The fans' opinion does not matter. If you are truly concerned with artists making good films, then quit expecting them to cater to your every whim. It is not your film. Even if you have every single Star Wars figure, book, bedspread, drinking glass, etc., you still have no say in what an artist puts into his art. You don't hear art collectors saying "I like Starry Night, but I wish Van Gogh had put some more red in it. He owed it to us to paint a picture that we'd like."
Huh... remarkably similar to this free music debate going on... I'm not stating an opinion, just opening up a can of worms here. Think about this...
...It is not your music. Even if you have every single album, poster, concert ticket, t-shirt, etc., you still have no say in what an musician puts into his music. You don't hear radio stations saying "I like Beethoven's 5th, but I wish he had put some more drums in it. He owed it to us to write a song that we'd like." If you don't like how the music sounds, how the song is written, or what price you have to pay then don't buy his album (or find a cheaper place). No one is forcing you.
Ok that strayed a little, but the parallel has to do simply with the fact that people seem to think that once music is released, it becomes their own personal property when they buy an album (under copyrights) and can do whatever they want with it. If the artist has chosen to be under the copyrights the albums are released with, respect that. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Maybe that will change the artist's mind once revenues stop coming in. If an artists decides to give his music away without copyright, sure, go ahead and take advantage of it! Some bands have started doing that, earning more from tours instead of mainly album sales.
Don't go bitching about how RIAA or DMCA is stealing money or is this massive conspiracy against freedom and all that... the artists under those agreements have chosen to remain there; they don't have to. Convince the artist to change, not go to war with their parent association.
...Virtua Fighter 4... So basically what I'm saying is that if somebody uses DOA3 to promote X-box superiority, sorry but Sega did a better game than that, and it's ps2 exlusive
That may be true, but VF4 isn't PS2 exclusive - it's being ported to xbox, with a new character and some new environments. Xbox may be a port-hog, but that's because developers want to get their games sold, and more sales is more money. Developers are seeing xbox's potential and want to get their games on it asap. Ports are the way of the future - at least while there are 3 unique consoles. With 2, it would be more feasible in some cases to go exclusive. But with 3, there's much more market share, and much more loss if you don't spread over the competitors.
That's where xbox owners complain - Ports, from PC or PS2, have almost always been lesser quality than many Xbox exclusives. (This is in technical quality - obviously not gameplay/replay value as that's subjective to the player)
And if it's all about the games, and their gameplay value, I'd consider most newer games the bottom of the barrel, for any console. Good games have been released since computer games first began, regardless of platform or time period. But I'm straying off topic now...:)
Well you must be lucky to have a very nice EB for you. Our EB removed their front shelf filled with PC titles, and filled it with Xbox. Our EB is visibly pro-Xbox.
Store displays only show what the owner wants to show, what the owner likes or sees profit in. So don't base winners on what you see shelved in stores.
You could also add in the factor of empty shelf space to who's the winner. How much is being sold? I like going to blockbuster and seeing the 2 section Xbox lineup with 5 or 6 game boxes left to rent, and seeing the 5 section PS2 section with many many more game boxes left to rent. Shelf space isn't as much of a factor as shelf activity.
Broadband support from Xbox: None, and details are unknown (expect something at E3, but the broadband support is suppose be rolled out June 2002.
Broadband support from Sony: Ethernet/Modem kit that allows you to specify how to connect, Linux kit that lets you do just about anything you want (rip/play MP3's, connect to the Internet), Upcoming AOL support (Yes, AOL sucks, but that's still a damn lot of people)
Holy cow are you uninformed. You marked the dvd remote as costing people $20-$30, but didn't mark the PS2 accessories as costing money.
1. Xbox has a built-in ethernet port and card - ie once the online system is active, it's plug and play, and that has always been the plan. Broadband only, so no bottlenecks from slower modem users. Sony's plan wasn't broadband online gaming from the start.
2. Online gaming - Halo, with a workaround, yes is playable online, but it was optimized for LAN, not 'net, so it's slower and not optimized for online. And you don't know of future online games? There are many, the most anticipated of course, being Unreal Championship. Microsoft is not stupid, and they will not begin an online system without massively good online games. PS2 will be rolling out their online system around the same time, but MS has much more experience with online communities and gaming.
If you're a PS2 fan, you could say it's a tie for anything online related. But if you're realistic, Xbox has the lead in this area.
3. Game support. Yes, PS2 may have more better games. And yes, PS2 has more games. Now consider the ratio of games to good games - Xbox comes out on top. When you compare two consoles where the difference is a full year, PS2 obviously will come out on top. You can't compare quantities in relation to time. PS2 has a larger fanbase, PS2 has more games, PS2 generally has a head start. With MS having a handicap of one year, it's doing far better than I personally, would expect. If you want to be objective, compare strating figures of both consoles. Compare the first month, or the first 3 months of the 2 systems. Xbox takes the lead here.
FYI I couldn't care less that Xbox is made by Microsoft. Why do you think they barely advertise their name on their xbox ads? They know the tension and hatred so many have towards them. They want Xbox to succeed without relating it to the infamous software giant as much as possible. Take that as good or bad, I like Xbox because it's a great system, IMHO. Give MS time, and it'll end up just as big as PS2.
All, great systems. PS2, Xbox, Gamecube. Just buy the one that has more games that you like. That's all it's about.
It even got lower trust ratings then Microsoft?? Did there just have to be some form of MS bashing in this?
Sure, to US MS may not be the most trusted, but this person sounded surprised to see that MS didn't get the worst rating... I mean, come on, there is a world out there and most of the general public adore MS or are simply unknowing. I wouldn't have been surprised to see MS being the most trusted (well, that's stretching it). But I think that comment was hitting below the belt, unnecessarily.
Let me try to draw some parallels. We won't argue what true Science is defined as. From a creationist point of view it's Evolution vs Creation and true science is caught in the middle. From a creationist point of view, here's a general parallel:
Ev. - foundation= none Cr. - foundation= bible Ev. - theory= nothing -> big bang -> chaos -> us -> big crunch Cr. - theory= God -> 7 days -> perfection -> us -> chaos Ev. - goal= find evidence to prove a human-born theory Cr. - goal= find evidence to support a believed factual record of history
Basically, evolutionists are working from the bottom up and creationists are working from the top down - proving a theory vs. supporting a believed truth. So yes, the methodology behind evolution science and creation science will be different. But as a previous post mentioned, there are creation scientist quacks and intelligent creation scientists, just as there are also evolution scientist quacks and intelligent evolution scientists.
Intelligent creationists believe in the scientific process, and the observation, exploration and experimentation of observable, testable phenomenon. But when science deals with anything in relation to time (more generally, origins and destinations), it becomes a theory (to differing degrees). ie we can observe how light acts in the immediate time period, but as we've just observed, the possibility of how light acted long ago may have changed, so any theories/facts that deal with light from a historical record (now, pretty much anything we observe in the sky) will have to be treated much more carefully.
Real science would say: "we see light travelling from this star and have calculated it's distance through reliable processes, estimating the light to have been travelling for 5 million years."
Real science would not add: "therefore, 5 million years ago this star was born." and repeat that as fact. It WOULD say: "therefore, we believe this star may have been born 5 million years ago based on our current understanding of the lightwave spectrum and properties."
Real science must distinguish between observed and tested fact, and interpolated theories based on those fact. Creationists would be so much more easy going if this happened, but it doesn't in most cases. So the evolutionist quacks force their evolution beliefs on the public, and the intelligent creationists try to defend the creation foundation. Then the creationist quacks go out and ridicule the evolutionist quacks, including the evolution foundational theory, and force their creationist beliefs on the public, causing the intelligent evolutionists retaliate against the creationist theory. It's an endless circle, and neither foundational theory will EVER be proven as fact until someone empirically disproves either belief (as it is now, only if we eventually figure out how to time travel).
So, ignoring the evolution/creation scientist quacks, intelligent scientists state clearly what they believe vs what they know. Creationist and evolutionist scientists CAN work together, responsibly, if they treat and acknowledge each other's beliefs and their own as theories that can and may be disproven in time, and can accept that.
Science is the strive to prove what you believe, accepting that what you believe may be disproven.
And just in response to some specific statements...
as science has shown that some claims of the Bible are not completely correct
-- correction - some claims of creationists are not completely correct. Just as science forms theories to prove beliefs, creationists form theories to prove the bible. In both cases, if one theory is disproven, the belief isn't just thrown away - it's fought for, it's researched more, and other theories that can prove the belief are found.
-- the bible has not in any way been proven beyond doubt to be incorrect. Theories, however, have changed. People have said that the changing speed of light is a score for creationists - it's not a win, it's just a factor that evolutionists now need to consider in their theories, whereas it doesn't affect the creationist theory at all. This will continue...
-- again, the difference is that evolution has no foundation except a formed theory, so evolutionary theories will undergo many more changes than creationist theories. The foundation for creation, the believed facts, have not been disproven. The focus for both beliefs are different. Evolutionists therefore needs to uphold their theory and prove it, while trying to disprove the creation foundation. Creationists on the other hand, only focus on disproving evolution, as the foundation is believed to be fact, so people aren't focused on proving creation as much as disproving evolution.
So, creation theories - those attempting to disprove evolution - change, just as much as evolution theories - those attempting to prove evolution - change. This is because science, the strive for truth, continues to uncover more properties of our universe, and these properties are applied to mold and update the theories for evolution and creation.
Nutshell:
Evolution -> prove theories, disprove bible
Creation -> support bible, disprove evolution
That was long, and kind of redundant, but I think I get the point across... am I wrong in anything I said?
Curious to know if you got this to work... I installed AIAB and setup lapsuus, but running the program in workbench brings up a black screen... I checked the requirements and Lapsuus needs a 68060 processor (and aga and 16mb mem)... WinUAE afaik only supports up to 68040.
Were you able to get the demo to run? if so, how? and is aga (advanced graphics adapter?) handled by UAE as well?
It seems that a great many actions have been taken in God's name by Christians throuhgout the last few K years that are quite contrary to values us smart people take for granted
What everyone seems to forget is that the 'church' as a whole has changed dramatically since those days. Still, there is a line to be drawn between the Corporate Church, and the church body in general. The Church of the past was extremely self-righteous, self-centered and bigoted. There is plenty of reference in the Bible that many practices of the Church were ungodly and outright wrong. But it does seem as though the tide has turned today.
Mass Christianity (not Catholicism) ie Baptist, Pentecostal, Brethren in Christ, Mennonite Brethren, Missionary, etc are far from being loud and obnoxious. Most Christian denominations are quite humble and quiet, simply trying to spread the gospel, without shoving it down people's throat. I too disagree and hate when people curse and damn all who don't believe - beware the wrath of God! I mean, sure the message may be right, but the means is completely wrong.
So please, try to see the big picture about Christianty, and not group the entire general belief system together with the worst of its believers. The name of true Christianty has been tarnished by the wrongdoings of people in the past. It is a sensitive subject, yes. But as it says, Christians will be persecuted for their beliefs. Am I fighting it? No, it's pointless. But we can do our best to try to open people's eyes to the blatent closed-minded insulting practices of those who simply don't believe in God (well, Jesus). Christians and non-Christians alike both have good people and bad people on their side. There are many nonchristians who are better people than (so called) Christians, and vice versa. This isn't a matter of 'who's better' or whatnot. It's simply a matter of please don't close your eyes to how people are treated, automatically, without full knowledge of where the person stands.
