It may not be a hard theology to grasp, but it's hard to grasp how people can find that anything but absurd and contradictory. I don't belive in God. Yet I'm pragmatically moral, considerably moreso than many of those that do "believe and trust" in him. Yet, according to this doctrine, I'm going to hell.
And yet in the very next sentance you claim that he's just? Does that REALLY make any sense to you?
Exactly! Its not contradictory. Look, you're saying this "I'm a good person, I do good things, why would I go to hell?"
The answer is...because you did not believe. Christianity is not a "good works" religion. You can't earn your way to heaven. It doesn't matter what you do. The only way to get into heaven is to believe in God. You don't have to do anything else. You can help little old ladies across the street all day long but its not going to earn you a ticket to heaven. But if you pray and believe in him, that will.
Ya know, I was sitting here nodding my head at what you were saying . . . all until this last sentence.
I've known some excellent christians in my life, and many of them have tried to convert me over the years. In the end, when their logic fails to persuade me, they all seem to offer this Pascal's Wager argument as a last-ditch effort.
Well I wouldn't call it a last ditch effort, bur rather a sincere concern for your eternal well being and one to get you to think about something other than the immediate and present.
If the only way to convert someone is through fear, then the rest of your message must not be terribly compelling to the person with whom you're speaking. Now, maybe fear wasn't necessary to win your faith, but that's just an example of how religion and faith in God is such a personal decision.
Well perhaps some mean it in fear but I do not. I simply mean, look at what you could be missing out on! If Christianity is right, then the afterlife will be super. But you'll be missing the party.
All I'm saying is that I would be much happier if Christians would just admit that it's possible for someone to read the Bible and honestly not believe it, to think that maybe all the answers don't lie in their holy book.
I think many already feel this way. The Bible is great for believers and helps to strengten the faith, but for non-believers its just another book...albeit a book that may shed some light on Christian beliefs but not really something that will instantly convert someone. Really those life-changing experiences come from God and you'll have to be receptive to them in order to feel them. Statistically, most conversions come from conversations with Christians or attending a Christian event, not from reading literature.
The first question to ask is "what/who is God?" Without that, your question doesn't mean anything. Note that God, in the Bible, didn't even give himself a name - just "I am" (which is about as fundamental as you can get). Who are you to say that what a Hindu, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Wiccan believe in isn't God as well?
Well first off, Hindus don't believe in God but rather thousands and a Wiccan worships nature not any God. So now using just the monotheistic religions like Judaism and Islam... Well Judaism is the same God as Christianity is based on Judaism (Christianity says it is the fullfilment of Judaism). Now Islam says the same thing. The main problem though is Islam's Allah doesn't have the same traits or personality as the Jewish God, and indeed the Muslims later start persecuting the Jews. Now if the Jews are following God, why would God direct one group to kill another group if they both follow him? Furthermore, if God is a god of love why is the Quaran filled with violent conquests, etc.? Sure the Bible is too but the bible usually shows stuff like that to show its wrong not to glorify it (the cannanites not withstanding).
If you haven't heard the elephant parable, you should - basically, if a bunch of blind men are trying to describe an elephant by touch, you'll get a ton of completely disparate answers, which, when looked at from a higher stance, all make sense. It's much the same way with religion. All religions have the same kernel of truth to them - it's up to the people to figure them out.
Indeed, how can we ever know God? The answer is we can only know what he reveals to us. And that is through Jesus Christ who spent quite a lot of time talking about God and his kingdom. God also spoke through many prophets. And how do we know these aren't just a bunch of liars? Well mainly because of their predictions and also their miracles, which the people of the time had no problem believing.
I find it amazingly hard to believe that people put such huge restrictions on God, that he can't present himself to billions upon billions of people in billions upon billions of ways.
Oh He can, and He does. But there is a problem with your opinion. Because you see not every religion says the same thing, nor do they follow the same rules, etc. Now why would God contradict himself so much? You're forgetting mankind's motives here. Just look at scientology for an example of a religion created by man that has no truth in it. So how do you know Christianity isn't a sham? Mostly by the evidence I stated in the first paragraph. There are tons of books on the subject. One good one is "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.
Your argument is just weak - what about all of the people who were born before Christ?
They had Judaism then and will probably be judged by that. Although (somewhat debated) you will also find references in the bible to where Jesus went to Hades and opened the gates to allow those people into Heaven.
