So do not mistaken selfinflicted damage caused by a Blairesque spinmeistering for an Al Qaeda achievement.
What you say may well be true.
But it remains a fact that the end result was one that Al Qaeda desired. First, withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq, second the removal of the government that put them there. Also, without the bombs there would have been no aftermath for Aznar to bumble, and he would likely still be in power. So I'm sure Al Qaeda feels they played a large part in precipitating the events that transpired.
Thus, my argument that Al Qaeda are brilliant at PR. They achieve the results they desire, while those they influence have ulterior justifications that have nothing to do with supporting Al Qaeda.
Money is not enough. You have to have knowledge and intelligence. These do not mix well with religious fundamentalism.
Wishful thinking. Al Qaeda has shown a lot of ingenuity and creativity in their activities. Would that it were otherwise.
They are quite adept at public relations, too. They've even been able to swing an election in a Western European nation, and have won over most of that continent to agreeing with their major policy positions.
Of course there are still a good many other poor countries who have such a dated infrastructure that will insure that POTS sticks around a while.
But when those countries start to expand their service, they'll go mobile wireless because it's much cheaper to install the infrastructure. And places without existing POTS infrastructure will go straight to digital wireless.
So poor countries may end up with an even higher proportion of wireless to wired service than the developed world.
"The media down plays the fact that thousands of Muslims ARE living in our Country!" - SheLion
Perhaps nobody has explained to everyone yet that Muslim is not a synonym for terrorist.
Uhhh, nothing in that quote conflates the meaning of Muslim and terrorist. Perhaps there's something in the original context that implies that, but without any such context, your comment on this quotation is a non-sequitir.
"+4 Interesting" for a non-sensical post? About par for the course for/., eh?
Hundreds of years ago it was witches. Our parents' generation feared the communists, and now we have the terrorists.
...
Today not only are innocents like Sami Al-Hussayen losing their freedom, but we're all losing a little freedom as we exchange privacy for so-called "protection".
It's great that you are vigilant about Americans "losing a little freedom". We all must always be vigilant in guarding our freedoms.
But you toss in Communism and Islamism (the word terrorism today is really just a euphimism for this) with witchcraft, implying you do not believe any of these things actually exist.
I suggest that Communism may have actually existed, and may have somewhat inconvenienced the freedoms of some people living in the Soviet Union in the last century. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist now, but, I believe it might be a real possibility that the Communist phenomenon still inconveniences the freedoms of a few Chinese and maybe even Cubans to this very day. Radical thought, I know.
If I can go out even more on a limb here, I think it's conceivable that the autocratic imposition of sharia law on many millions of people today may continue to inconvenience the freedom of women in burkas, women killed by their own fathers for the crime of being raped, homosexuals for existing, and anyone considering the idea of believing in something other than Islam. Yea, I know, I'm seriously approaching tin-hat territory now, but I think there might be something to this idea.
So please, as you seek to be vigilant in the defense of freedom, I ask you to be open to the idea that freedom is being violated in ways that you maybe haven't considered yet. And the radical idea that freedom may be restricted even in places other than the United States of America, even today.
Tell me, Can I make a dynamic screen, that adjusts itself based on the data inside it (AKA Java Swing)....
Yuck. Gag. Barf. Retch.
First off, MVC is really not very controversial. Most developers accept that MVC design is a Best Practice for applications with a significant user interface.
Secondly, if you honestly prefer writing a ton of code to create a Swing GUI to drawing exactly what you want in IB and being done with it, you are a masochist. With bindings, it's even easier now to hook up the GUI to your model. And if you use a tool that generates the GUI code for you, you're justing putting the pain off a little bit. Sooner rather than later, you will need to dive into all that autogenerated code, and what you see won't be pretty.