I find it funny how many people in this thread are saying this isn't art... what is art? Is it something you like? If you say something is beautiful does that make it art? If it's ugly or doesn't fit your definition of art, is it not art?
What I've always told people who draw, but technically speaking really aren't that good, is my personal opinion of what art is... many starving artists will tell you there audience isn't the gallery or other people, it's themselves. Art is an expression of one's self. My feeling is that if only one other person in the entire world sees something more than an ugly piece of media, if it touches them in some way, then it's art. And that's even pushing it if the artist likes his own work.
Art doesn't have guidelines or rules. Art galleries have guidelines, so they attract admirers who fit in with the gallery's tastes. That's what they're there for. If someone put up a robotic art gallery, this program would be a masterpiece, and would attract those who consider this a form of art.
Art is the expression of one individual, in any form, as a display of some feeling or event in that person's life - specific or vague, small or enormous... In this case, sure a program, an artificial source made these pieces, but a human made the 'artist' - the art is in the software... the resulting images are obviously spawned from the mind of Aaron's creator - if I had programmed it, those pictures would most likely look extremely different!
The creator of Aaron is the artist, not Aaron 'him'self... and if one person sees beauty in the result of Aaron's programming, or genius in the mind of the programmer, then this truly is art!
So why is Word dominant today? It certainly isn't because Word was a better product
Word is dominant today because it was easy to use for the average consumer, so they gobbled it up and made it dominant. It may not be the best product quality wise, but for the general user, it did everything they needed without problems. On the higher level, the more advanced users may start running into difficulties.
And that's the same with Windows. For the average consumer, for the general user, the majority of the market use it because it's easy to use and it does everything they want it to do. Microsoft didn't make themselves a monopoly single handedly - the consumer, the general mass market gobbled it up and made it a monopoly! SO - Microsoft products - to the advanced, more experienced user - are not necessarily the best products. But to the mass market, generally any regular person, Microsoft has accomplished what no one else has. Whether it was ethical or not, the consumers gobbled it up and wanted it. If it didn't do what they wanted it to do, they wouldn't accept it, and find other alternatives. So for the mass market, it WAS and still IS a good product. You can't say no one can do better or have a better product, because no one has come close. If someone wanted to overthrow Microsoft, they would have to convince the mass market, and maybe even unethically partner with Microsoft only to hitchhike on their compatibility to gain the mass market, until they can jump off and take the mass market with him. To beat Microsoft, you've got to be Microsoft, or use them against themselves, or act and grow in the same manner that they did.
Otherwise, you'll end up like Linux - growing fast, but no where near gaining mass market appeal - general, average users. Because it's not easy for them (when most people still don't know how to open their email program, let alone get connected to the internet), and it Windows has the most appeal. Until Linux can enter a standardized and compatible market with Windows, it will never gain mass market.
If you taunt Microsoft, they will stomp on you. If you befriend them to eventually turn against them, you can stab them in the back. That's just one way of gaining good cometitive ground in the mass market.
Plus, remember that the general consumer doesn't necessarily want a realistic and viable choice in OS's or any software for that matter. They will go to what is easiest and cheapest to use - together. If Linux and Windows had equal market share, it would NOT last long. Unless they were compatible with each other in the same market, people would readily accept one over the other, just so they don't have to worry about compatibility issues. Just like NS / IE. Linux and Windows will always be different, but they have to be compatible enough for most people, and everyone will more readily use the OS more geared to their requirements (eg - server, desktop, terminal, etc).
Linux and Windows NT/2000 probably have a fairly competitive marketplace... so obviously if you add in the desktop Windows 98/2000, Windows will have dominance... because Linux hasn't got the marketplace for average desktop users. And it never will until it (the extremist Linux user bunch) stops the blatant anti-MS, rebellious attitude. If someone likes MS over X, you've got to win them over, not make them sound like an idiot because it's so obvious X is better. Mass market will be insulted and generally not accept a product whose creators appear bigoted against what they like, since it seems unfair. So in a way, 'embrace and extend' - agree (gasp) that Windows/Microsoft have done a good job, and are a good product - because it's the truth, for the general mass market - and give them reasons, applying to them, why X is a better choice... but right now, X does not have the features and quality over Windows that the mass general market requires.
That's the end of the story, sorry if I seemed repetitive:)
When codermotor says "Art is not an endeavor in which one should expect to 'Earn a living'", "expect" is the operative verb. I create art, should I expect to be paid for it? NO, I have to convince others to pay me for it, the way it has always been and the way it is in every other business
But what you're missing is the fact that if you make aproduct that is worth paying for - ie people do want it because it is a good product, thus you can make a living off it, it is your right, then, to 'make a living off it'. But if you find out that you got paid for your first fruit, then someone else handed it around for free giving you nothing in return, how happy would you be? If you knew that that would be paying for your food, paying for your living, and you were getting no compensation, you'd be pretty depressed if not pissed.
Sure, don't expect to be paid, but expect to be paid if people are making good use of the product you are selling! Who are you to say that you can use my product without buying it from me, or compensating to some extent as a 'thank you'? It's the least you could do...
So I don't believe that startving artists who's works are generally adored, should be starving artists. They should see their own popularity, and 'expect' to make a living off it.
At this point it's normally worth reminding people that Leviticus is part of Old Testament Law and that Christians aren't subject to it, it's mostly there for historical reference...
Yes, leviticus was mainly based on the culture of the time, and with the new testament came a new covenant. If your point is that the law about homosexuality was old testament, there are many references to homosexuality in general (not just male/male, but gender unspecific) in the new testament.
But yes, it is frustrating when people don't distinguish between the cultural laws and the laws for humanity in the old testament. And laws that aren't meant as suppressive or opressive, but protective; which people seem to ignore because they tend to tell people not to do what they want to and like to do.
If people want to break OR bend God's laws, that's their choice... but don't blame God for the consequences, in this life or after. That's where people get offended, cuz whenever things go bad, the first person they blame is God, but God already put out that warning...
It's like, don't blame your parents if your hand gets slapped when you steal a cookie from the cookie jar. You were warned. And it doesn't mean your parents love you any less.
Anyway - the point is it prohibits _men_ lying together. No mention of _women_. Nothing
When the bible speak of men in areas like this, it's common sense that it refers to men as everyone - 'man'kind, man, not the masculine of the species. Men is used because human culture tends to put the term men ahead of women as a way to refer to mankind. Just because a sentence says MAN doesn't mean it only refers to men. If it meant only masculine homosexuality, it would have made the destinction between lesbianism and male homosexuality. As it is, it only refers to the generic man, inferring any form of homosexuality in this case. Also because in many other instances referring to this issue, it talks about homosexuality, not man lying with man. So even though this one verse may not specifically say women with women, it is still spoken against in the rest of the bible by referring to homosexuality in general.
What you are basically telling is that "God came to you and told you christianity was the way to go". Well, I obviously can't argue against that (damn!). Still, you have to wonder why an almighty all powerfull God, who (it's in the Bible) want his followers to grow in numbers can't even communicate with something a bit more "multimedia" than a feeling. I like to say that the day a Porshe GTR will appear before my eyes, with Laeticia Casta asking me for marriage inside, I'll gladly convert myself and attend church every sunday:)
You know how much we wish we could just talk and be with God without question? The thing that keeps us apart is the fact that humanity is plagued by a sinful nature, it's the only thing that keeps us from God. And in this world today, the only way to know the truth is through faith. Hebrews 11 is entirely dedicated to things that were done through faith. Faith is the essence of Christianty. Since we physically don't have undoubtable proof of the actual existence of God, our belief in Him is based on faith in Him. It's so hard to stand up to the onslaught of arguments against the bible and God that even though there are answers, we may only have our experience and relationship with God to hold on to. All faith.
Plus, you just basically proved another reason why God doesn't reveal himself to us how we want Him to... personal satisfaction, self-edification, selfish ambition. God does and has revealed Himself to people over the course of history, but only a select few, and even then, not to His full potential. As the saying goes, God works in mysterious ways. You may say, why doesn't God just reveal himself? I say, that's too easy, and He wants us to believe in Him so He'll give us a little bit of Him over time, so that we are challenged to believe in Him and build our faith in Him. The whole point is that it's not out of His ability just to come back to earth and wipe everyone out, because that's all we deserve. As you said, it's unfair to us to be punished for someone else's actions - sure, from a human point of view, none of us has the right to do that. But God has the final say, He created us, so He has the authority to lay a curse on someone and his descendents - He did it to many people in the Bible as punishment, just as He did Adam when he disobeyed God, and unfortunately, that includes all of the rest of humanity. So all we can do now is our best to get our relationship right with God again.
The problem with religion is that, if you take a human, raise him in a non-religious environement, 99% of the time he won't develop any religious feeling of any kind
That is a flawed statement. God can choose when and how He reveals himself to anyone. There are plenty of missionaries and people throughout the world who have come to know God without doubt. And on top of that, missionaries are those who feel called to go and tell people who haven't come to know Him.
Christianity is based on the Bible, and there are many rules in there (at least the 10 commandments).
This is true, but they aren't 'go do this 5 times a day', or 'to get right with god you must maime and paint this animal', or even 'pray this 2 times to be forgiven'... You can look at the 10 commandments as laws or rules to live on, but you'll live a life of feeling sat on and repressed because you don't have the freedom you want. OR you could look at them as obvious guidelines for living a safe, happy, comfortable life with everyone else around you. You shouldn't have to follow those rules, you should just want to, because they make sense. That is the difference. If you're a true Christian, you're not bound by laws and regulations, but morals and ethical principles. It's a desire of the heart, not a commitment of the mind.
As to not being a corporation, it's true, but 99% of christians are following an organisation of some sort. Like most religious people, christians organise themselves into groups. Of course there'll always be "rogue believers" who don't want to join a group, but they are a very tiny minority
Sure, your point? Even outside of religion, people gather with others of the same convictions, beliefs, standards... that's culture, that's government, that's friends... and these 'groups' of Christians, denominations, still don't have laws or regulations in order to be a part or 'member' of the denomination. If you don't like it, go to one you do... it doesn't make you any more or less of Christian, as long as you still believe the foundational truths of God and Jesus. And that's not a rule, that's just the definition of a Christian.
I see your point - but then, Nazis also qualify to this description, and that doesn't make them nice people or even tolerable people.
Yes, but Nazi's were entirely motivated of selfish greed and pride, not on Godly an biblical principles. That's one reason why people don't want to believe in God. The government idea of a king in charge, ruling over a kingdom seems unfair and unjust to us now. Just because no system is entirely still in place and widely accepted as free, because those leaders always, in some way, directly or indirectly, fell to some form of treachery. God's kingdom will never fall to treachery or greed or selfishness, because God is only love. Humanity, being sinful by nature, always has people battling authority for their freedom, always questioning authority and others' motives... if we know God, we'll never question Him. He treats His kingdom with love and discipline and justice... the only kingdom that doesn't fall is God's because all others were ruled by man, so the system was corrupt. The few kingdom in the bible that God was a part of and made known to the kings that He had full control, are the ones that lasted until some stupid self motivated person corrupted the chain.