What about all of the Native Americans, who were geographically distinct? What about infants? God presents himself in many different ways to many different people, and the truth is that they're all true. Just because you can't handle many seemingly contradictory things being true doesn't make them not true.
Well thats up to God. But you're only talking about those people who never heard about Christianity. I'd say disqualifies quite a number of people from your argument. And I am sure God will deal appropriately with those who could not make the decision on their own (babies, mentally ill, etc.)
Generally people say, "God couldn't create a being that both had free will and yet would never choose evil, that's a contradiction in terms."
Yep
I then ask, "Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
Yes, God can do whatever He wants. He could be an evil God if he wanted. But He doesn't want to do that, because his very nature is good. I mean, I could get on all fours and act like a dog if I wanted, but why would I want to?
If yes, then there's no contradiction, and God would have created beings like that instead of us humans. If no, then how could such a robot be deserving of worship? It might be wise to kowtow to It, but how could it be moral?
No we are created like God but He didn't clone himself. He created us with a blank slate.
I don't care about the Bible. You already have to be a believing Christian to care about the Bible, and even many believing Christians don't put the Bible first.
No if you are trying to understand Christianity or learn more about what they believe about God, then the Bible is a good place to start. You don't have to accept the bible as truth to understand that others do.
It's just a book with a complex, human, politicized history. And it's been questionably translated several times over. I'm an agnostic/athiest, albeit one who recieved substantial theological training from Jesuits and Dominicans, and read his share of Barth, Tillich and the like.
Well now you really need to study up on your history then. For one thing, the discovery of many intact documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that the majority of the Bible has been passed down through the generations with hardly any changes. As far as translations, there are two types...one that tries literal translation (like NIV) and one that tries meaning translation (like NLT). And they are fairly accurate...being reviewed by hundreds of scholars. Of course if this was a valid argument you could just pick of the greek, hebrew and aramatic texts.
What is "just" about making assent to a single doctrine the basis of eternal damnation? If "the law of God is writ in the heart of Man", could such a morally counter-intuitive stance really be the law of God?
It's not making one follow a single doctrine...its about the truth. Christianity says "this is how it is...no strings, no rules, just believe this...". The Lord is simply asking that you believe he exists and created you. And if you can't do that, then you have no need to be with him for eternity.
I guess I'm a bit confused... Since when was the whole point of Christianity getting into Heaven and avoiding Hell? If your view of religion is just about what happens "after death", then I submit that perhaps you're missing the point. Do you really think God made this whole world just to throw it away in a few thousand years after it starts getting interesting?
No that was just the point I decided to discuss. Christianity is an entire package. That is why I said elsewhere on thsi topic that if you believe in the Lord and accept the holy spirit then He will slowly change you from the inside out. Thus its not that you aren't allowed to do stuff, but rather you do not desire to do stuff (ie immoral stuff).
Not that there isn't any room for discussions of an afterlife, but my impression of Christianity from the Bible reading I've done seems to imply that Christianity is far more about the present world.
Yes it is about both but more importantly what happens in the next world/life. This is why being a martyr in Christianity is not such a bad thing. Jesus spends a great deal of time talking about such things such as he is preparing a mansion for us and he will return and make all things new, etc. Of course being a Christian is all about living a livestyle pleasing to God. So you don't just sit around twidling your thumbs waiting to die...you live life to its fullest, but more importantly, live it as God intended (morally and spiritually).
My theory is that most Christians look for God to do stuff in the real world and don't see it, so they assume that's because religion only matters for the afterlife. It's a defense mechanism that avoids admitting, "I must have misunderstood something about what God wants."
This is very true. God always answers prayers, but sometime his answer is "no" or "not yet" and thats something that is hard for some Christians to accept. God is looking out for what is in our best interests, not our desires.
Is your writing artistic expression if you share the exact same sentences 97% of the time with a previous work?
Many artists build upon their previous work. And it shows you that the works all came from the same artist. If DNA works so well, why do something radically different? I don't think I missed the point at all. You're saying, "all of your programs are in Perl so that just aren't artistic. If you had created your own programming language for every script you wrote, THAT would be artistic."
If I shot everyone who doesn't believe that I'm the smartest kid on my block - even if I *am* the smartest kid on my block - I'm an asshole. If God damns to eternal punishment everyone who doesn't believe that he incarnated as a carpenter 2000 years ago, and not as a blue shephard 3000 years ago, then he's a far, far bigger asshole. What one believes is fairly arbitrary - belief is just that, a suspicion that a claim is true. Again, a God who behaves like that is an infantile jerk.
