is a research project that helps you understand how memes spread online. With our images and statistics, you can help identify misuse of Twitter. Our first application was the study of astroturf campaigns in elections. Now we're extending our focus to the diffusion of all types of information in social media.

http://truthy.indiana.edu


----------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Patent 7,805,291 Berkowitz Appl. No.: 11/137,594
Filed: May 25, 2005
September 28, 2010

Method of identifying topic of text using nouns


Abstract
A method of identifying a topic of a text. Text is received. Then, the nouns in the text are identified. The singular form of each identified noun is determined. Combinations are created of the singular form of the identified nouns, where the number of singular forms of the nouns in the combinations is user-definable. The frequency of occurrence in the text of each noun that corresponds to its singular form is determined. Each frequency of occurrence is assigned as a score to its corresponding singular form noun. Each combination of singular form nouns is assigned a score that is equal to the sum of the scores of its constituent singular form nouns. The user-definable number of top scoring singular form nouns and combinations of singular form nouns are selected as the topic of the text.

Inventors: Berkowitz; Sidney (Baltimore, MD)
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Director National Security Agency (Washington, DC)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This paper was coming out about the time I started to get interested in the possibility of analyzing for semantics and stuff. Good thing someone smarter figured it out.

Modeling public mood and emotion: Twitter sentiment and socio-economic phenomena
Authors: Johan Bollen, Alberto Pepe, Huina Mao
(Submitted on 9 Nov 2009)

Abstract: Microblogging is a form of online communication by which users broadcast brief text updates, also known as tweets, to the public or a selected circle of contacts. A variegated mosaic of microblogging uses has emerged since the launch of Twitter in 2006: daily chatter, conversation, information sharing, and news commentary, among others. Regardless of their content and intended use, tweets often convey pertinent information about their author's mood status. As such, tweets can be regarded as temporally-authentic microscopic instantiations of public mood state. In this article, we perform a sentiment analysis of all public tweets broadcasted by Twitter users between August 1 and December 20, 2008. For every day in the timeline, we extract six dimensions of mood (tension, depression, anger, vigor, fatigue, confusion) using an extended version of the Profile of Mood States (POMS), a well-established psychometric instrument. We compare our results to fluctuations recorded by stock market and crude oil price indices and major events in media and popular culture, such as the U.S. Presidential Election of November 4, 2008 and Thanksgiving Day. We find that events in the social, political, cultural and economic sphere do have a significant, immediate and highly specific effect on the various dimensions of public mood. We speculate that large scale analyses of mood can provide a solid platform to model collective emotive trends in terms of their predictive value with regards to existing social as well as economic indicators.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Cheers,

Vairetube

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dice, mosaic, 14000, two icons, project, 8 feet tall, 5 feet wide, Musicshake, Fun Times' to 'dice, mosaic, 14000, two icons, project, Musicshake, Fun Times, david alvarez' - edited by looris

>> ^xxovercastxx:

His belt is tied wrong


Jim Carrey
Mosaic Media Group
9200 West Sunset Blvd
10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90069
USA

get on it.

Vimeo:

44 wooden slats, motors, control electronics, video camera
56 x 56 x 4" / 142 x 142 x 10 cm
edition of 8

Known for his longstanding investigation of image creation – be it in response to woven fabric, stone mosaics or today’s pixel – Daniel Rozin studies the very nature of modern structure. Comprised of forty-four wooden slats arranged horizontally and vertically, X by Y takes its name from the Cartesian axes that organize a picture plane.

bitforms.com/daniel-rozin-gallery.html

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Dice, Art, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe' to 'Dice, Art, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, david alvarez, mosaic' - edited by looris

>> ^demon_ix:
OCTOPUS?!? You dare call the dark lord Cthulhu a mere OCTOPUS?!?


Seriously! Octopus, pfft.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'guitar, music, session, acoustic, loop, pedals' to 'guitar, music, session, acoustic, loop, pedals, mosaic for shadows, john clarke' - edited by kronosposeidon

The research I was referring to was "basic research," something the drug companies wont touch, that is, research on the way stuff works in the first place. Drug companies take what is known about how stuff works and says "hey look, since it works like this, let's block this, and we might cure that." Acedemia discovers for example how a certain protein in a virus functions. Then the drug companies come along and hit it with every compound known to man and discovers a way to block that function in a human. It benefits them, it benefits man, it works. The gov't funds academia to get half way, the capitalist sector tends to cover the rest. It works quite well. BUT, in the last 8 years, we've (academia has) basically gained NO funding compared to inflation. We need someone who will increase the funds enough to make up for it. McCain Ain't it.

Biomedical science, whether it is spending on HIV or Tobacco Mosaic Virus, IS money well spent. If you discover a unique function of a protein in Tobacco Mosaic Virus, it very well will have a homologue (similar protein) in some human virus that we never studied or never understood. In Biomedical science, there is NO PORK. That is my point.

Rep's don't buy that. Libs don't buy that either. It's because we have crappy lobbyists if you ask me.