I would use SSH dynamic TCP forwarding (-D).
Then use "SOCKSv5" proxy configuration in your browsers and in your apps (if that's supported).
You can hve remote SSH server listen on different ports and IPv6. Maybe speed and latency will not be the best, but it'd be OK.
Simple and easy.
I envy modern Christians for their ability to make up their faith by pretending the scriptures don’t exist. “I was taught that Jesus is love, therefore, if it makes me happy or gives me pleasure it can’t be a sin”
> “I was taught that Jesus is love, therefore, if it makes me happy or gives me pleasure it can’t be a sin”
That is a straw man. I am sure you can find some one who says that somewhere out of billions of Christians, but it is effectively something no one says.
While I agree with you that it is wrong, I can assure you it's quite a common stance among our 68-influenced priests, referents and teachers inside the "catholic" church. They will happily contradict the official stance of the catholic church and still claim to be true catholics (and everyone else is just from yesterday). But then again, I think that is a large reason, why church membership is shrinking drastically in my country, while in our also western neighbors it is rising again.
They don’t say it literally like that, but they say stuff that boils down to that. People who live wicked lifestyles are tolerated or even celebrated because obviously Jesus loves everybody (He really doesn’t).
I think the meaning of love in christianity is very different from what more secular people think it is. For example it does not preclude sending someone to prison. Christianity has a very well defined and categorized (sexos/eros/philia/agape) understanding of love. It is also not a feeling.
> "Love your neighbour as yourself"
That is a very important part of that understanding of the meaning of love. While it also means that you love your neighbour in any circumstance, it importantly says that you should love the neighbour in the same way you love yourself. You love yourself even when you know you are evil and should die.
The stance of the (catholic) church is that you should damn the sin and love the sinner.
One has to read the scripture. In many cases we are talking about things that were clearly defined as sins in the scripture. Just read the scripture instead of making up the rules.
"Just read the scripture" is not enough. Catholics are supposed to use the historical critical method, when interpreting texts from the bible. There are other Christian groups, which take the bible verbatim, but Catholicism is none of them.
For that and other reasons there are plenty of things presented in the old testament as sins, which Christians don't consider to be sins. The most obvious example is probably rules around kosher food.
Are you suggesting the scriptures do not obligate church leaders to protect the flock from heresy?
1 Timothy 6:20–21 – “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”
2 Timothy 4:3–4 – Warns of people turning from truth to myths, implying leaders must protect them from such influences.
Titus 1:9–11 – Bishops must “stop the mouths” of those teaching error, which includes preventing their works from spreading.
Acts 20:28–31 – Paul warns the Ephesian elders to guard the flock from false teachers who will arise “speaking perverse things.”
2 John 1:10–11 – “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.”
Romans 16:17 – Mark and avoid those who cause doctrinal divisions; a list of banned works is a formal way of “marking” them.
Acts 19:19 – New converts in Ephesus publicly burn their occult books after coming to the faith.
Deuteronomy 13:1–5 – False prophets and their influence must be eradicated from the midst of the people.
Atheism is not a sin - not if a sincere belief. An honest mistake is not sin.
If you are arguing that intrinsically good things (reading, thinking, speaking) can be turned to bad purpose, then so can almost anything. If done with honest intent I cannot see how reading, thinking of speaking atheism is sinful.
Is there anything in the the Catechism that says otherwise.
Well, the first of the ten commandments is "You shall have no other gods before Me" , and that, according to a widespread interpretation, also forbids atheism:
> There is manifestly contained in this commandment AN IMPLICIT DENIAL OF ALL ATHEISM. The command, "Thou shalt have none other gods before Me," rests on the assumption that there is one true and living God. The law therefore forbids atheism as being a denial of God. (https://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/barrett/the_first_commandm...)
Does that make it a sin? Commandments are not detailed guides, but general principles. There are clearly accepted exceptions to most of them, including honest belief.
Who exactly is the source you cite for the claim atheism is breaking the commandment and therefore sinful? He does not seem to be a Catholic, let alone someone with authority to define the church's teachings. Can you link to a similar statement in the Catechism, a church Council, or at least a papal encyclical?
"One protestant preacher said" is not proof of what the Catholic Church believes.
What about "You shall not kill". There are quite a tradition of exceptions. In self-defence (generally accepted), in war (widely accepted, although not by everyone, and always with limitations such as requiring the war is just), and for judicial punishment (although again only as a necessity, and the Catholic Church has said its not necessary under modern circumstances).
The bible doesn't say that. It says "you shouldn't murder" where "murder" means "kill a human without just cause". The standard "thou shalt not kill" is a bad translation, nothing more.
You can tell that it is from context as the laws just after that mandates a LOT of killing. For being "a witch" for example (which I assume is another mistranslation).