No God would be a far bigger jerk if he was not just. Who is the bigger jerk, a God who punishes those who don't believe, or one who doesn't? If someone robbed and killed me, and they never believed/asked for forgiveness, then God owes it to me to punish them. Also all you have to do is believe...he's made the path easy. I don't think anyone will go to hell who did not choose it. There are scriptures which say God is patient because he doesn't want anyone to perish. So you think he's lying and he really enjoys destroying and punishing those he created? The bible says God is a god of Love.
This is actually a premise we can test, and it's simply false. Many studies have been done comparing religious and non-religious people, and it's never been found that religious people end up with "better luck" (better health, better livelyhood, better children, etc) that non-religious people.
Um try asking a true Christian...and I mean one who believes and is born again, not just someone in title who attends church every Sunday because they want to socialize. Also God does what is in our best interests, not what we want. I'd love to be a billionaire, but God hasn't reigned down any money on me yet. I guess he must be evil then.
For any truly intelligent, open-minded evangelical Christian, the hard question is "so, you really believe that all the Buddhists, Jews, Hindus and secularists are all damned to hell, and that only people in the Born-Again Club get in?" Because this is such a counter-intuitive notion to anyone who would attribute any compassion to God, that salvation hinge not on the stance of your spirit but on your doctrinal commitments, that many cannot really bring themselves to say it.
So here you are thinking for God. If God says you must believe in him to be saved, why is that so hard to follow? And how can you say a Hindu believes in the one true God? Because a Hindu doesn't. It's not most people on this planet haven't been exposed to Christianity and can say "Well I never knew!". It's not like its a hard religion. You don't have to follow hundreds of laws, you don't have to bow down 5 times a day...you just have to believe. He's made the path fairly easy and if people don't follow it then its because they chose to not follow it and miss the train. It's silly for people to keep arguing how evil God is because he'll send everyone to hell who refuses to believe in him.
As much as I respect Larry, I have one thing to say : "The Devil is in the details". "God exists" sounds so simple. It's not. Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of a God. In the absence, ethics are based around pragmatism and as such adaptible. In the presence, ethics are given to us. Look at history. Which case has proven the better approach? I'd rather God not existed, but if he does, I hope he has foregivness for me since I do in fact live by many of his rules - only out of pragmatism. I expect to burn in hell if there is such a thing, though.
Being a Christian myself this post is no doubt biased but since you brought up some points and questions I thought I would address them...
You might be interested in studying up on Christian theology since it addresses many of your points. It says God does indeed exist, and he will forgive you regardless of what you have done in the past. Morals (ethics) come from him but living by his rules is not a requirement as you could never "earn your way to heaven" like you would in other religions (Islam, Judaism). Once you are a Christian (and not just in title) you accept the holy spirit which guides you and helps you to avoid evil things. That is a lifelong process which is why many (true) Christians are not perfect...nobody is! And of course, many call theirselves Christians when they really aren't...giving all Christians a bad name. Also many non-Christians think Christianity is a rule(law)-based religion and God just wants to ruin your fun. In reality, it is nothing like that and God simply wants the best for you...nothing less.
Many times agnostics think that God should come down and fix everything, etc. but that doesn't happen. Christian theology states that we are in a fallen world, and due to the fact that we are given free will (ie freedom) God is not going to sit here and be a puppet master. When we die we are judged and that is it. If we believed and trusted in him we will live with him forever, and if we don't, we go to hell. It's not a hard theology to grasp. Furthermore we are told he is just and he will fix all things at the end of the age. So while the world may suck today, it will not be like that for all time.
Also just as an aside... If God exists, he will exist regardless of whether you believe in him or not. But whether you live in paradise or hell does directly depend on whether you believe in him or not. Really, what do you have to lose?
Hmmm. Seems to me that could equally be the basis for an argument against an "Author". If you look at life on earth, there is basically only one way to do it. It's all genes and DNA and every complex living thing shares something in common with the others. There is no "artistic expression" that shows up at all.
I think you're quite wrong there. What you're saying is like me saying there is no artistic expression in anything I write since they all use Perl and run under UNIX? Personally I see a lot of expression and differences when I look at all of the types of animals.
What if you're a lazy bumb who doesn't work...but ocasionally goes walking? What if you're from out of town, or worse, a visiting foreigner? Those freeloaders..I'm having to pay for their use of the road.