Hitler was a wise man, his government system was amazing in concept and it worked. But he was motivated by lust for power, self-centered, bigotted greed. It goes to show what power is capable of if it's in the wrong hands. Christianity, God-centered Christianty, is the complete opposite. It's strive is to be humble, but through that it's spread like wildfire through the world, and is the most hated faith. Funny how the bible predicts all of that.
Well 2 large religions explicitly forbid eating pork, yet I can lots of pork and still be alive.
Yeah. But is that a harm to humanity as a whole? That's what I talked about before, religious rules are different from morals and guidelines for humanity that you just want to follow.
As religious rules go, most of them are so old they are outdated, and they most of the time go against common sense. And you follow all of this because of a feeling ?
Yeah, most are old and outdated. So how come the 10 commandments are what America was founded on? Because they are still common sense today. Those are the only ten commandments God put in place to stand over time. All the others (old testament) were cultural rules, put in place because Jesus had not yet come to remove those requirements. New testament commandments are still common sense. Where Jesus spoke, if the things he said are understood to be geared towards the culture at the time, applied to today's culture, they are still common sense, if you view common sense as for the good of everyone, not just yourself.
And I follow all of this, as you say, not just because of a feeling, but because it's an experience. Once you know God is there and you've got a relationship, it's not just a feeling; you just know that it's true. I don't just think the Bible is truth because it feels like it is. I follow the Bible because I know God exists, and it only makes sense to because out of love, God gave us the bible to help us... it's like the Oracle in the Matrix:) It's been there since the beginning (of our modern timeline) and it's a guide. It doesn't have all the answers, but it forces you to delve deeper and find them, and you'll only get them if you open the door yourself, if you enter with an open heart and mind, wanting to learn more, not just to test it or try to disprove it.
Well I think most religions are very offensive, because if they are not then they die out of lack of believers
Not offensive as in it just insults you, but offensive as in not defensive. Christianity is an outward faith. You don't close yourself off and live your religion at home to save yourself from whatever the big ending is. Christianity is offensive because at the heart, you're called to go out and save others. It's not about saving yourself, because you know it once you're saved, it's not a matter of works, but of love. Knowing what you've got and what is freely given, it seems a tragedy that so many people just don't know. So Christianity is striving to show the truth to the world because the world is just in such a bad place right now.
And it's just logic : if you have the truth, then others are wrong, and who wouldn't fight to make the truth win
Only if that truth affects everyone else. Most religions are about what to do to end up in heaven, and it's an endless struggle, and endless discipline to earn it. Christianity isn't about something that can be earned. Christianity is unique. Most people who try to enforce their belief system and rules are in it out of pride and stubbornness; even I struggle with that sometimes, just because I want to be known as right. And so many people push it so far as to oppression. Christianity's name is tarnished by those who abused its power in the past, namely the corporate church, old roman catholicism... today's Christianity is no longer a corporate undertaking, it's a personal strive to outreach.
Iran is founded on Muslim beliefs and its enforced. The US if founded on Christan beliefs, but is no longer looked upon as so. The 'freedom' everyone wants is to have their own way - but that CAN and WILL only lead to chaos and disaster. Christianity is far from free in the US. Too many people are still ridiculed and persecuted because of their faith. Christianity has no 'home' so to speak... the world is covered with striving and struggling Christians. And the strongest Christians are those who are oppressed. China's underground Christianity is spreading like wildfire... missionaries in Africa, Asia, South America, Mexico, are all dedicated to founding new homes and sources for people to come to God... they're not moving to another country to be comfortable there; on the contrary, many Christian missionaries move to other countries to be uncomfortable - because it's not about them, but about the people they want to reach and help.
Hrrr, that's the half of the story I don't accept
Well if you don't accept it, then there's no point debating. But, that's doesn't mean it's not true. We'll find out soon enough:)
There are marriage in every human culture, including animist and atheist, so obviously God is not required to love and marry someone.
God created the world, it doesn't require God for us to make any decisions. The sun is a gift from God, but we don't see Him make it rise in the morning... the rainbow was a gift from God, but we don't see Him paint it after every storm... God created marriage as a symbol for humans to commit their lives unquestionably to each other, but we don't see Him at the ceremony... that symbol can be and has been warped by humanity and our own wants and desires. That's why it's even being questioned as required, because so many people just want to be with someone without the hassle or 'burden' of marriage... you can take God out of the equation, but that doesn't change the fact that it was given by God.
I'm not guilty for something I haven't done ! Therefor, I'm not responsible for my parents mistakes, for Adam and Eve mistakes, or even for the thing I thought about and didn't do in the end.
That's why we look at it as unfiar, but Adam and Eve should have thought about that before they disobeyed... they were punished and had to live (for a very long time) with the fact their offspring and future generations would have to live with their failing. And just as God can punish future generations, He can reward them. Because of certain people in the Bible, their tribes and kingdoms flourished for a time. Their offspring reaped the benefits of their forefathers' actions. And so can their offspring reap the consequences of their forefathers' actions. Only God has the authority to do that. So all we can do is our best to right our relationship with God. If we turn our back on Him, we're just as guilty as Adam. And we're mostly there now, only because God felt so much for humanity that he sent His Son to pay the penalty (as in the old testament of blood sacrifices for atonement) so we wouldn't have to today, thus the new covenent and testament. If Jesus hadn't died and rose, the world would be a much different place...
Trying to make me guilty of others mistake is utterly evil
We're not guilty of another's mistake. We are paying the consequence for their decision, there's a difference. And because of His decision, we're trapped in a sinful nature (which BTW wasn't a punishment from God, it was what Adam received from the object of his disobedience - death was the punishment). So we're stuck in a rut. We're now inherently given what Adam and Eve wanted for themselves (being deceived), and are bound by physical death as punishment.
To put it in modern terms:) Christianity is the strive of people who know they've been saved by faith because they've experienced God and His work in their lives (even some of the smartest and wisest people on earth), to show people what is available if only they'd ask, and the truth and meaning of our existence, and how easy it is to know God. It's not about making our physical lives better - in most cases it only gets worse because Christianity is pounded by temptation and persecution - but about making the best of our physical lives by spreading this message while here on earth so that our lives in heaven will be that much more amazing, and hatred for evil, that it would lose the battle for the downfall of humanity.
Can you imagine how God feels when someone takes the bible at face value and only follows certain life guidelines by their own choice, but completely ignores the fact that it was a gift from God?
--
Very similar to how the tooth fairy must feel when people just throw old teeth away
Or how God feels when He's compared to the tooth fairy...
You make a good point there, except for one thing. The Bible is always right because God wrote it. And you know God wrote it because that's what the Bible says, and the Bible is always right. If you are not one of those engaged into circular logic, then why do you think the Bible is the word of God ? Why isn't "Harry Potter" or "Dune" the real word of God then ? Whichever way you take it, at one point or another, you are basing all your life and moral on something that is quite baseless. Either way "someone said so" or "someone wrote so", but unless God himself came to you and told you the Bible was the one true book, you are only believing what other humans told you (priest, familly, tele-evangelist, whatever).
You've got most of it right there at the end. We don't believe in God because the Bible says so, so we believe the Bible is correct because God says it is... the thing about God is that once you experience Him, you know the truth. It's like explaining love - you can't prove to someone that you love someone, no matter what you do, it's just words or expression and there can always be selfish motives. You can never truly believe God exists until you've experienced Him and believe He does. So from this point on, there's nothing I can do to make you believe that God exists, because I just know He does, and whatever I tell you could be interpreted as having any kind of other motive. I believe the Bible is correct because I believe God exists. Because I believe God exists, through faith I believe the Bible is correct; therefore I can use the Bible as a guideline for living the life I have, by faith knowing that it is true and God exists. The only way to make that argument stand is by knowing in your heart that God exists, otherwise, it falls apart because it ends up in circular logic.
Now why any sensed and healthy human would adhere to one of this group is beyond me
There are a few reasons... one, they were brought up to believe it, following rules and laws that were put in place by a person who took control. Two, they have no choice to believe it, usually because of persecution or fear of death because it's enforced. Three, they like certain aspects of a belief so they decide to follow it without getting involved in it (like people who use the bible for good morals but don't believe in God). Four, they know from experience and from a personal connection with the truth.
The problem is, #4 is only way to know what religion is true, and there can be only one true religion if any is true, as long as each religion has any contradiction between each other. The thing people still don't seem to understand is that Christianity (today at least) isn't a corporation, it doesn't have rules or restrictions you have to follow on a daily basis (ala religion). I'm sure you've heard it before, it's a relationship, not a religion. The difference is that in a religion, you have a responsibility to do things in order to earn the title of being a 'member' of that religion. Christianity is said to be a relationship because really, it has nothing to do with everyone else. It's you and God, He revealed himself to you, so you know beyond doubt what the truth is. Outside, you see rules and biblical dogmas and doctrines that are highly restricting. But from the inside, that's the freedom - you know why those 'rules' are there. They're not there to hinder or restrict, but to help and protect. And knowing that, it's not that you HAVE to obey them, but you simply just want to, for your own safety, the safety of friends, loved ones, the world... it's a personal decision to follow and make a committment to what you know and have experienced as the truth.
Now the problem with is, is just that - the Bible is all we have physically as a guide to God. After that, it's a personal level, so we have all these denominations - people who interpret beyond the bible based on their personal views of God, but they're all (mostly) still based on the same fundamental truth of God's existence, and Jesus life & death & resurrection. At the same time, there are those 'Christians' who twist their beliefs and end up being negative influences, power hungry, self-indulgent pricks who tarnish the 'Christian' name. Which is why the bible specifically says that Christians will be the most persecuted faith, and all we have to hang on to is Him, because He is the only truth we've experienced. And once you know the truth, it clings to you no matter how hard to try to get rid of it.
There are two people that have to do with 'forcing' morals on the world - those who are uncaring and self-righteous, trying to dictate christian morals and laws to the masses without regard to the individual, without the love of God. Then there are those who are misunderstood, simply because what we know as truth cannot be understood without being offended, without feeling restricted and hindered. And the more we try to help people, the more people get offended, and are looked upon as self-righteous, bigoted, know-it-all biblethumpers. And it's just because so many people have not experienced God.
Christians are so looked down on because it's an offensive faith. Most other religions now are becoming tolerant of other religions - you can believe what you want to believe, as long as I can believe what I want to, so that we can live peacefully. The only problem with that is that the fundamental foundation of Christianity is that we go out and spread the word. Nothing is about ourselves, it's about giving everything we have and are, not because we have to but because we want to. And it can't be accepted by anyone without breaking yourself, without punching through any pride - known or not - and self-worth, basically without being offended. So it's turned down and shunned before it can make an impact, and ridiculed and tortured and hated because it's 'closed-minded'. That's also why the line is used about 'where is the freedom of religion if Christianity is still suppressed?' Just because Christianity is unique, and unfortunately (but inherently and prophetically) against all other religions that do not teach about God and Jesus' life and death and resurrection.