> Saying god doesn't exists, is obviously a sin against god.
its not obvious to me. I cannot see how an honestly held belief can be a sin. Is it evil to be an atheist because you believe there is no God? Clearly not, so how can you say its a sin?
When I honestly think you are a murder, is that not insulting to you?
When I honestly think I'm entitled to the money in the bank, does that mean I won't be judged?
If there are people that are atheists, because they have never heard of anyone telling them about god, then no that is not a sin. I doubt that applies to most people. Most atheists are atheists by choice, not because they wouldn't have access to information about god.
> Most atheists are atheists by choice, not because they wouldn't have access to information about god.
That's not choice though. I can't become a believer in god anymore than I can sprout wings. I can't just start believing something false. No one can make a decision to believe something on will alone. That's not how brains work.
You, I mean you singular, can't decide to believe that 1+1=4. You know that it's not to the core of your being. There is literally no choice possible when the facts are in.
This is what it's like to be a strong atheist.
> Mother Teresa famously didn't believed in God's existence for decades. She still didn't became an atheist.
She did become a turturer of the most vulnerable people though. So... yea, I guess that's another type of argument against faith.
Yes of course. (Other than that math expression is a language and I could redefine symbols, but yes I see how it's not about symbols here.)
You just can't reason about the cause of reasoning, and the origin of the concept of cause and effect. You can dispute if that origin is more like a person that doesn't care about anything, a person that wants a relationship with you (Christianity/Judaism), a fundamental core concept (pantheism) or randomness (evolutionist).
You simply can't just know that. That's why it is a choice.
> She did become a turturer
What?
Ok, I've found a single article by the Guardian about a claim being filed is there any source about whether that is true?
> You just can't reason about the cause of reasoning, and the origin of the concept of cause and effect. You can dispute if that origin is more like a person that doesn't care about anything, a person that wants a relationship with you (Christianity/Judaism), a fundamental core concept (pantheism) or randomness (evolutionist).
> You simply can't just know that. That's why it is a choice.
You either missed the point entirely or are trying to obfuscate the issue. The cause of reason has no bearing at all. Reason and understanding are real things. Actually knowing something means you can't choose to believe the opposite. I can't choose to believe something I know is false. I can't choose to believe the sky is pink, or that rocks are soft, etc. That's nonsense.
> Ok, I've found a single article by the Guardian about a claim being filed is there any source about whether that is true?
The cause of reason is what we call God. What you think that is, is very disputed, like I wrote in my previous comment.
When you think your God exists in the same way that the sky has a color, then I can assure you, that God doesn't exist. Atheists often take pride in rejecting "Gods" that a Christian also rejects and thinks they don't exist.
That article presents multiple positions of that subject, I would probably side more with Leys there. Richness and poverty are not a goal in itself, but all means to an end. The poorest of the poor can have a richer life than a very rich. Mother Teresa was not a medical doctor and never claimed to be. She was treating peoples hearts, not their bodies.
The church doesn't think salvation means to be rich. Actually quite the opposite.
> She was treating peoples hearts, not their bodies.
She was prolonging suffering in others because she thought suffering was beautiful. But when she got sick herself she immediately and at great expense stopped her own suffering.
Atheism is not per se a sin, but it may as well be, precisely because Catholics believe everyone is born sinful and only the correct configuration of beliefs in one's head is sufficient to undo that state of affairs. This is my big problem with Christianity. Salvation, in the end, is a matter of assigning the correct truth value to purely historical statements, not moral ones.
Like to be saved, most Christians say, one must believe a litany of things about the historical figure of Christ. But that is just a history exam! It seems highly implausible that the God most people think of when they think of the Christian God would assign torture and torment based purely on a failure to come to a certain historical conclusion.
Nor do they believe hell to be a place of torture, but a state of separation from God. Read CS Lewis's Great Divorce if you are interested in a better metaphor than flames and torture.
While its true that various pieces of Catholic "stuff" admit the possibility of salvation _without_ explicit belief in Christ, the vibes are still very much "if you know about Jesus/The Gospel then you probably need to believe in him to be saved, with some possible exceptions."
And a "state of separation" from God is expected to be a state of torture. Like maybe the idea of demons literally poking you in the eyeballs with hot pokers is out of fashion, but its clear Hell is still understood to be a deeply unpleasant place.
> but it means that God labors tirelessly to bring all people — Christian or not — to salvation in Christ.
That is a hilarious quote. Only believers can say that with a straight face and not see the absolute madness it implies. How could "God labor[] tirelessly" to help everyone into salvation? That's on its face absolute garbage. Is God so incredibly weak that he could only show the path to salvation to 12 dudes 2000 years ago? If so, why should we worship that god, which seems like a pitiful figure compared to many nobel prize winners. I certainly would think we owe more worship to Normal Borlaug than a god that can't get his message across because he could only intervene in a credible way once in front of 12 people, and then never again.