The only service that can't be stolen is free service, and there simply isn't such a beast. Hell, even roads aren't free. If you have an unregistered car (and thus, have paid no taxes), you can't legally use the road.
Unless you use a bike or walk. I think those are still legal even though one didn't necessarily pay car taxes.
The webpage was put up by grieving parents. The kid has no right to feel sorry for his dead self, but the parents aren't the ones who shook the machine.
The site never addresses why he rocked the machine. I've never once had to do that with a drink machine. Now with chips and candy bars those machines always try to screw you and you have to shake the hell out of it to get your stuff out.
Other software which understands IMAP over SSL can handle storing the certificate. Maybe it's deliberate to dissuade people from using non Microsoft server software.
Apparently if you create your own authority certificate, sign all your certificates with it, put it on the website, let the client download it and install it with IE certificate manager, then Outlook will stop complaining. This is the only way...not even downloading the certificate into IE will stop it. Apparently it requires a trusted root. Of course if you use Verisign/Thawte monopoly, it gladly accepts it. I still like Mulberry where you hit one button to tell it to use it anyway and stop bugging you. I have to plug it somewhere as it is not bloated like Eudora and isn't plagued with security holes or restrict options like Outlook, and it runs under Mac, Windows, and Linux. www.cyrusoft.com
Create a certificate solely for the purposes of signing and add that to your certificate store as a trusted CA on the client machines. Then create other certificates for the various web sites in your organization and sign them with the signing certificate. You won't be prompted about it again.
Yep that did it and works like a charm. I do appreciate the advice. Though I do still wish there was a simple "Don't ask my anymore" option. For example, my favorite email client Mulberry has this. It says something to the effect that the certificate is self-issued and may not be trustworthy, and you can either choose to allow for that session or allow forever. You don't have to worry about downloading an authority certificate, etc.
Isn't this exactly the same as when SSH first connects to a host you get an unknown fingerprint message (unless you've already copied the key of course)?
Personally I always say yes. I just accept that the likelyhood of me being spoofed at exactly that moment is very small. Given that that is true that host becomes "safe" from then on. Could the same principle not be applied to these self-signing web hosts.
Most of the secure sites I use get used again and again so this would work perfectly. And for the truely paranoid what about when you register for a site you get sent the site public key and can just start encrypting away.
For websites you can usually turn it off permanently (if you use IE) but Outlook won't let you do the same for email. My main issue about it is A) its annoying as hell and B) it puts doubt into customer's minds when there shouldn't be. It ought to just say "Do you trust this person?" and if you say YES, that person stays trusted forever. Microsoft had no problem doing that for ActiveX yet they can't do the same for SSL certs.
Maybe he used a spellchecker and it went something like:
"bothr" doesn't exist, replace with "both"? Yes.
I myself hardly ever use a spellchecker for exactly this reason. A word could be spelt right but be the entirely wrong word. I suspect it happens quite frequently.
Which is why I self sign everything. Since it all boils down to whether or not you trust me, why should I spend $150 trying to trick you into thinking I've passed some rigorous test for "trust". All that matters is that the data users send me is encrypted, which it is. That $150 cuts into my already wafer thin margins, and it cuts even more when you think I'll have to get a different sert for each of my subdomains.
Unfortunately most clients/browsers seem to go out of their way to discourage self-signed certificates with error messages that sound like "This certificate was self-signed. We don't know who the hell this person is. They could be a terrorist wanting to destroy your computer. If you click YES then they could format your harddrive and steal your credit card. By the way, even if you click YES we'll keep asking you everytime you visit this site unless they shell out some $ to Verisign or Thawte"
It's quite simple...if its free, you have no right to gripe. If you had to pay money for it, then the software producer should have to stand behind it and provide warranty, support, etc. As it stands now, commercial companies trash your rights when you click "I Agree"
Slashdot Mirror
And yet in the very next sentance you claim that he's just? Does that REALLY make any sense to you?
Exactly! Its not contradictory. Look, you're saying this "I'm a good person, I do good things, why would I go to hell?"
The answer is...because you did not believe. Christianity is not a "good works" religion. You can't earn your way to heaven. It doesn't matter what you do. The only way to get into heaven is to believe in God. You don't have to do anything else. You can help little old ladies across the street all day long but its not going to earn you a ticket to heaven. But if you pray and believe in him, that will.
