Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
And with automation already taking away non-artistic jobs, then what will be left in the future?Maybe automation taking away all our jobs is the sign we need to stop having a job being the basis of our entire civilisation.
According to copyright law, inspiration is acceptable, but blatant copying is unacceptable. The distinction between inspiration and copying is a human one with no strict definition, which raises the question of whether it is possible for a computer to understand the difference, let alone apply it in practice.given that these models are trained on art from living artists, is it fucked up for people to use them to generate art for commercial purposes?Human art has always been influenced and taken form based on art made by someone else (or nature itself). I think it's fine for an AI to be influenced by human art since we're fine with humans being influenced by human art.
Here is how I was explained Prayer:Isn't God supposed to know what everyone is going to do before they do it? In which case he should already know whether they would pray and make the situation different from the start so they don't need to.
If enough people pray for something, and God is ok on changing his mind on that thing, he will.
Like: if little Jimmy is dying of cancer and enough people pray hard enough, God might allow Jimmy to live instead of killing him. But you can't know how many people is needed or if God is willing to change his mind. So its a crap shoot.
Carney's organisation works with an evangelical law firm called ADF International whose London spokesperson Lois McLatchie has been interviewed by Scottish media saying the buffer zones "ban legitimate offers of help and silent prayer."Excuse me, what? "Legitimate offers of help and silent prayer"? How exactly are these protests "helping" women?
"Women have the right to hear about these options at the point of need and it is patronising of the government saying women don't want to hear this," McLatchie told BBC Scotland in a recent interview.
The nature of population growth means there's (almost) always more young people than oldThe developed world has had net population decline (if you discount immigration) for about half a century. The global population is growing due to high birth rates in developing countries, but they don't get to vote in the USA.
I think the point is that a very Red state doesn't appear to be entirely aligned with the GOP platform.Indeed — in a two-party system, it only needs to find the GOP's platform very slightly less abhorrent than the Democrats'.
I do that to. It also helps with spell check, which I don't think Is a feature here?Why would it need to be? Your browser can already spell-check text input fields.
I never would have guessed Kansas would vote No considering how red the state is...It's like the inverse of 2020...It's almost like a two-candidate election is an atrocious way to represent nuance in political beliefs.
The thing is that anyone can pick up any version of any Bible and interpret it in any way they choose. What they get from the Bible is a reflection on them and not a reflection on the Bible.And I have no problem with that. My problem is when they indoctrinate children with their garbage ideas using the Bible as justification.
They say that God created Man In His Image but people grab the Bible and create a God in their image.
A racist, Trumpian shithead will read the Bible and find a racist, Trumpian shithead God.
Interesting point of view. My perspective is a little different. I was educated in a fundamentalist Christian school up until high school. Obviously the indoctrination didn't stick but I believed it at the time. So when it comes to stories like the Binding of Isaac my opinions on them are pretty intense.Sort of. My view of the Binding of Isaac is that it must be read in the context in which it was written — that is, the ancient Near East at a time when it was dominated by polytheistic cultures that routinely performed ritual sacrifice. In that context, the story makes perfect sense as a way of differentiating Yahweh from the other gods of the time. This isn't even a great leap of faith, as the Pentateuch makes frequent explicit references to the polytheistic cultures of the time and the fact that their practices were viewed as wicked by Yahweh. That is what the Bible says its context is.
You may read a story like that the same way you might watch an episode of Evangelion.
I read a story like that with the understanding that it's taught at every Christian Sunday school in a very uncritical way. In a Christian school the moral of that story is if God tells you to commit an atrocity then you must commit an atrocity.And that, to me, is a problem. Not the story itself, which is perfectly harmless if viewed in the proper context, but the insistence that there is one correct interpretation. Supposedly God gave us free will, so why not let children use it when learning about him?
You must have had a different religious education than I did.I have had almost no religious education at all. I am discovering the Bible as an adult, having lived almost all of my life as an atheist. My reflections on the Bible are thus entirely my own and have little to do with conventional Christian interpretation.
In my religious education, The Moral of Job is that if life give you a complete beat down then just take it with a smile. Because it's God's will. I doesn't matter that it was just to prove a point to Satan. As a human our place in the world is to withstand any suffering and explain it away as God's plan.This is what I mean by Christians not reading the Bible critically. Sure, that is a valid interpretation (albeit a morbid one), but in a supposedly enlightened society, students of the Bible should be encouraged to reflect on the story of Job for themselves and not simply accept what somebody else tells them it means.
Something similar to how a human trafficker should not only be obeyed but revered. Because the human trafficker can inflict great violence and pain upon the trafficked. And this ability to make your final moments horrible and snuff out your life at a whim is indistinguishable from God.
It's difficult to interpret the book of Job charitably.On the contrary, it is one of the few books of the Bible that is openly critical of God, even if it does backflip in the last couple of chapters, and as such is very thought-provoking. Unlike most books, which merely expound on God's love and generosity and his punishment of human wickedness, a critical reading of Job encourages the reader to consider whether Job's arguments against God are reasonable, and perhaps relate them to suffering in the reader's own life. It is just a pity that so many Christians do not read the Bible critically.
They're the words of a human character who is shown to be mistaken by the end of the story.Actually, he isn't shown to be mistaken. God simply says "I'm right and you're wrong" and Job responds with "yes sir, I'm sorry sir". No actual refutation is given to anything he said.
God takes no pleasure in the death of the wickedNo, only in the death of the innocent.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62217263
The system works! Good guys with guns ftw!
In a tweet on Monday morning, the National Rifle Association, a gun lobby, said: "We will say it again: The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."They're right. That's why the USA, where good guys have easy access to guns, has the lowest rate of gun violence in the world.
Something that cannot be explained by any other means might work.Everything can be explained by other means. When all else fails, there's the good old brain-in-a-jar explanation. Nothing can ever be absolutely proven.
Like, I agree with all this. I think it's more than fair enough to ask this weird argument to be wrapped up. You didn't need to come in here swinging and taking weird, unnecessary potshots at me.Please stop. There is nothing to be gained by perpetuating this discussion any further.
Maccabees seems to be only a Catholic thing.No, Orthodox Bibles have it too, and Martin Luther advised reading it, while emphasising that he did not consider it scripture. The practice of omitting it entirely is a very recent and very dubious phenomenon within Protestantism.
KJV got rid of it.Incorrect. What you mean to say is that most modern printings of the KJV omit it. The original KJV translation had it, and it is still possible to find the KJV with it if you really want your Bible to sound like Shakespeare for some reason.