Coincidentally, it is both his birthday and the US army’s “birthday.” Both arrived on June 14th, one in 1775 and the other in 1946.
TheRealKuni
joined 2 years ago
Fair enough. Thank you for explaining where you’re coming from. I can understand your frustration with that wedge.
That is reductionist and overly simplistic. Just because they are all pejorative does not mean their meaning is identical. Not all communists are “tankies.”
(But I know very well we need to agree to disagree on this, because I don’t think there’s any value in trying to convince you.)
No, you’re not wrong. They’re muddying meaning of the word “tankie.”
“Tankie” does not mean “commie.” Not all commies are tankies.
Yep. I was really annoyed when Windows moved away from the aero effects of Vista and 7 to the flat look of 8/8.1, 10, and 11.
(Yes yes, Windows bad. I have to use it for work.)
I’m looking forward to this, I think it looks gorgeous.
I dunno man, I’ve seen The Abyss, I don’t think it’s very peaceful down there with all the aliens and Cold War submarines.
We’re delightful and, as the commenter said, we make for great tanks.
Dude was watching her report, and when she stopped talking and stepped aside, he casually shot her. I think he was hoping to get her when the camera was off. What an asshole.
Because according to the Christian faith, the death on the cross is the moment of victory. The divide-by-zero that absolves sin.
So, I’m no theologian, but I did grow up studying this stuff quite a bit. Here’s a probably-flawed explanation of my understanding of the teaching.
God created the world, and the creation fell short of his image for it. That’s what “sin” is, a falling-short-of-perfection. God’s perfect nature requires perfection for communion with his creation, so in an attempt to bring humanity back into communion with him, Jesus (who is both God and human) comes to live among the creation, lives a perfect life, and is killed. The teaching is that death is a result of imperfection, so the death of someone with human nature who was perfect wipes out the “cost” of sin.
So humans are again able to be connected with their Creator, despite the fact that none of them are perfect.
Christians are encouraged to follow the laws of scripture not because failure to do so will damn them, but because said laws can be good for them. The Bible outright says humans cannot get to heaven through their actions. So when Christians get all high and mighty about sin, they’re missing the point entirely. (Or, perhaps, they’re following what they’ve been taught by people who use religion to control people.)
It frustrates me to see Christians championing anti-LGBT causes and whatnot. Like, I don’t care if you think it’s sinful, the entire point of the religion is that everyone is sinful. The Bible is clear on this. Jesus came for sinners. After all, if people were perfect they wouldn’t need a savior in this system.
Someone can probably do a better, more theologically consistent job explaining this, but that’s my understanding.
Why would they "prove" something that's completely obvious?
I don’t want to be critical, but I think if you step back a bit and look and what you’re saying, you’re asking why we would bother to experiment and prove what we think we know.
That’s a perfectly normal and reasonable scientific pursuit. Yes, in a rational society the burden of proof would be on the grifters, but that’s never how it actually works. It’s always the doctors disproving the cure-all, not the snake oil salesmen failing to prove their own prove their own product.
There is value in this research, even if it fits what you already believe on the subject. I would think you would be thrilled to have your hypothesis confirmed.
What game?