I'd agree with that - but then we are not talking about people who cheat on someone physically, but online : no physical contact, usually not even an image or a sound of the other person. Now some people are deeply hurted by the mere knowing that their partner can imagine, for a second, kissing someone else. Some are comfortable with their partners sleeping outside or even having short term affairs. Cheating is not defined by religion or moral, it's defined by the moral contract you have with your partner.
I'll agree with that too. But again, half the story. A marriage is a joining, given by God, of a man and woman, becoming one. So yes, even though they may both be perfectly ok with the acts of their spouse, on another level, they're breaking and tearing apart the committment they made to each other which is the inherent meaning behind being married. With God out of the equation, marriage becomes something only personal to the two engaged. But God is in the picture, and the vows have deeper meaning, the act of getting married is a recognition of God's gift of marriage, whether you believe it or not. And by physical lust or mental, you commit adultery which is against the bond of marriage. Matt 5:28 - "Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." It's not just the physical act, it's anything which degrades from your emotional, spiritual, mental and physical commitment to your bond with your spouse.
Religion should be kept outside the bedroom !
In a way, I agree:) All those 'rules' about marriage and pre-marriage are no more once you get married - to the point of honoring your commitment of marriage to the person... ie you two can do whatever you want with each other. And hopefully if you're a Christian you'll know where to draw the line anyway.
Jesus (Yeshua if you prefer) was speaking to the Hebrews and as such had to speak to the MASSES in a way that they could accept and understand, so he spoke to them about a god in the sky (like the Jehova/Yahweh "God of the Mountain" that they already worshiped) but also spoke to them of loving their neighbor as themselves. It's not a two-part rule, it's the same rule twice, just in a way that an unenlightened individual can understand. Let me translate for you:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Your neighbor and yourself have one big thing in common... SELF
Let me translate for you:
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Yes, it's not one rule (two halves), but two rules - and not the same rule twice. Distinctly told as two rules, and of course, the first is the greatest. The second, being 'like' it, means that you love with the same love as you show the Lord, and if so, you love your neightbor with godly love as well as yourself. But the Lord is still the greatest of these. If we were God, the first commandment would say to love yourself as Lord...
GOD is infinite. Which is to say, anything that exists falls within GOD because there's no other way it can be. If you say GOD is over there and the universe is over here, then GOD isn't infinite. Infinity only allows ONE. If you have infinite this over here and infinite that over there... there is no infinity
God is infinite, as in we cannot comprehend his existence. God is everywhere and in everything; that's not the same as saying God IS everything - God is not the tree, God is not a computer monitor... you can say God is over there because he IS over there, he's everywhere... I would say the universe is over there - it's not an exclusive statement. If I said the universe is not here, there would be a problem. But God is over there, and the universe is over there...
When you love GOD with all your heart, soul, strength and mind, you don't have any room for hate, greed, jealousy, anger. When you love your neighbor as yourself, you are showing that you recognise that GOD exists as the "observer" in each of us. That no human (no matter their status, intelligence or weakness) is lesser than any other, because all are merely reflections of one and the same thing.
For the first half, I agree. If we love God with all our hert, soul, strength and mind, we don't have room for the others... so if we have the others, do we really love God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind? If we did, would we not be perfect? As it is, we're inherently flawed now because of sinful nature. Our strive, our goal is to constantly, wholeheartedly pursue these commandments. But as long as we are bound by sinful nature, we can never truly achieve this. That's why Jesus had to exist, because nothing we can do can save us because we can't live up to God's laws. So because of Jesus, we have salvation through him, but only if you believe it, which is precisely the basis for Christian belief.
PS God is I AM (that which exists). And God said it, not us.
However, given that it's possible to live the second half without living by the rules in the Bible, it's possible to live by some rules in the Bible without living by the whole thing (you said so yourself), and therefore the intention of the post you replied to is proven - just because it's in the Bible, doesn't mean it's wrong. *That* is the attitude that I was fighting against
The only problem I find with that though, is it's like painting a beautiful landscape, and signing the corner of the painting. You give it to someone you love, and they are amazed by the artistic quality. Then they come along with a little scraper and scratch off your signature or paint over it, because it detracts from the painting as a whole.
Can you imagine how God feels when someone takes the bible at face value and only follows certain life guidelines by their own choice, but completely ignores the fact that it was a gift from God?
Just an idea, something to think about, to take however you will.
If they have done so, then they can probably come up with a better explanation than "because the Bible say so". Obviously if their only argument is that "the Bible say so", then they haven't even started thinking about it and decided to let the book think for themselves.
As a Christian, I can say that people either misunderstand or send the right message about "because the Bible says so". Obviously anyone who says 'just because' has some problems. Christians believe that Bible is inherently true because we believe it was written by God. We don't believe it 'just because', we believe it because we believe it was divinely inspired.
It's like one poster who mentioned how people take the 'do unto others' verse, without looking at the first half which it was meant to be joined with, but cut out because it had to do with God. If you think Christian believe the bible just becuase, well, you're right, except you're missing the other half; that we believe it without question because it was written by someone who really knows everything, but people seem to leave that half out.
Beside, thinking is an independant process : you can't control your thoughts. They can show you nice or torrible things, they can lead you to very immoral or weirds concepts. That's the beauty of thinking, that's where creativity and humanity lives. I don't know any human who never though of cheating, beating or killing someone at a point of his life. Does that makes all of us cheaters, killers ? No, that makes us human with a free-will.
Ah, no you have to distinguish between thoughts and dwelling on thoughts... similarly, temptations exist, and anyone who believe thinking temptations are their own fault is going to live a very stressful life. Thoughts are what enter your mind - it's then your choice what you do with them. If you dwell on them, then there's a problem - it means you're willingly continuing to think on them. If a thought enters your mind and right away you dismiss it because it's just wrong, that's a good move. Creativity and humanity lives in our ability to make that choice and distinction. That's why it's a common and safe assumption for people to say - 'I know many if not all of you have thought about committing suicide'. Well sure, whoever when in a desperate situation has not thought about extremes solutions? But how many have gone through with it?
Anyone can tell you that getting married doesn't make life easier. Temptation and lust even get worse once you're married. Does that mean you're a bad person for having those thoughts? No, cuz it's natural, it's a part of our humanity now. But those who keep thinking about it, or do something about it, are the people who need the help. It's just like anger - anger isn't wrong or bad, it's how you handle and react to your anger.
It just bugs me when people ridicule Christians for accepting the Bible just because it's the Bible, without knowing the other half of the story...
Music can induce us into a frenzied, less safe state for driving. Alcohol can lead us into abuse. Cocain can destroy our brain. Depictions of immoral sexuality can "whet" our desire and bring us to action.. These are all truths. (If you have value in the teachings of Christianity, (even from a non-christian point of view) the response was to pluck our your eye if it causes you to consider bad deeds). The responsibility is in the individual, and not for the society to simply remove every possible temptation.
An over-weight person that removes all food-temptation will explode and splurge when given the opportunity. Those people that allow temptations to be at hand at least have the opportunity to moderate their discipline, and make life bearable
Then it becomes a matter of self-health and upkeep. In which case medicine has this thing called 'prescriptions' and 'notes from a doctor'. On that understanding, if the cure isn't to remove the temptation but to tempt moderately, then shouldn't there be some form of pornogrphy doctor that could regulate how much child porn a pedophile could be exposed to in order that their desires don't explode from lack of attention? That seems the best course of action without making virtual porn illegal due to freedom of speech.
Using eating disorders as an example is not the best decision. For one, not eating or eating too much only directly affects the individual. Child porn (virtual or real) has an adverse effect on the addict (short and/or long term) and eventually grows to such a desire that may directly hurt another person or more.
Ok, so 3 choices - child porn is illegal. Keep virtual child porn legal - people turn to that, and the hard core phreaks find ways to make virtual porn as real as possible, eliminating a recognizable difference between real life and virtual. Virtual porn eventually becomes a replacement for real and the effect is just the same and damaging, if not worse because of the freedom. But hey, freedom of speech.
2) Virtual child porn is regulated and prescribed for those addicts who would 'explode' without regular exposure to otherwise real child porn. Black market kicks in and it's out there anyway. It's not as illegal as real child porn so it still runs rampant because it's more accessible and less risky than real child porn. See point 1.
3) Virtual child porn is rendered illegal, just as real child porn. Black market kicks in, has the same effect as real child porn. Just not to the degree as any form of free child porn. Freedom of speech, as you put it being related to culture and personal morals, would be regulated by the local government - precisely the point of the local government, to protect to local majority. If you don't like it move. If you want free child porn, go to a neutral country that doesn't care. Majority here says what morals are right and wrong. Why is murder illegal? Because majority in our culture believe it is, so it's regulated by the government.
The issue here isn't whether or not a 'child was hurt in the making of this porn' or if 'fingers were cramped during the design of this video' - the issue is the effect child pornography has on the pedophile/pornographer - real OR virtual. In either sense, it will end up as real if not moreso.
If, on the rare chance, virtual porn ends up being more real than real life, and there are no instances where the viewer would turn to real life because it's too restricting, well hey, he's in his own world then, no? But until that point, child pornography still has a negative effect over time on the viewer/addict, and for the safety of our 'local' society which government has been set to protect, it should be treated as equal as any other law the government sets in place to protect the majority - we elect them to protect us and ideally, majority dictates what the government regulates.
If you've seen the movie Contact, it's entirely possible to encode details information into a signal that can first be interpreted as a simple artificial signal. If they're smart (or lucky) they'll figure out that there's more to the information that just recognizable tones and beeps. I'm not sure if we as humans are intelligent enough to encode a signal as complex as the one in Contact, but hey, we created the movie and that signal was part of the story:) so maybe if writers can hack together an interplanetary greeting along with scientific intelligence, maybe SETI can too:)
By those rules a student should double check every assignment the teacher assigns
No, with your examples, they were withint the scope and authority of the teacher. As a science teacher, they have the ability to hand out assignments related to, and affecting only that class, unless the've been given authority from another source... this 'hack' assignment included private school systems that the computer teacher had no control or authority over. In this case, including the fact the teacher didn't give a due date, a point value, and other common association with a real assignment, it should have been common sense to make sure the teacher knew it was being done.
Yes, there were no outright signs that it was not a real test, and I'm not saying the teacher is not at fault. I'm just saying that the student's punishment I believe was just... the school had every right to suspend a student for compromising the system's integrity - under good intensions or not - without permission. The teacher should be taken care of for giving a joke that could have been taken seriously, even speaking for a third party who was not involved and lied about. But I don't believe the student was completely without fault in this case, because if his intentions were good, it would make no difference if the teacher were 'surprised' - or more importantly, the school (if the teacher would be, don't you think the school would be even moreso?) hence I would expect some kind of reaction from the school, especially if the teacher who gave out the assignment didn't know... so knowledge isn't the issue. it's common sense - and yes, not everyone has what's considered 'common sense'. But if the world catered to everyone who didn't meet 'normal' or 'common' standards (in an extreme sense), we'd be much worse off. That's why we have a justice system, and 'punish' is in our vocabulary. It's consequences, and teaching from errors that make our society grow and learn.
Slashdot Mirror
The fans' opinion does not matter. If you are truly concerned with artists making good films, then quit expecting them to cater to your every whim. It is not your film. Even if you have every single Star Wars figure, book, bedspread, drinking glass, etc., you still have no say in what an artist puts into his art. You don't hear art collectors saying "I like Starry Night, but I wish Van Gogh had put some more red in it. He owed it to us to paint a picture that we'd like."