Thirdly, yes, I'm sure you can do the Currency Converter app faster in VB. BUT THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE MORE EXPERIENCED IN VB! Maybe you can save a small amount of time writing Currency Converter in VB if you eschew MVC design, but that's just because Currency Converter is not a serious application. Write anything more complex, and a good MVC design will give you a huge advantage in development time and code quality. It's a matter of being penny wise and pound foolish.
What about creating reuseable, database linked components, that can be dropped into any screen in a line of code?
Apple owned the definitive technology in this space. It was called Enterprise Objects (it kind of still exists but only Java and only works with WebObjects). Apple apparently decided it gave them too much of a competitive advantage for enterprise development and were afraid it might lead to success in that market segment, so they dropped Cocoa support for it.
The basic engine may very well be quite portable. I doubt Google would rely on any MS technology for something that strategic. If that's true, it would just require the GUI to be rewritten for each platform.
Still probably won't happen for other platforms, though, but it's not totally improbable.
There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president.
The STRENGTH of the Constitution is that the Founders were perfectly aware of this fact. That is why they set it up so the nut case President would be forever at odds with the nut case law makers and the nut case judges. It helps all of them stay out of trouble and hinders them from messing things up for us as badly as they would like.
Take an iPOD, a Laptop with a wireless card in it, and a wireless access point to a retirement home. Place them on a table right next to an Internet connection of any kind. Now ask if any of the residents can get a song from the iTunes store onto the iPOD.
On the other hand, if you tell them that they can use it to download pictures of their grandkids, they'll probably have it up and running faster than a 19 year old nerd could:).
This puts an unimaginable gap between the wealth of the different nations, so much so that the impoverished nations form a terrorist group to halt the conference where it is to be announced and hold the people hostage in order to make them change it.
Why would god give us a mind that naturally questions things, and then tell us not to use it when it comes to him?
Huhhhh???? Who ever said not to ask questions about God?
Christian apologetics has a very long history of asking and trying to answer difficult questions about God. Please please please continue to ask questions about God. It's exactly what God wants you to do.
When I was in college, my Christian group invited a Christian apologist, Cliff Knechtle, to our campus a couple of times. All he did was stand in a public place and answer ANY question about God, religion, Christianity, etc. that anyone asked him. He never failed to draw a large crowd, with lots of smart college students playing "try to stump Cliff".
A friend of mine decided to become a Christian after listening to Cliff a few times.
I know there's a lot of Christians out there who love to debate ideas about God. And a lot of people who had serious questions about Christianity that eventually became Christians because they received answers that satisfied them. So, yes, ask questions, but prepared to be honest enough to go where the answers lead you.
Help with what? Why do I need help? What's my bad situation? I can live a good life on my own, and contribute to the good lives of others without His help, thanks very much.
A rich young man came to Jesus and told him he had kept all the laws since he was a boy, and Jesus commended him. Then the man asked if he needed to do anything else to inherit eternal life.
Jesus told him to sell everything he owned and give it to the poor. The man was sad because he couldn't bring himself to do this.
Jesus said we sin even when we think bad thoughts about someone, without even doing anything about it. We sin when we want something or someone that isn't ours.
In short, we can't do it. We can't be good enough. But he was good enough for all of us.
The danger is believing we ARE good enough. By pointing to our list of accomplishments and saying "Look, here, at what I've done. Now you MUST let me into Heaven!" That's pride. Jesus said it doesn't work that way.
Jesus doesn't seek those who are proud of what they've done, who believe they need nothing from God. Jesus seeks those who know they need Him, that know they can't get to where they need to go on their own.
What I don't get is the whole praying thing. My son is currently on life support in hospital (born premature), and although he is doing well now, and will likely be okay, he was gravely ill several times.
That's a really tough situation. Have you considered that the prayers of your friends may have made a positive impact on your son? Did you ask your friends why they pray?
I can tell you that prayer is most definitely NOT an unconditional get out of jail free card. People who pray still have problems. And not every prayer gets answered the way we want. Job prayed. He still had problems.