I've known some excellent christians in my life, and many of them have tried to convert me over the years. In the end, when their logic fails to persuade me, they all seem to offer this Pascal's Wager argument as a last-ditch effort.
Well I wouldn't call it a last ditch effort, bur rather a sincere concern for your eternal well being and one to get you to think about something other than the immediate and present.
If the only way to convert someone is through fear, then the rest of your message must not be terribly compelling to the person with whom you're speaking. Now, maybe fear wasn't necessary to win your faith, but that's just an example of how religion and faith in God is such a personal decision.
Well perhaps some mean it in fear but I do not. I simply mean, look at what you could be missing out on! If Christianity is right, then the afterlife will be super. But you'll be missing the party.
All I'm saying is that I would be much happier if Christians would just admit that it's possible for someone to read the Bible and honestly not believe it, to think that maybe all the answers don't lie in their holy book.
I think many already feel this way. The Bible is great for believers and helps to strengten the faith, but for non-believers its just another book...albeit a book that may shed some light on Christian beliefs but not really something that will instantly convert someone. Really those life-changing experiences come from God and you'll have to be receptive to them in order to feel them. Statistically, most conversions come from conversations with Christians or attending a Christian event, not from reading literature.
Well first off, Hindus don't believe in God but rather thousands and a Wiccan worships nature not any God. So now using just the monotheistic religions like Judaism and Islam... Well Judaism is the same God as Christianity is based on Judaism (Christianity says it is the fullfilment of Judaism). Now Islam says the same thing. The main problem though is Islam's Allah doesn't have the same traits or personality as the Jewish God, and indeed the Muslims later start persecuting the Jews. Now if the Jews are following God, why would God direct one group to kill another group if they both follow him? Furthermore, if God is a god of love why is the Quaran filled with violent conquests, etc.? Sure the Bible is too but the bible usually shows stuff like that to show its wrong not to glorify it (the cannanites not withstanding).
If you haven't heard the elephant parable, you should - basically, if a bunch of blind men are trying to describe an elephant by touch, you'll get a ton of completely disparate answers, which, when looked at from a higher stance, all make sense. It's much the same way with religion. All religions have the same kernel of truth to them - it's up to the people to figure them out.
Indeed, how can we ever know God? The answer is we can only know what he reveals to us. And that is through Jesus Christ who spent quite a lot of time talking about God and his kingdom. God also spoke through many prophets. And how do we know these aren't just a bunch of liars? Well mainly because of their predictions and also their miracles, which the people of the time had no problem believing.
I find it amazingly hard to believe that people put such huge restrictions on God, that he can't present himself to billions upon billions of people in billions upon billions of ways.
Oh He can, and He does. But there is a problem with your opinion. Because you see not every religion says the same thing, nor do they follow the same rules, etc. Now why would God contradict himself so much? You're forgetting mankind's motives here. Just look at scientology for an example of a religion created by man that has no truth in it. So how do you know Christianity isn't a sham? Mostly by the evidence I stated in the first paragraph. There are tons of books on the subject. One good one is "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.
Your argument is just weak - what about all of the people who were born before Christ?
They had Judaism then and will probably be judged by that. Although (somewhat debated) you will also find references in the bible to where Jesus went to Hades and opened the gates to allow those people into Heaven.
What about all of the Native Americans, who were geographically distinct? What about infants? God presents himself in many different ways to many different people, and the truth is that they're all true. Just because you can't handle many seemingly contradictory things being true doesn't make them not true.
Well thats up to God. But you're only talking about those people who never heard about Christianity. I'd say disqualifies quite a number of people from your argument. And I am sure God will deal appropriately with those who could not make the decision on their own (babies, mentally ill, etc.)
Yep
I then ask, "Okay, God is perfect and we're told It will never choose to do evil. So, does God have free will?"
Yes, God can do whatever He wants. He could be an evil God if he wanted. But He doesn't want to do that, because his very nature is good. I mean, I could get on all fours and act like a dog if I wanted, but why would I want to?
If yes, then there's no contradiction, and God would have created beings like that instead of us humans. If no, then how could such a robot be deserving of worship? It might be wise to kowtow to It, but how could it be moral?
No we are created like God but He didn't clone himself. He created us with a blank slate.
No if you are trying to understand Christianity or learn more about what they believe about God, then the Bible is a good place to start. You don't have to accept the bible as truth to understand that others do.