God revealing himself as weak by human standards is a core experience of Christianity. Christianity/Judaism is (according to my knowledge) the only religion where not humans are seeking God, but God seeks to connect with humans. The whole bible, old and new testaments are stories where people sometimes care about God, most times run away from God, but always God running circles to meet the people again.
That is the reason why Christianity is news-worthy. People wouldn't run around the world to tell you that God is that detached monarch who likes to govern humans. That's a concept a lot of cultures already had.
That doesn't mean God is "weak". It means applying human concepts to God just doesn't make sense. He will always be greater and above them.
> not see the absolute madness it implies
They absolutely agree with you there. That's why "they" flip out. That's what "they" find so important to tell you: absolute madness being true.
> The whole bible, old and new testaments are stories where people sometimes care about God, most times run away from God, but always God running circles to meet the people again.
Except the book of Job. Where God explicitly tortures a person just to see if he can still be faithful to God. Kills his wife and kids! And when he is faithful, he gets what? His wife and kids back? No of course not, because those are property, he gets a NEW wife and NEW kids. Hahah, oops, all is forgiven right? No biggie.
> That doesn't mean God is "weak". It means applying human concepts to God just doesn't make sense. He will always be greater and above them.
God isn't even trying to show himself to exist. And for all the people of the world that are not convinced by incoherent babbling we shall all be condemned to suffer for eternity? That is neither logical, just, or even sane.
The book of Job is a warning to think bad things happening are the fault of the person itself being evil. It's also warning about being to attached to your current nice life, because everything is temporary.
> Kills his wife and kids!
According to the book of Job, the suffering isn't done by God, but by the Devil.
> he gets a NEW wife and NEW kids.
His wife and kids are dead. Resurrecting people for the pleasure of another person, that's like puppets serving a master, it wouldn't be respectful and consequential.
> God isn't even trying to show himself to exist.
In my opinion he does. That's what the bible is; a collection of examples where God tries to show himself to exist. And he still does, every decade, every year, maybe even every day?
> Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. [Cites Romans 1:18] The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion." [62]
- CCC 2125
Interestingly, I believe this means, from the Church's perspective, that the mere fact of my posting this makes this sin more imputable to those who read it! Sorry about that.
But I hope the Catholic Church of the future will take the defense of its flock more serious again. Many books (and movies and TV series...) out there contain downright evil ideas, sometimes presented in dishonest ways. Perhaps some organized, ecclesiastically sanctioned system of reviews to guide readers would be feasible?
> Reading cannot be a sin. Thinking cannot be a sin. Speaking cannot be a sin.
the catholic church is an ancient institution that believes it is the continuing ministry of jesus christ. and thus, it is not beholding to purely biblical rules - but also tradition.
indeed, sin is an "utterance, deed, or desire" that offends God. the concept of sin is that it is abhorrent, and caused by concupiscence.
the ccc (catcheism) indeed has a definition for sin and does not specify what is or isn't sin directly - but rather through the above criteria, both biblical and traditional. and it is defined and ruminated upon by those who are the apostles (bishops) via the magisterium, which is their upholding of this
which is to say,
reading can be a sin - if those works are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
thinking can be a sin - if those thoughts are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
speaking can be a sin - if those words are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church
and boy howdy, if those fuckin jesusmonks put together a book of read-sins and by the magisterium and the tradition of the church, then reading them is a sin. sorry about your religion
The thing is what works, thoughts or speaking is abhorrent?
It would have to be something sinful in itself, so, for example, planning a murder is clearly a sin, although only a thought. Taking pleasure is someone else's suffering is also a sin.
Reading to learn, honest thoughts, and honest speech cannot be sins. I think those are what the post you are replying to had in mind.
God-denial is a big deal in the Bible. I recommend people do a small survey on what happened to entire people(s) when they pursued God-denial in the Old Testament.
With that said, doubt is part of faith, and exploration of that is just an articulation and not outright denial. I would bucket “honest confusion” the same way. To be confused in the desert is to be confused in the desert, akin to throwing a non-swimmer into water. The confusion before faith (before swimming) is okay, I believe. That’s all I can postulate from my own meditation.
Anyway, we have to always remember that Christ went toe-to-toe against his own religion. These Christian denominations must always know Christ will reject them outright if they are misinterpreting (and how could anyone think otherwise is beyond me, going up against Judaism was his first major imperative).
> God-denial is a big deal in the Bible. I recommend people do a small survey on what happened to entire people(s) when they pursued God-denial in the Old Testament.