Huh... remarkably similar to this free music debate going on... I'm not stating an opinion, just opening up a can of worms here. Think about this...
...It is not your music. Even if you have every single album, poster, concert ticket, t-shirt, etc., you still have no say in what an musician puts into his music. You don't hear radio stations saying "I like Beethoven's 5th, but I wish he had put some more drums in it. He owed it to us to write a song that we'd like." If you don't like how the music sounds, how the song is written, or what price you have to pay then don't buy his album (or find a cheaper place). No one is forcing you.
Ok that strayed a little, but the parallel has to do simply with the fact that people seem to think that once music is released, it becomes their own personal property when they buy an album (under copyrights) and can do whatever they want with it. If the artist has chosen to be under the copyrights the albums are released with, respect that. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Maybe that will change the artist's mind once revenues stop coming in. If an artists decides to give his music away without copyright, sure, go ahead and take advantage of it! Some bands have started doing that, earning more from tours instead of mainly album sales.
Don't go bitching about how RIAA or DMCA is stealing money or is this massive conspiracy against freedom and all that... the artists under those agreements have chosen to remain there; they don't have to. Convince the artist to change, not go to war with their parent association.
</rant>
:)
...Virtua Fighter 4... So basically what I'm saying is that if somebody uses DOA3 to promote X-box superiority, sorry but Sega did a better game than that, and it's ps2 exlusive
:)
That may be true, but VF4 isn't PS2 exclusive - it's being ported to xbox, with a new character and some new environments. Xbox may be a port-hog, but that's because developers want to get their games sold, and more sales is more money. Developers are seeing xbox's potential and want to get their games on it asap. Ports are the way of the future - at least while there are 3 unique consoles. With 2, it would be more feasible in some cases to go exclusive. But with 3, there's much more market share, and much more loss if you don't spread over the competitors.
That's where xbox owners complain - Ports, from PC or PS2, have almost always been lesser quality than many Xbox exclusives. (This is in technical quality - obviously not gameplay/replay value as that's subjective to the player)
And if it's all about the games, and their gameplay value, I'd consider most newer games the bottom of the barrel, for any console. Good games have been released since computer games first began, regardless of platform or time period. But I'm straying off topic now...
Well you must be lucky to have a very nice EB for you. Our EB removed their front shelf filled with PC titles, and filled it with Xbox. Our EB is visibly pro-Xbox.
Store displays only show what the owner wants to show, what the owner likes or sees profit in. So don't base winners on what you see shelved in stores.
You could also add in the factor of empty shelf space to who's the winner. How much is being sold? I like going to blockbuster and seeing the 2 section Xbox lineup with 5 or 6 game boxes left to rent, and seeing the 5 section PS2 section with many many more game boxes left to rent. Shelf space isn't as much of a factor as shelf activity.
Broadband support from Xbox:
None, and details are unknown (expect something at E3, but the broadband support is suppose be rolled out June 2002.
Broadband support from Sony:
Ethernet/Modem kit that allows you to specify how to connect, Linux kit that lets you do just about anything you want (rip/play MP3's, connect to the Internet), Upcoming AOL support (Yes, AOL sucks, but that's still a damn lot of people)
Holy cow are you uninformed. You marked the dvd remote as costing people $20-$30, but didn't mark the PS2 accessories as costing money.
1. Xbox has a built-in ethernet port and card - ie once the online system is active, it's plug and play, and that has always been the plan. Broadband only, so no bottlenecks from slower modem users. Sony's plan wasn't broadband online gaming from the start.
2. Online gaming - Halo, with a workaround, yes is playable online, but it was optimized for LAN, not 'net, so it's slower and not optimized for online. And you don't know of future online games? There are many, the most anticipated of course, being Unreal Championship. Microsoft is not stupid, and they will not begin an online system without massively good online games. PS2 will be rolling out their online system around the same time, but MS has much more experience with online communities and gaming.
If you're a PS2 fan, you could say it's a tie for anything online related. But if you're realistic, Xbox has the lead in this area.
3. Game support. Yes, PS2 may have more better games. And yes, PS2 has more games. Now consider the ratio of games to good games - Xbox comes out on top. When you compare two consoles where the difference is a full year, PS2 obviously will come out on top. You can't compare quantities in relation to time. PS2 has a larger fanbase, PS2 has more games, PS2 generally has a head start. With MS having a handicap of one year, it's doing far better than I personally, would expect. If you want to be objective, compare strating figures of both consoles. Compare the first month, or the first 3 months of the 2 systems. Xbox takes the lead here.
FYI I couldn't care less that Xbox is made by Microsoft. Why do you think they barely advertise their name on their xbox ads? They know the tension and hatred so many have towards them. They want Xbox to succeed without relating it to the infamous software giant as much as possible. Take that as good or bad, I like Xbox because it's a great system, IMHO. Give MS time, and it'll end up just as big as PS2.
All, great systems. PS2, Xbox, Gamecube. Just buy the one that has more games that you like. That's all it's about.
It even got lower trust ratings then Microsoft?? Did there just have to be some form of MS bashing in this?
Sure, to US MS may not be the most trusted, but this person sounded surprised to see that MS didn't get the worst rating... I mean, come on, there is a world out there and most of the general public adore MS or are simply unknowing. I wouldn't have been surprised to see MS being the most trusted (well, that's stretching it). But I think that comment was hitting below the belt, unnecessarily.
Boo to Mister Furious.
hm. Interesting.
Let me try to draw some parallels. We won't argue what true Science is defined as. From a creationist point of view it's Evolution vs Creation and true science is caught in the middle. From a creationist point of view, here's a general parallel:
Ev. - foundation= none
Cr. - foundation= bible
Ev. - theory= nothing -> big bang -> chaos -> us -> big crunch
Cr. - theory= God -> 7 days -> perfection -> us -> chaos
Ev. - goal= find evidence to prove a human-born theory
Cr. - goal= find evidence to support a believed factual record of history
Basically, evolutionists are working from the bottom up and creationists are working from the top down - proving a theory vs. supporting a believed truth. So yes, the methodology behind evolution science and creation science will be different. But as a previous post mentioned, there are creation scientist quacks and intelligent creation scientists, just as there are also evolution scientist quacks and intelligent evolution scientists.
Intelligent creationists believe in the scientific process, and the observation, exploration and experimentation of observable, testable phenomenon. But when science deals with anything in relation to time (more generally, origins and destinations), it becomes a theory (to differing degrees). ie we can observe how light acts in the immediate time period, but as we've just observed, the possibility of how light acted long ago may have changed, so any theories/facts that deal with light from a historical record (now, pretty much anything we observe in the sky) will have to be treated much more carefully.
Real science would say: "we see light travelling from this star and have calculated it's distance through reliable processes, estimating the light to have been travelling for 5 million years."
Real science would not add: "therefore, 5 million years ago this star was born." and repeat that as fact. It WOULD say: "therefore, we believe this star may have been born 5 million years ago based on our current understanding of the lightwave spectrum and properties."
Real science must distinguish between observed and tested fact, and interpolated theories based on those fact. Creationists would be so much more easy going if this happened, but it doesn't in most cases. So the evolutionist quacks force their evolution beliefs on the public, and the intelligent creationists try to defend the creation foundation. Then the creationist quacks go out and ridicule the evolutionist quacks, including the evolution foundational theory, and force their creationist beliefs on the public, causing the intelligent evolutionists retaliate against the creationist theory. It's an endless circle, and neither foundational theory will EVER be proven as fact until someone empirically disproves either belief (as it is now, only if we eventually figure out how to time travel).
So, ignoring the evolution/creation scientist quacks, intelligent scientists state clearly what they believe vs what they know. Creationist and evolutionist scientists CAN work together, responsibly, if they treat and acknowledge each other's beliefs and their own as theories that can and may be disproven in time, and can accept that.
Science is the strive to prove what you believe, accepting that what you believe may be disproven.
And just in response to some specific statements...
as science has shown that some claims of the Bible are not completely correct
-- correction - some claims of creationists are not completely correct. Just as science forms theories to prove beliefs, creationists form theories to prove the bible. In both cases, if one theory is disproven, the belief isn't just thrown away - it's fought for, it's researched more, and other theories that can prove the belief are found.
-- the bible has not in any way been proven beyond doubt to be incorrect. Theories, however, have changed. People have said that the changing speed of light is a score for creationists - it's not a win, it's just a factor that evolutionists now need to consider in their theories, whereas it doesn't affect the creationist theory at all. This will continue...
-- again, the difference is that evolution has no foundation except a formed theory, so evolutionary theories will undergo many more changes than creationist theories. The foundation for creation, the believed facts, have not been disproven. The focus for both beliefs are different. Evolutionists therefore needs to uphold their theory and prove it, while trying to disprove the creation foundation. Creationists on the other hand, only focus on disproving evolution, as the foundation is believed to be fact, so people aren't focused on proving creation as much as disproving evolution.
So, creation theories - those attempting to disprove evolution - change, just as much as evolution theories - those attempting to prove evolution - change. This is because science, the strive for truth, continues to uncover more properties of our universe, and these properties are applied to mold and update the theories for evolution and creation.
Nutshell:
Evolution -> prove theories, disprove bible
Creation -> support bible, disprove evolution
That was long, and kind of redundant, but I think I get the point across... am I wrong in anything I said?
Curious to know if you got this to work... I installed AIAB and setup lapsuus, but running the program in workbench brings up a black screen... I checked the requirements and Lapsuus needs a 68060 processor (and aga and 16mb mem)... WinUAE afaik only supports up to 68040. Were you able to get the demo to run? if so, how? and is aga (advanced graphics adapter?) handled by UAE as well?
It seems that a great many actions have been taken in God's name by Christians throuhgout the last few K years that are quite contrary to values us smart people take for granted
What everyone seems to forget is that the 'church' as a whole has changed dramatically since those days. Still, there is a line to be drawn between the Corporate Church, and the church body in general. The Church of the past was extremely self-righteous, self-centered and bigoted. There is plenty of reference in the Bible that many practices of the Church were ungodly and outright wrong. But it does seem as though the tide has turned today.
Mass Christianity (not Catholicism) ie Baptist, Pentecostal, Brethren in Christ, Mennonite Brethren, Missionary, etc are far from being loud and obnoxious. Most Christian denominations are quite humble and quiet, simply trying to spread the gospel, without shoving it down people's throat. I too disagree and hate when people curse and damn all who don't believe - beware the wrath of God! I mean, sure the message may be right, but the means is completely wrong.
So please, try to see the big picture about Christianty, and not group the entire general belief system together with the worst of its believers. The name of true Christianty has been tarnished by the wrongdoings of people in the past. It is a sensitive subject, yes. But as it says, Christians will be persecuted for their beliefs. Am I fighting it? No, it's pointless. But we can do our best to try to open people's eyes to the blatent closed-minded insulting practices of those who simply don't believe in God (well, Jesus). Christians and non-Christians alike both have good people and bad people on their side. There are many nonchristians who are better people than (so called) Christians, and vice versa. This isn't a matter of 'who's better' or whatnot. It's simply a matter of please don't close your eyes to how people are treated, automatically, without full knowledge of where the person stands.