It's just a book with a complex, human, politicized history. And it's been questionably translated several times over. I'm an agnostic/athiest, albeit one who recieved substantial theological training from Jesuits and Dominicans, and read his share of Barth, Tillich and the like.
Well now you really need to study up on your history then. For one thing, the discovery of many intact documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that the majority of the Bible has been passed down through the generations with hardly any changes. As far as translations, there are two types...one that tries literal translation (like NIV) and one that tries meaning translation (like NLT). And they are fairly accurate...being reviewed by hundreds of scholars. Of course if this was a valid argument you could just pick of the greek, hebrew and aramatic texts.
What is "just" about making assent to a single doctrine the basis of eternal damnation? If "the law of God is writ in the heart of Man", could such a morally counter-intuitive stance really be the law of God?
It's not making one follow a single doctrine...its about the truth. Christianity says "this is how it is...no strings, no rules, just believe this...". The Lord is simply asking that you believe he exists and created you. And if you can't do that, then you have no need to be with him for eternity.
No that was just the point I decided to discuss. Christianity is an entire package. That is why I said elsewhere on thsi topic that if you believe in the Lord and accept the holy spirit then He will slowly change you from the inside out. Thus its not that you aren't allowed to do stuff, but rather you do not desire to do stuff (ie immoral stuff).
Not that there isn't any room for discussions of an afterlife, but my impression of Christianity from the Bible reading I've done seems to imply that Christianity is far more about the present world.
Yes it is about both but more importantly what happens in the next world/life. This is why being a martyr in Christianity is not such a bad thing. Jesus spends a great deal of time talking about such things such as he is preparing a mansion for us and he will return and make all things new, etc. Of course being a Christian is all about living a livestyle pleasing to God. So you don't just sit around twidling your thumbs waiting to die...you live life to its fullest, but more importantly, live it as God intended (morally and spiritually).
My theory is that most Christians look for God to do stuff in the real world and don't see it, so they assume that's because religion only matters for the afterlife. It's a defense mechanism that avoids admitting, "I must have misunderstood something about what God wants."
This is very true. God always answers prayers, but sometime his answer is "no" or "not yet" and thats something that is hard for some Christians to accept. God is looking out for what is in our best interests, not our desires.
Many artists build upon their previous work. And it shows you that the works all came from the same artist. If DNA works so well, why do something radically different? I don't think I missed the point at all. You're saying, "all of your programs are in Perl so that just aren't artistic. If you had created your own programming language for every script you wrote, THAT would be artistic."
Again, a God who behaves like that is an infantile jerk.
No God would be a far bigger jerk if he was not just. Who is the bigger jerk, a God who punishes those who don't believe, or one who doesn't? If someone robbed and killed me, and they never believed/asked for forgiveness, then God owes it to me to punish them. Also all you have to do is believe...he's made the path easy. I don't think anyone will go to hell who did not choose it. There are scriptures which say God is patient because he doesn't want anyone to perish. So you think he's lying and he really enjoys destroying and punishing those he created? The bible says God is a god of Love.
Um try asking a true Christian...and I mean one who believes and is born again, not just someone in title who attends church every Sunday because they want to socialize. Also God does what is in our best interests, not what we want. I'd love to be a billionaire, but God hasn't reigned down any money on me yet. I guess he must be evil then.
So here you are thinking for God. If God says you must believe in him to be saved, why is that so hard to follow? And how can you say a Hindu believes in the one true God? Because a Hindu doesn't. It's not most people on this planet haven't been exposed to Christianity and can say "Well I never knew!". It's not like its a hard religion. You don't have to follow hundreds of laws, you don't have to bow down 5 times a day...you just have to believe. He's made the path fairly easy and if people don't follow it then its because they chose to not follow it and miss the train. It's silly for people to keep arguing how evil God is because he'll send everyone to hell who refuses to believe in him.
Being a Christian myself this post is no doubt biased but since you brought up some points and questions I thought I would address them...
You might be interested in studying up on Christian theology since it addresses many of your points. It says God does indeed exist, and he will forgive you regardless of what you have done in the past. Morals (ethics) come from him but living by his rules is not a requirement as you could never "earn your way to heaven" like you would in other religions (Islam, Judaism). Once you are a Christian (and not just in title) you accept the holy spirit which guides you and helps you to avoid evil things. That is a lifelong process which is why many (true) Christians are not perfect...nobody is! And of course, many call theirselves Christians when they really aren't...giving all Christians a bad name. Also many non-Christians think Christianity is a rule(law)-based religion and God just wants to ruin your fun. In reality, it is nothing like that and God simply wants the best for you...nothing less.