Have you drawn the correct conclusions from that? It is certainly not the conclusion the Catholic Church draws which is what we are discussing here. You may think the Catholic church wrong about this, but that is a different argument.
> going up against Judaism was his first major imperative
Everything he said and taught was in the context of the Jewish tradition. He said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" - Matthew 5:17
Any attempt to justify banning books from the New Testament is indirect at best. All Christians play loosy-goosy with the Bible to some degree. There are things Jesus directly warned against like gathering wealth that most Christians have no problem doing. Paul seems kinda iffy about marriage but for many Christians that's a core religious value. Meanwhile there's a bunch of stuff like book banning or being gay that's at best ambiguously condemned in the Bible that people are up in arms over.
in the catholic church, it'd be probably invoke three paths to sin. scandal, which is causing others to do evil without their intent to do so. justice: requiring the dignity and safety of others. and of course, lying.
In case you care: that the index was abolished in 1966.
Using “has been” here makes it immediately clear that you’re a non-native English speaker, unless you’re speaking some dialect I’m not familiar with.
Usually, we use the perfect (“has been”) with time intervals that include (or asymptotically approach) the present. We use the simple past (“was”) with time intervals or points that are closed and are clearly sepatated from the present.
For example: “I went to Lebanon in 2015”. 2015 is a specific point in time. But if I don’t include a time, I’d say “I’ve been to Lebanon”. Even though this was in the past, the fact that I don’t mention a specific time in the past means it implicitly includes the present, because I’m describing my current state: I’m someone who has been to Lebanon.
And, if I were in Lebanon now, for the first time, I could say “I’ve been to Lebanon”, and then it really does concretely include the present!
To illustrate another edge case: I’d say “my father has never been to Lebanon” but “my grandfather never went to Lebanon”. Because my father is still alive, but my grandfather is dead. So any statements about his life are automatically about a closed interval lying entirely in the past.
> Using “has been” here makes it immediately clear that you’re a non-native English speaker,
Specifically, using the combination "has been ... in". Either "was abolished in" (simple past in the passive voice) or "has been abolished since" (present perfect in the passive voice) would work (simple past describing the event of abolition, past perfect describing the continuous state of having been abolished from the point of that event up until and continuing through the present moment) would work.
I believe that in such a case one can use both "has been abolished in 1966" and "was abolished in 1966", but they mean different things.
"Has been abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966 and it remains abolished today.
"Was abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966, but it provides no information about whether it might have been reinstated later and it might continue to be enforced today.
So in this case I believe that the other poster was correct in using "has been abolished in 1966".
> "Has been abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966 and it remains abolished today.
That meaning would be expressed as "has been abolished since 1966", unless it is still 1966 when the idea is being expressed, in which case "has been abolished in 1966" works instead; "has been abolished" is a present perfect (passive voice) construction so "in <past time period>" doesn't make sense with it, while "since <past time period>" or "in <current time period>" does.
Absolutely not, you can never say “has been abolished in 1966” in standard American English (and I’m 99% sure the same is true of standard British English). The sibling poster is correct that you can say “has been abolished since 1966”, though.
Not sure why are you getting downvoted but I wanted to express my appreciation of comments like this. Being a non-native speaker I’ve been struggling with nuances like that one and native speakers I encounter hardly ever want to correct my errors, likely because they don’t want to come across as rude.
Anyway, Americans needed to show off their newly acquired nuclear capabilities. Not to Germans or to Japanese. And not to Italians.
It was needed to demonstrate their superiority to Soviet Union without bombing the Soviet Union.
As someone else's here already posted out, military heads made it clear that bombing Japan was not needed for their surrender.
None else had gone that far with nuclear energy and bombs. Likely.
IMHO it was needed for something else much more political.
The website appears to date from 2008. This was a _very_ common latent bug at that point, particularly because Rails would basically force you to implement it. I assume this got fixed at some point, but for a long time all ActiveRecord models had an autoincrementing ID, which had to be a signed 32 bit int. There were scary monkey-patching workarounds if you wanted something more sensible.
It's not like those two billion things just materialise in your database, right? Someone must have watched that graph climb, and climb, and climb, approaching the limit.
If they have that graph and remember the limit they choose 15 years ago... It's not something you think about constantly running a mostly stable code-wise site.
Its defaults are also either a 18-character ID, or a 32bit integer. So, unless you take the effort to actually fight Apex, you're gonna hit this problem sooner or later.
It's IMHO a matter between trust and hope.
Do we really think that Google has complete control over the stuff they distribute?
Do we really think that a single person delivering some software outside of Google ecosystem is evil?
Judging these things is rather hard without some form of trust and hope.
And it's not something everyone can pick up seriously without the needed knowledge and tools.
reply