I find it funny how many people in this thread are saying this isn't art... what is art? Is it something you like? If you say something is beautiful does that make it art? If it's ugly or doesn't fit your definition of art, is it not art?
What I've always told people who draw, but technically speaking really aren't that good, is my personal opinion of what art is... many starving artists will tell you there audience isn't the gallery or other people, it's themselves. Art is an expression of one's self. My feeling is that if only one other person in the entire world sees something more than an ugly piece of media, if it touches them in some way, then it's art. And that's even pushing it if the artist likes his own work.
Art doesn't have guidelines or rules. Art galleries have guidelines, so they attract admirers who fit in with the gallery's tastes. That's what they're there for. If someone put up a robotic art gallery, this program would be a masterpiece, and would attract those who consider this a form of art.
Art is the expression of one individual, in any form, as a display of some feeling or event in that person's life - specific or vague, small or enormous... In this case, sure a program, an artificial source made these pieces, but a human made the 'artist' - the art is in the software... the resulting images are obviously spawned from the mind of Aaron's creator - if I had programmed it, those pictures would most likely look extremely different!
The creator of Aaron is the artist, not Aaron 'him'self... and if one person sees beauty in the result of Aaron's programming, or genius in the mind of the programmer, then this truly is art!
So why is Word dominant today? It certainly isn't because Word was a better product
:)
Word is dominant today because it was easy to use for the average consumer, so they gobbled it up and made it dominant. It may not be the best product quality wise, but for the general user, it did everything they needed without problems. On the higher level, the more advanced users may start running into difficulties.
And that's the same with Windows. For the average consumer, for the general user, the majority of the market use it because it's easy to use and it does everything they want it to do. Microsoft didn't make themselves a monopoly single handedly - the consumer, the general mass market gobbled it up and made it a monopoly! SO - Microsoft products - to the advanced, more experienced user - are not necessarily the best products. But to the mass market, generally any regular person, Microsoft has accomplished what no one else has. Whether it was ethical or not, the consumers gobbled it up and wanted it. If it didn't do what they wanted it to do, they wouldn't accept it, and find other alternatives. So for the mass market, it WAS and still IS a good product. You can't say no one can do better or have a better product, because no one has come close. If someone wanted to overthrow Microsoft, they would have to convince the mass market, and maybe even unethically partner with Microsoft only to hitchhike on their compatibility to gain the mass market, until they can jump off and take the mass market with him. To beat Microsoft, you've got to be Microsoft, or use them against themselves, or act and grow in the same manner that they did.
Otherwise, you'll end up like Linux - growing fast, but no where near gaining mass market appeal - general, average users. Because it's not easy for them (when most people still don't know how to open their email program, let alone get connected to the internet), and it Windows has the most appeal. Until Linux can enter a standardized and compatible market with Windows, it will never gain mass market.
If you taunt Microsoft, they will stomp on you. If you befriend them to eventually turn against them, you can stab them in the back. That's just one way of gaining good cometitive ground in the mass market.
Plus, remember that the general consumer doesn't necessarily want a realistic and viable choice in OS's or any software for that matter. They will go to what is easiest and cheapest to use - together. If Linux and Windows had equal market share, it would NOT last long. Unless they were compatible with each other in the same market, people would readily accept one over the other, just so they don't have to worry about compatibility issues. Just like NS / IE. Linux and Windows will always be different, but they have to be compatible enough for most people, and everyone will more readily use the OS more geared to their requirements (eg - server, desktop, terminal, etc).
Linux and Windows NT/2000 probably have a fairly competitive marketplace... so obviously if you add in the desktop Windows 98/2000, Windows will have dominance... because Linux hasn't got the marketplace for average desktop users. And it never will until it (the extremist Linux user bunch) stops the blatant anti-MS, rebellious attitude. If someone likes MS over X, you've got to win them over, not make them sound like an idiot because it's so obvious X is better. Mass market will be insulted and generally not accept a product whose creators appear bigoted against what they like, since it seems unfair. So in a way, 'embrace and extend' - agree (gasp) that Windows/Microsoft have done a good job, and are a good product - because it's the truth, for the general mass market - and give them reasons, applying to them, why X is a better choice... but right now, X does not have the features and quality over Windows that the mass general market requires.
That's the end of the story, sorry if I seemed repetitive
When codermotor says "Art is not an endeavor in which one should expect to 'Earn a living'", "expect" is the operative verb. I create art, should I expect to be paid for it? NO, I have to convince others to pay me for it, the way it has always been and the way it is in every other business
But what you're missing is the fact that if you make aproduct that is worth paying for - ie people do want it because it is a good product, thus you can make a living off it, it is your right, then, to 'make a living off it'. But if you find out that you got paid for your first fruit, then someone else handed it around for free giving you nothing in return, how happy would you be? If you knew that that would be paying for your food, paying for your living, and you were getting no compensation, you'd be pretty depressed if not pissed.
Sure, don't expect to be paid, but expect to be paid if people are making good use of the product you are selling! Who are you to say that you can use my product without buying it from me, or compensating to some extent as a 'thank you'? It's the least you could do...
So I don't believe that startving artists who's works are generally adored, should be starving artists. They should see their own popularity, and 'expect' to make a living off it.
At this point it's normally worth reminding people that Leviticus is part of Old Testament Law and that Christians aren't subject to it, it's mostly there for historical reference...
Yes, leviticus was mainly based on the culture of the time, and with the new testament came a new covenant. If your point is that the law about homosexuality was old testament, there are many references to homosexuality in general (not just male/male, but gender unspecific) in the new testament.
But yes, it is frustrating when people don't distinguish between the cultural laws and the laws for humanity in the old testament. And laws that aren't meant as suppressive or opressive, but protective; which people seem to ignore because they tend to tell people not to do what they want to and like to do.
If people want to break OR bend God's laws, that's their choice... but don't blame God for the consequences, in this life or after. That's where people get offended, cuz whenever things go bad, the first person they blame is God, but God already put out that warning...
It's like, don't blame your parents if your hand gets slapped when you steal a cookie from the cookie jar. You were warned. And it doesn't mean your parents love you any less.
Anyway - the point is it prohibits _men_ lying together. No mention of _women_. Nothing
When the bible speak of men in areas like this, it's common sense that it refers to men as everyone - 'man'kind, man, not the masculine of the species. Men is used because human culture tends to put the term men ahead of women as a way to refer to mankind. Just because a sentence says MAN doesn't mean it only refers to men. If it meant only masculine homosexuality, it would have made the destinction between lesbianism and male homosexuality. As it is, it only refers to the generic man, inferring any form of homosexuality in this case. Also because in many other instances referring to this issue, it talks about homosexuality, not man lying with man. So even though this one verse may not specifically say women with women, it is still spoken against in the rest of the bible by referring to homosexuality in general.
I just got going :)
ah well. Back to work...
What you are basically telling is that "God came to you and told you christianity was the way to go". Well, I obviously can't argue against that (damn!). Still, you have to wonder why an almighty all powerfull God, who (it's in the Bible) want his followers to grow in numbers can't even communicate with something a bit more "multimedia" than a feeling. I like to say that the day a Porshe GTR will appear before my eyes, with Laeticia Casta asking me for marriage inside, I'll gladly convert myself and attend church every sunday :)
:) It's been there since the beginning (of our modern timeline) and it's a guide. It doesn't have all the answers, but it forces you to delve deeper and find them, and you'll only get them if you open the door yourself, if you enter with an open heart and mind, wanting to learn more, not just to test it or try to disprove it.
:)
:) Christianity is the strive of people who know they've been saved by faith because they've experienced God and His work in their lives (even some of the smartest and wisest people on earth), to show people what is available if only they'd ask, and the truth and meaning of our existence, and how easy it is to know God. It's not about making our physical lives better - in most cases it only gets worse because Christianity is pounded by temptation and persecution - but about making the best of our physical lives by spreading this message while here on earth so that our lives in heaven will be that much more amazing, and hatred for evil, that it would lose the battle for the downfall of humanity.
:)
You know how much we wish we could just talk and be with God without question? The thing that keeps us apart is the fact that humanity is plagued by a sinful nature, it's the only thing that keeps us from God. And in this world today, the only way to know the truth is through faith. Hebrews 11 is entirely dedicated to things that were done through faith. Faith is the essence of Christianty. Since we physically don't have undoubtable proof of the actual existence of God, our belief in Him is based on faith in Him. It's so hard to stand up to the onslaught of arguments against the bible and God that even though there are answers, we may only have our experience and relationship with God to hold on to. All faith.
Plus, you just basically proved another reason why God doesn't reveal himself to us how we want Him to... personal satisfaction, self-edification, selfish ambition. God does and has revealed Himself to people over the course of history, but only a select few, and even then, not to His full potential. As the saying goes, God works in mysterious ways. You may say, why doesn't God just reveal himself? I say, that's too easy, and He wants us to believe in Him so He'll give us a little bit of Him over time, so that we are challenged to believe in Him and build our faith in Him. The whole point is that it's not out of His ability just to come back to earth and wipe everyone out, because that's all we deserve. As you said, it's unfair to us to be punished for someone else's actions - sure, from a human point of view, none of us has the right to do that. But God has the final say, He created us, so He has the authority to lay a curse on someone and his descendents - He did it to many people in the Bible as punishment, just as He did Adam when he disobeyed God, and unfortunately, that includes all of the rest of humanity. So all we can do now is our best to get our relationship right with God again.
The problem with religion is that, if you take a human, raise him in a non-religious environement, 99% of the time he won't develop any religious feeling of any kind
That is a flawed statement. God can choose when and how He reveals himself to anyone. There are plenty of missionaries and people throughout the world who have come to know God without doubt. And on top of that, missionaries are those who feel called to go and tell people who haven't come to know Him.
Christianity is based on the Bible, and there are many rules in there (at least the 10 commandments).
This is true, but they aren't 'go do this 5 times a day', or 'to get right with god you must maime and paint this animal', or even 'pray this 2 times to be forgiven'... You can look at the 10 commandments as laws or rules to live on, but you'll live a life of feeling sat on and repressed because you don't have the freedom you want. OR you could look at them as obvious guidelines for living a safe, happy, comfortable life with everyone else around you. You shouldn't have to follow those rules, you should just want to, because they make sense. That is the difference. If you're a true Christian, you're not bound by laws and regulations, but morals and ethical principles. It's a desire of the heart, not a commitment of the mind.
As to not being a corporation, it's true, but 99% of christians are following an organisation of some sort. Like most religious people, christians organise themselves into groups. Of course there'll always be "rogue believers" who don't want to join a group, but they are a very tiny minority
Sure, your point? Even outside of religion, people gather with others of the same convictions, beliefs, standards... that's culture, that's government, that's friends... and these 'groups' of Christians, denominations, still don't have laws or regulations in order to be a part or 'member' of the denomination. If you don't like it, go to one you do... it doesn't make you any more or less of Christian, as long as you still believe the foundational truths of God and Jesus. And that's not a rule, that's just the definition of a Christian.
I see your point - but then, Nazis also qualify to this description, and that doesn't make them nice people or even tolerable people.
