121 reputation
4
bio website scottseverance.us
location Dallas, Texas, USA
age 33
visits member for 1 year, 7 months
seen Apr 7 at 23:19

My first Linux experience was in 1998 (via telnet into my university's server to read my email with PINE). I've run Linux on my own machines off and on since 1999 and exclusively since 2006.

My first distro was Slackware, which I quickly broke. I then went back to Windows 95. After that, my friend helped me install Debian, which I used until I replaced that machine. I found Debian too difficult to install on my own, so I put Red Hat on my newer machine. At that time, yum didn't exist, and Red Hat only offered updates if I logged in to X as root, which I rarely did. So, it quickly became outdated, and OpenOffice 1.1 couldn't handle right-to-left text, which I needed for one of my university classes. So, I started using my Windows XP laptop most of the time. I couldn't install Linux on the laptop because the NTFS tools of the era couldn't resize my partition.

After a couple of years, I decided to switch my Red Hat box to something more modern. I wanted to move away from the RPM package format, so I tried installing Debian again and once again found it too complicated to get all the features I needed. Then, I read about an up and coming Debian-based distro called Ubuntu that had just released their latest version. So, I installed 6.06 (Dapper Drake) and have used Ubuntu exclusively as my main OS all my machines since that time. I only boot into Windows a few times a year. I've tried a few other distros' live CDs, but so far have always decided that the benefits of those distros aren't significant enough for me to switch over.

For the first many years, I used the command line most of the time, as early Linux GUIs weren't up to many basic tasks. These days, the GUI tools have made leaps and bounds and are quite usable. Nevertheless, I often prefer the command line for many tasks. I'm much more likely to use vim than Gedit. But, I quite appreciate GUI tools for a number of tasks--perhaps most tasks these days.


Mar
28
comment What does it mean when God 'hardens' a heart?
When you explain it in terms of God's foreknowledge, then it makes a lot more sense to me. I didn't see anything in the answer that indicated that you meant merely that God knew in advance the choice that Pharaoh would make.
Mar
28
comment What does it mean when God 'hardens' a heart?
What evidence do you have to support this?
Mar
28
comment What does it mean when God 'hardens' a heart?
"This is not to say, however, that God . . . completely bypassed Pharaoh's will. God's will simply trumped Pharaoh's will in the matter. Pharaoh was free to choose to ignore God's word through Moses, but only because it was God's will for Him to do so." Do you not contradict yourself here? How could Pharaoh be free to choose if God had already decided that he would ignore God's word? It isn't really a choice if the outcome is pre-determined. It seems that differentiating between free will and free choice is splitting hairs.
Mar
28
comment What did Jesus mean by “this generation will certainly not pass away..” in Matthew 24:34?
How does this answer the question?
Jan
24
comment What are the main differences between 7th Day Adventists and Catholic/ Protestant churches? Are there any similar denominations?
I'm personally not aware of any other denomination that holds to the same eschatological sequence of events: 1) The tribulation; 2) the literal, visible Second Coming during which every eye will see Jesus, and the dead in Christ will be raised and be taken to heaven with the living righteous, and the wicked are slain; 3) the millennium, during which the righteous (in heaven) will have their questions answered and Satan will be bound; 4) the New Jerusalem descends to earth, the wicked are raised to face their final judgment, and are then destroyed in the lake of fire; 5) a New Earth is created.
Jan
24
comment What are the main differences between 7th Day Adventists and Catholic/ Protestant churches? Are there any similar denominations?
It was incuded in the name of our church (Adventist) because it was considered a distinctive point of doctrine. I think many members aren't aware of how views in the broader Christian world have changed. Regardless, it is still a key, defining doctrine for us. A good, "Adventist" sermon will likely be on the topic of the Second Coming.
Jan
23
comment What are the main differences between 7th Day Adventists and Catholic/ Protestant churches? Are there any similar denominations?
@fredsbend: Regarding point 4, at the time the church was founded, not many Christians believed in a literal, iminent Second Coming of Christ. Thus, we Adventists hold it to be a defining doctrine of our church. Of course, these days we aren't nearly as alone on the topic as we once were. I should note that our eschatology doesn't leave room for the "secret rapture" or other such common teachings.
Jan
23
comment On which parts in the gospels is Weatherhead's argument about Mary, mother of Jesus, founded?
It would seem that the proper source here would be to read Weatherhead's explanation, then evaluate it from that standpoint. In my opinion, his suggestion is utter nonsense and is entirely without biblical foundation. But I don't know how he claims to find support for his position.
Jan
23
comment Does the New Testament mention Christians worshipping the Holy Spirit?
The question was about the New Testament, not the Book of Mormon.
Aug
8
comment What is the argument in support of personal interpretation of the Scriptures?
Are the Fathers authoritative sources? They are certainly of historical interest, but considering all the controversies that arose in the early church, one should hardly take them as the final word. And recommending Latin but not Greek is ignoring many of the Fathers. I've been educated in both Greek and Hebrew, and I firmly maintain that while the Biblical languages are helpful in interpreting Scripture, they are far from essential. Latin is for historians, since no Scripture was written in that language.
Aug
8
comment What is the argument in support of personal interpretation of the Scriptures?
Charles, What if the "official" teachings are wrong? Certainly they shouldn't be lightly dismissed, but it would be a grave error to consider them infallible. Many of the divisions you mentioned are due not to private interpretation but to failure to consider the whole of Scripture.
Dec
3
comment Do Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible?
I've been trying to remember the name of an excellent book I have in storage in the US (I'm currently living overseas) that gives many details. I haven't come up with the name of the book, but web searches did uncover some stuff by F.F. Bruce. While I can't vouch specifically for any of his works as I haven't read them, he's a scholar of considerable stature in the field who has dealt with all sorts of manuscript problems, including presumably the difference between the TR and the MT and the arguments for and against both, together with other texts.
Dec
3
comment Do Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible?
I don't have access to my library at the moment, so I can't get too specific on the references. TR is a decendent of the work of Erasmus. It is based on MSS of the Byzantine family, as those were the primary MSS extant at that time. The MT is more modern, formed by counting the current extant MSS and taking the majority reading. This results in a text that's similar to, but not identical with the TR. The NKJV's notes are quite helpful here, as the main text follows the TR, while the notes give significant differences in the MT and NU (Nestle-Aland, and UBS).
Dec
3
comment Do Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible?
I should note that the TR and Majority Text are not the same thing. In addition, there are very few modern translations based on Wescott & Hort. Sure, they use some of W&H's ideas, but the editions in current common use (UBS and Nestle-Aland) use many lines of evidence beyond W&H.
Nov
13
comment Which “Church of God” believes in “God the Mother”?
I understand, and no offence was taken.