Many times agnostics think that God should come down and fix everything, etc. but that doesn't happen. Christian theology states that we are in a fallen world, and due to the fact that we are given free will (ie freedom) God is not going to sit here and be a puppet master. When we die we are judged and that is it. If we believed and trusted in him we will live with him forever, and if we don't, we go to hell. It's not a hard theology to grasp. Furthermore we are told he is just and he will fix all things at the end of the age. So while the world may suck today, it will not be like that for all time.
Also just as an aside... If God exists, he will exist regardless of whether you believe in him or not. But whether you live in paradise or hell does directly depend on whether you believe in him or not. Really, what do you have to lose?
I think you're quite wrong there. What you're saying is like me saying there is no artistic expression in anything I write since they all use Perl and run under UNIX? Personally I see a lot of expression and differences when I look at all of the types of animals.
What if you're a lazy bumb who doesn't work...but ocasionally goes walking? What if you're from out of town, or worse, a visiting foreigner? Those freeloaders..I'm having to pay for their use of the road.
Unless you use a bike or walk. I think those are still legal even though one didn't necessarily pay car taxes.
At that point, you can use imap(s) and horde/IMP [horde.org] to create your own webmail service...
Don't bother with horde. Get Squirrelmail and you won't regret it.
Yeah but what do news people know about that? You just say "Look it hit me in my foot, and its still warm. Want to feel it?"
1. Get a rock
2. Say it's a meteorite that hit you on the foot.
3. BBC believes you, publishes goofy photo of you holding your "meteorite"
4. ???
5. Profit
The site never addresses why he rocked the machine. I've never once had to do that with a drink machine. Now with chips and candy bars those machines always try to screw you and you have to shake the hell out of it to get your stuff out.
Apparently if you create your own authority certificate, sign all your certificates with it, put it on the website, let the client download it and install it with IE certificate manager, then Outlook will stop complaining. This is the only way...not even downloading the certificate into IE will stop it. Apparently it requires a trusted root. Of course if you use Verisign/Thawte monopoly, it gladly accepts it. I still like Mulberry where you hit one button to tell it to use it anyway and stop bugging you. I have to plug it somewhere as it is not bloated like Eudora and isn't plagued with security holes or restrict options like Outlook, and it runs under Mac, Windows, and Linux. www.cyrusoft.com
Yep that did it and works like a charm. I do appreciate the advice. Though I do still wish there was a simple "Don't ask my anymore" option. For example, my favorite email client Mulberry has this. It says something to the effect that the certificate is self-issued and may not be trustworthy, and you can either choose to allow for that session or allow forever. You don't have to worry about downloading an authority certificate, etc.
Personally I always say yes. I just accept that the likelyhood of me being spoofed at exactly that moment is very small. Given that that is true that host becomes "safe" from then on. Could the same principle not be applied to these self-signing web hosts.
Most of the secure sites I use get used again and again so this would work perfectly. And for the truely paranoid what about when you register for a site you get sent the site public key and can just start encrypting away.
For websites you can usually turn it off permanently (if you use IE) but Outlook won't let you do the same for email. My main issue about it is A) its annoying as hell and B) it puts doubt into customer's minds when there shouldn't be. It ought to just say "Do you trust this person?" and if you say YES, that person stays trusted forever. Microsoft had no problem doing that for ActiveX yet they can't do the same for SSL certs.
"bothr" doesn't exist, replace with "both"? Yes.
I myself hardly ever use a spellchecker for exactly this reason. A word could be spelt right but be the entirely wrong word. I suspect it happens quite frequently.
Unfortunately most clients/browsers seem to go out of their way to discourage self-signed certificates with error messages that sound like "This certificate was self-signed. We don't know who the hell this person is. They could be a terrorist wanting to destroy your computer. If you click YES then they could format your harddrive and steal your credit card. By the way, even if you click YES we'll keep asking you everytime you visit this site unless they shell out some $ to Verisign or Thawte"
I guess you meant bother as in "I didn't bother to proofread my submission to Slashdot"
It's quite simple...if its free, you have no right to gripe. If you had to pay money for it, then the software producer should have to stand behind it and provide warranty, support, etc. As it stands now, commercial companies trash your rights when you click "I Agree"