Yes, but Nazi's were entirely motivated of selfish greed and pride, not on Godly an biblical principles. That's one reason why people don't want to believe in God. The government idea of a king in charge, ruling over a kingdom seems unfair and unjust to us now. Just because no system is entirely still in place and widely accepted as free, because those leaders always, in some way, directly or indirectly, fell to some form of treachery. God's kingdom will never fall to treachery or greed or selfishness, because God is only love. Humanity, being sinful by nature, always has people battling authority for their freedom, always questioning authority and others' motives... if we know God, we'll never question Him. He treats His kingdom with love and discipline and justice... the only kingdom that doesn't fall is God's because all others were ruled by man, so the system was corrupt. The few kingdom in the bible that God was a part of and made known to the kings that He had full control, are the ones that lasted until some stupid self motivated person corrupted the chain.
Hitler was a wise man, his government system was amazing in concept and it worked. But he was motivated by lust for power, self-centered, bigotted greed. It goes to show what power is capable of if it's in the wrong hands. Christianity, God-centered Christianty, is the complete opposite. It's strive is to be humble, but through that it's spread like wildfire through the world, and is the most hated faith. Funny how the bible predicts all of that.
Well 2 large religions explicitly forbid eating pork, yet I can lots of pork and still be alive.
Yeah. But is that a harm to humanity as a whole? That's what I talked about before, religious rules are different from morals and guidelines for humanity that you just want to follow.
As religious rules go, most of them are so old they are outdated, and they most of the time go against common sense. And you follow all of this because of a feeling ?
Yeah, most are old and outdated. So how come the 10 commandments are what America was founded on? Because they are still common sense today. Those are the only ten commandments God put in place to stand over time. All the others (old testament) were cultural rules, put in place because Jesus had not yet come to remove those requirements. New testament commandments are still common sense. Where Jesus spoke, if the things he said are understood to be geared towards the culture at the time, applied to today's culture, they are still common sense, if you view common sense as for the good of everyone, not just yourself.
And I follow all of this, as you say, not just because of a feeling, but because it's an experience. Once you know God is there and you've got a relationship, it's not just a feeling; you just know that it's true. I don't just think the Bible is truth because it feels like it is. I follow the Bible because I know God exists, and it only makes sense to because out of love, God gave us the bible to help us... it's like the Oracle in the Matrix
Well I think most religions are very offensive, because if they are not then they die out of lack of believers
Not offensive as in it just insults you, but offensive as in not defensive. Christianity is an outward faith. You don't close yourself off and live your religion at home to save yourself from whatever the big ending is. Christianity is offensive because at the heart, you're called to go out and save others. It's not about saving yourself, because you know it once you're saved, it's not a matter of works, but of love. Knowing what you've got and what is freely given, it seems a tragedy that so many people just don't know. So Christianity is striving to show the truth to the world because the world is just in such a bad place right now.
And it's just logic : if you have the truth, then others are wrong, and who wouldn't fight to make the truth win
Only if that truth affects everyone else. Most religions are about what to do to end up in heaven, and it's an endless struggle, and endless discipline to earn it. Christianity isn't about something that can be earned. Christianity is unique. Most people who try to enforce their belief system and rules are in it out of pride and stubbornness; even I struggle with that sometimes, just because I want to be known as right. And so many people push it so far as to oppression. Christianity's name is tarnished by those who abused its power in the past, namely the corporate church, old roman catholicism... today's Christianity is no longer a corporate undertaking, it's a personal strive to outreach.
Iran is founded on Muslim beliefs and its enforced. The US if founded on Christan beliefs, but is no longer looked upon as so. The 'freedom' everyone wants is to have their own way - but that CAN and WILL only lead to chaos and disaster. Christianity is far from free in the US. Too many people are still ridiculed and persecuted because of their faith. Christianity has no 'home' so to speak... the world is covered with striving and struggling Christians. And the strongest Christians are those who are oppressed. China's underground Christianity is spreading like wildfire... missionaries in Africa, Asia, South America, Mexico, are all dedicated to founding new homes and sources for people to come to God... they're not moving to another country to be comfortable there; on the contrary, many Christian missionaries move to other countries to be uncomfortable - because it's not about them, but about the people they want to reach and help.
Hrrr, that's the half of the story I don't accept
Well if you don't accept it, then there's no point debating. But, that's doesn't mean it's not true. We'll find out soon enough
There are marriage in every human culture, including animist and atheist, so obviously God is not required to love and marry someone.
God created the world, it doesn't require God for us to make any decisions. The sun is a gift from God, but we don't see Him make it rise in the morning... the rainbow was a gift from God, but we don't see Him paint it after every storm... God created marriage as a symbol for humans to commit their lives unquestionably to each other, but we don't see Him at the ceremony... that symbol can be and has been warped by humanity and our own wants and desires. That's why it's even being questioned as required, because so many people just want to be with someone without the hassle or 'burden' of marriage... you can take God out of the equation, but that doesn't change the fact that it was given by God.
I'm not guilty for something I haven't done ! Therefor, I'm not responsible for my parents mistakes, for Adam and Eve mistakes, or even for the thing I thought about and didn't do in the end.
That's why we look at it as unfiar, but Adam and Eve should have thought about that before they disobeyed... they were punished and had to live (for a very long time) with the fact their offspring and future generations would have to live with their failing. And just as God can punish future generations, He can reward them. Because of certain people in the Bible, their tribes and kingdoms flourished for a time. Their offspring reaped the benefits of their forefathers' actions. And so can their offspring reap the consequences of their forefathers' actions. Only God has the authority to do that. So all we can do is our best to right our relationship with God. If we turn our back on Him, we're just as guilty as Adam. And we're mostly there now, only because God felt so much for humanity that he sent His Son to pay the penalty (as in the old testament of blood sacrifices for atonement) so we wouldn't have to today, thus the new covenent and testament. If Jesus hadn't died and rose, the world would be a much different place...
Trying to make me guilty of others mistake is utterly evil
We're not guilty of another's mistake. We are paying the consequence for their decision, there's a difference. And because of His decision, we're trapped in a sinful nature (which BTW wasn't a punishment from God, it was what Adam received from the object of his disobedience - death was the punishment). So we're stuck in a rut. We're now inherently given what Adam and Eve wanted for themselves (being deceived), and are bound by physical death as punishment.
To put it in modern terms
Ok so that's not so much modern terms
Or how the Tooth Fairy feels when She is compared to God?
Hopefully very very honored...
But I'd be scared if the tooth fairy was the higher being in control of the universe...
Can you imagine how God feels when someone takes the bible at face value and only follows certain life guidelines by their own choice, but completely ignores the fact that it was a gift from God? -- Very similar to how the tooth fairy must feel when people just throw old teeth away
Or how God feels when He's compared to the tooth fairy...
You make a good point there, except for one thing. The Bible is always right because God wrote it. And you know God wrote it because that's what the Bible says, and the Bible is always right. If you are not one of those engaged into circular logic, then why do you think the Bible is the word of God ? Why isn't "Harry Potter" or "Dune" the real word of God then ? Whichever way you take it, at one point or another, you are basing all your life and moral on something that is quite baseless. Either way "someone said so" or "someone wrote so", but unless God himself came to you and told you the Bible was the one true book, you are only believing what other humans told you (priest, familly, tele-evangelist, whatever).
:) All those 'rules' about marriage and pre-marriage are no more once you get married - to the point of honoring your commitment of marriage to the person... ie you two can do whatever you want with each other. And hopefully if you're a Christian you'll know where to draw the line anyway.
You've got most of it right there at the end. We don't believe in God because the Bible says so, so we believe the Bible is correct because God says it is... the thing about God is that once you experience Him, you know the truth. It's like explaining love - you can't prove to someone that you love someone, no matter what you do, it's just words or expression and there can always be selfish motives. You can never truly believe God exists until you've experienced Him and believe He does. So from this point on, there's nothing I can do to make you believe that God exists, because I just know He does, and whatever I tell you could be interpreted as having any kind of other motive. I believe the Bible is correct because I believe God exists. Because I believe God exists, through faith I believe the Bible is correct; therefore I can use the Bible as a guideline for living the life I have, by faith knowing that it is true and God exists. The only way to make that argument stand is by knowing in your heart that God exists, otherwise, it falls apart because it ends up in circular logic.
Now why any sensed and healthy human would adhere to one of this group is beyond me
There are a few reasons... one, they were brought up to believe it, following rules and laws that were put in place by a person who took control. Two, they have no choice to believe it, usually because of persecution or fear of death because it's enforced. Three, they like certain aspects of a belief so they decide to follow it without getting involved in it (like people who use the bible for good morals but don't believe in God). Four, they know from experience and from a personal connection with the truth.
The problem is, #4 is only way to know what religion is true, and there can be only one true religion if any is true, as long as each religion has any contradiction between each other. The thing people still don't seem to understand is that Christianity (today at least) isn't a corporation, it doesn't have rules or restrictions you have to follow on a daily basis (ala religion). I'm sure you've heard it before, it's a relationship, not a religion. The difference is that in a religion, you have a responsibility to do things in order to earn the title of being a 'member' of that religion. Christianity is said to be a relationship because really, it has nothing to do with everyone else. It's you and God, He revealed himself to you, so you know beyond doubt what the truth is. Outside, you see rules and biblical dogmas and doctrines that are highly restricting. But from the inside, that's the freedom - you know why those 'rules' are there. They're not there to hinder or restrict, but to help and protect. And knowing that, it's not that you HAVE to obey them, but you simply just want to, for your own safety, the safety of friends, loved ones, the world... it's a personal decision to follow and make a committment to what you know and have experienced as the truth.
Now the problem with is, is just that - the Bible is all we have physically as a guide to God. After that, it's a personal level, so we have all these denominations - people who interpret beyond the bible based on their personal views of God, but they're all (mostly) still based on the same fundamental truth of God's existence, and Jesus life & death & resurrection. At the same time, there are those 'Christians' who twist their beliefs and end up being negative influences, power hungry, self-indulgent pricks who tarnish the 'Christian' name. Which is why the bible specifically says that Christians will be the most persecuted faith, and all we have to hang on to is Him, because He is the only truth we've experienced. And once you know the truth, it clings to you no matter how hard to try to get rid of it.
There are two people that have to do with 'forcing' morals on the world - those who are uncaring and self-righteous, trying to dictate christian morals and laws to the masses without regard to the individual, without the love of God. Then there are those who are misunderstood, simply because what we know as truth cannot be understood without being offended, without feeling restricted and hindered. And the more we try to help people, the more people get offended, and are looked upon as self-righteous, bigoted, know-it-all biblethumpers. And it's just because so many people have not experienced God.
Christians are so looked down on because it's an offensive faith. Most other religions now are becoming tolerant of other religions - you can believe what you want to believe, as long as I can believe what I want to, so that we can live peacefully. The only problem with that is that the fundamental foundation of Christianity is that we go out and spread the word. Nothing is about ourselves, it's about giving everything we have and are, not because we have to but because we want to. And it can't be accepted by anyone without breaking yourself, without punching through any pride - known or not - and self-worth, basically without being offended. So it's turned down and shunned before it can make an impact, and ridiculed and tortured and hated because it's 'closed-minded'. That's also why the line is used about 'where is the freedom of religion if Christianity is still suppressed?' Just because Christianity is unique, and unfortunately (but inherently and prophetically) against all other religions that do not teach about God and Jesus' life and death and resurrection.
I'd agree with that - but then we are not talking about people who cheat on someone physically, but online : no physical contact, usually not even an image or a sound of the other person. Now some people are deeply hurted by the mere knowing that their partner can imagine, for a second, kissing someone else. Some are comfortable with their partners sleeping outside or even having short term affairs. Cheating is not defined by religion or moral, it's defined by the moral contract you have with your partner.
I'll agree with that too. But again, half the story. A marriage is a joining, given by God, of a man and woman, becoming one. So yes, even though they may both be perfectly ok with the acts of their spouse, on another level, they're breaking and tearing apart the committment they made to each other which is the inherent meaning behind being married. With God out of the equation, marriage becomes something only personal to the two engaged. But God is in the picture, and the vows have deeper meaning, the act of getting married is a recognition of God's gift of marriage, whether you believe it or not. And by physical lust or mental, you commit adultery which is against the bond of marriage. Matt 5:28 - "Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." It's not just the physical act, it's anything which degrades from your emotional, spiritual, mental and physical commitment to your bond with your spouse.
Religion should be kept outside the bedroom !
In a way, I agree
Lesbianism is entirely safe according to Leviticus
Care to complete that statement with a Leviticus reference?
This thread is waaaaay OT :)
Jesus (Yeshua if you prefer) was speaking to the Hebrews and as such had to speak to the MASSES in a way that they could accept and understand, so he spoke to them about a god in the sky (like the Jehova/Yahweh "God of the Mountain" that they already worshiped) but also spoke to them of loving their neighbor as themselves. It's not a two-part rule, it's the same rule twice, just in a way that an unenlightened individual can understand. Let me translate for you:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Your neighbor and yourself have one big thing in common... SELF
Let me translate for you:
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Yes, it's not one rule (two halves), but two rules - and not the same rule twice. Distinctly told as two rules, and of course, the first is the greatest. The second, being 'like' it, means that you love with the same love as you show the Lord, and if so, you love your neightbor with godly love as well as yourself. But the Lord is still the greatest of these. If we were God, the first commandment would say to love yourself as Lord...
GOD is infinite. Which is to say, anything that exists falls within GOD because there's no other way it can be. If you say GOD is over there and the universe is over here, then GOD isn't infinite. Infinity only allows ONE. If you have infinite this over here and infinite that over there... there is no infinity
God is infinite, as in we cannot comprehend his existence. God is everywhere and in everything; that's not the same as saying God IS everything - God is not the tree, God is not a computer monitor... you can say God is over there because he IS over there, he's everywhere... I would say the universe is over there - it's not an exclusive statement. If I said the universe is not here, there would be a problem. But God is over there, and the universe is over there...
When you love GOD with all your heart, soul, strength and mind, you don't have any room for hate, greed, jealousy, anger. When you love your neighbor as yourself, you are showing that you recognise that GOD exists as the "observer" in each of us. That no human (no matter their status, intelligence or weakness) is lesser than any other, because all are merely reflections of one and the same thing.
For the first half, I agree. If we love God with all our hert, soul, strength and mind, we don't have room for the others... so if we have the others, do we really love God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind? If we did, would we not be perfect? As it is, we're inherently flawed now because of sinful nature. Our strive, our goal is to constantly, wholeheartedly pursue these commandments. But as long as we are bound by sinful nature, we can never truly achieve this. That's why Jesus had to exist, because nothing we can do can save us because we can't live up to God's laws. So because of Jesus, we have salvation through him, but only if you believe it, which is precisely the basis for Christian belief.
PS God is I AM (that which exists). And God said it, not us.
However, given that it's possible to live the second half without living by the rules in the Bible, it's possible to live by some rules in the Bible without living by the whole thing (you said so yourself), and therefore the intention of the post you replied to is proven - just because it's in the Bible, doesn't mean it's wrong. *That* is the attitude that I was fighting against
The only problem I find with that though, is it's like painting a beautiful landscape, and signing the corner of the painting. You give it to someone you love, and they are amazed by the artistic quality. Then they come along with a little scraper and scratch off your signature or paint over it, because it detracts from the painting as a whole.
Can you imagine how God feels when someone takes the bible at face value and only follows certain life guidelines by their own choice, but completely ignores the fact that it was a gift from God?
Just an idea, something to think about, to take however you will.
If they have done so, then they can probably come up with a better explanation than "because the Bible say so". Obviously if their only argument is that "the Bible say so", then they haven't even started thinking about it and decided to let the book think for themselves.
As a Christian, I can say that people either misunderstand or send the right message about "because the Bible says so". Obviously anyone who says 'just because' has some problems. Christians believe that Bible is inherently true because we believe it was written by God. We don't believe it 'just because', we believe it because we believe it was divinely inspired.
It's like one poster who mentioned how people take the 'do unto others' verse, without looking at the first half which it was meant to be joined with, but cut out because it had to do with God. If you think Christian believe the bible just becuase, well, you're right, except you're missing the other half; that we believe it without question because it was written by someone who really knows everything, but people seem to leave that half out.
Beside, thinking is an independant process : you can't control your thoughts. They can show you nice or torrible things, they can lead you to very immoral or weirds concepts. That's the beauty of thinking, that's where creativity and humanity lives. I don't know any human who never though of cheating, beating or killing someone at a point of his life. Does that makes all of us cheaters, killers ? No, that makes us human with a free-will.
Ah, no you have to distinguish between thoughts and dwelling on thoughts... similarly, temptations exist, and anyone who believe thinking temptations are their own fault is going to live a very stressful life. Thoughts are what enter your mind - it's then your choice what you do with them. If you dwell on them, then there's a problem - it means you're willingly continuing to think on them. If a thought enters your mind and right away you dismiss it because it's just wrong, that's a good move. Creativity and humanity lives in our ability to make that choice and distinction. That's why it's a common and safe assumption for people to say - 'I know many if not all of you have thought about committing suicide'. Well sure, whoever when in a desperate situation has not thought about extremes solutions? But how many have gone through with it?
Anyone can tell you that getting married doesn't make life easier. Temptation and lust even get worse once you're married. Does that mean you're a bad person for having those thoughts? No, cuz it's natural, it's a part of our humanity now. But those who keep thinking about it, or do something about it, are the people who need the help. It's just like anger - anger isn't wrong or bad, it's how you handle and react to your anger.
It just bugs me when people ridicule Christians for accepting the Bible just because it's the Bible, without knowing the other half of the story...
Music can induce us into a frenzied, less safe state for driving. Alcohol can lead us into abuse. Cocain can destroy our brain. Depictions of immoral sexuality can "whet" our desire and bring us to action.. These are all truths. (If you have value in the teachings of Christianity, (even from a non-christian point of view) the response was to pluck our your eye if it causes you to consider bad deeds). The responsibility is in the individual, and not for the society to simply remove every possible temptation.
An over-weight person that removes all food-temptation will explode and splurge when given the opportunity. Those people that allow temptations to be at hand at least have the opportunity to moderate their discipline, and make life bearable Then it becomes a matter of self-health and upkeep. In which case medicine has this thing called 'prescriptions' and 'notes from a doctor'. On that understanding, if the cure isn't to remove the temptation but to tempt moderately, then shouldn't there be some form of pornogrphy doctor that could regulate how much child porn a pedophile could be exposed to in order that their desires don't explode from lack of attention? That seems the best course of action without making virtual porn illegal due to freedom of speech.
Using eating disorders as an example is not the best decision. For one, not eating or eating too much only directly affects the individual. Child porn (virtual or real) has an adverse effect on the addict (short and/or long term) and eventually grows to such a desire that may directly hurt another person or more.
Ok, so 3 choices - child porn is illegal. Keep virtual child porn legal - people turn to that, and the hard core phreaks find ways to make virtual porn as real as possible, eliminating a recognizable difference between real life and virtual. Virtual porn eventually becomes a replacement for real and the effect is just the same and damaging, if not worse because of the freedom. But hey, freedom of speech.
2) Virtual child porn is regulated and prescribed for those addicts who would 'explode' without regular exposure to otherwise real child porn. Black market kicks in and it's out there anyway. It's not as illegal as real child porn so it still runs rampant because it's more accessible and less risky than real child porn. See point 1.
3) Virtual child porn is rendered illegal, just as real child porn. Black market kicks in, has the same effect as real child porn. Just not to the degree as any form of free child porn. Freedom of speech, as you put it being related to culture and personal morals, would be regulated by the local government - precisely the point of the local government, to protect to local majority. If you don't like it move. If you want free child porn, go to a neutral country that doesn't care. Majority here says what morals are right and wrong. Why is murder illegal? Because majority in our culture believe it is, so it's regulated by the government.
The issue here isn't whether or not a 'child was hurt in the making of this porn' or if 'fingers were cramped during the design of this video' - the issue is the effect child pornography has on the pedophile/pornographer - real OR virtual. In either sense, it will end up as real if not moreso.
If, on the rare chance, virtual porn ends up being more real than real life, and there are no instances where the viewer would turn to real life because it's too restricting, well hey, he's in his own world then, no? But until that point, child pornography still has a negative effect over time on the viewer/addict, and for the safety of our 'local' society which government has been set to protect, it should be treated as equal as any other law the government sets in place to protect the majority - we elect them to protect us and ideally, majority dictates what the government regulates.
If you've seen the movie Contact, it's entirely possible to encode details information into a signal that can first be interpreted as a simple artificial signal. If they're smart (or lucky) they'll figure out that there's more to the information that just recognizable tones and beeps. I'm not sure if we as humans are intelligent enough to encode a signal as complex as the one in Contact, but hey, we created the movie and that signal was part of the story :) so maybe if writers can hack together an interplanetary greeting along with scientific intelligence, maybe SETI can too :)
By those rules a student should double check every assignment the teacher assigns
No, with your examples, they were withint the scope and authority of the teacher. As a science teacher, they have the ability to hand out assignments related to, and affecting only that class, unless the've been given authority from another source... this 'hack' assignment included private school systems that the computer teacher had no control or authority over. In this case, including the fact the teacher didn't give a due date, a point value, and other common association with a real assignment, it should have been common sense to make sure the teacher knew it was being done.
Yes, there were no outright signs that it was not a real test, and I'm not saying the teacher is not at fault. I'm just saying that the student's punishment I believe was just... the school had every right to suspend a student for compromising the system's integrity - under good intensions or not - without permission. The teacher should be taken care of for giving a joke that could have been taken seriously, even speaking for a third party who was not involved and lied about. But I don't believe the student was completely without fault in this case, because if his intentions were good, it would make no difference if the teacher were 'surprised' - or more importantly, the school (if the teacher would be, don't you think the school would be even moreso?) hence I would expect some kind of reaction from the school, especially if the teacher who gave out the assignment didn't know... so knowledge isn't the issue. it's common sense - and yes, not everyone has what's considered 'common sense'. But if the world catered to everyone who didn't meet 'normal' or 'common' standards (in an extreme sense), we'd be much worse off. That's why we have a justice system, and 'punish' is in our vocabulary. It's consequences, and teaching from errors that make our society grow and learn.