We pray to come closer to God. To know him better. To be comforted, to get what we need from him. Sometimes this is different from what we want.
Is God waiting for the prayer count to decide if my son will live?
Do you want your son to ask you for what he needs? Would you give it to him anyways even if he doesn't ask?
God doesn't NEED us to ask him for what we need, but he appreciates it when we do. He also likes it when we just take the time to talk to him, too.
What about the baby next to us, who has not had a single visitor in weeks? "Sorry kid, nobody prayed for you".
I can tell you that the Bible says God has a special place in his heart for the widow, the fatherless, the poor, those who don't have anyone else looking out for them. He is their father, their husband, their protector. In regard to children, Jesus said anyone who harms one would be better off if he was in the water with a millstone around his neck.
If there is a God, he's done a pretty good job screwing my son. If he is not able to have a productive and happy life because of his situation, apparently he has to believe in the Christian God in order to have a second chance to be happy.
How is that "unconditional"?
I pray your son will have a happy, productive life. I don't know what God's plan is for him.
But I know that God's plan for all of us is eternal life with him. He's just waiting for us to accept the invitation. So, yeah, the fact we need to accept the invitation, I suppose, is a condition. But it's the only condition.
Is that why 90+% people in a country like say, Italy are christians?
Is that why a person born to a Hindu family in India "chooses" to be hindu and not shinto? Because his belief was formed from careful analysis of arguments, reasoning and evidence? Is that why a Amreican Indian born in a Cherokee tribe in 1600AD chose his religion and "chose" not to be a neighbouring Chicksaw ?
I suppose, then, people who blow up other people because of their beliefs aren't personally responsible. Their religion made them do it?
People around the world change their religion every day, if given the freedom to do so.
Two thousand+ years ago, there were no Christians. If people only get religion from their parents, how is it there's about a billion Christians or so in the world today? Ditto for Islam (except started more recently and is maybe growing faster). Some of this may be coerced, but a lot of people freely convert from one faith to another.
In a free society, people have as much free will as they want to have. No more, no less.
So, the "choice" I made is not choosing what you believe in?
Doesn't matter what I believe in. What matters is what's true.
If I'm wrong, you don't have any of the problems I described. Might have other problems, though:).
Since belief is an emotional response...
Where did you get this idea? Shouldn't beliefs be formed from careful analysis of arguments, reasoning and evidence? Forming beliefs based on emotion is foolish.
Does it still sound so selfless when it is required by the relegion?
What's being required? Christ gave his life for us when we had nothing to offer Him. He demanded nothing. He gave all.
I still can't see what your issue is with people voluntarily professing their love to God. If people are being coerced into the motions of worship, well, that's wrong and should be stopped.
Wow, way to dance around the question. Are we required to follow the laws of the Old Testament or not?
Uhhh, I guess I have to find a way to make it even simpler, then.
IF we had managed to obey the Law perfectly, we wouldn't need Jesus. But since Christ has paid the penalty for this imperfection for us, the only requirement is to accept the forgiveness that has already been purchased for us.
So the Law is there only to show us that we need Jesus. I suppose it's either/or, then. Either obey the Law perfectly, or trust Jesus. That's the requirement.
Also, no Christians I have heard of profess that Christ's forgiveness extends beyond death.
That's probably true, and maybe amounts to another requirement. But Christians do disagree about what happens to those who have never had the forgiveness provided by Christ properly offered to them before they die. Some Christians think there is an invitation made to them after they die. I don't know, but trust God to be merciful about it.
(with no proof BTW)
Now THAT is quite the parenthetical. Centuries of apologetics, theology and philosophy, brushed aside in just four words (six if you expand the acronym).
In fact, I don't think there is anybody that considers himself 'evil', no matter what.
Any intellectually honest Christian MUST believe that he or she is evil (along with everyone else). The whole thing doesn't make much sense, otherwise.
...of a web site who's whole reason for existence is discussing religion. If a religion web site discussing religion is enough to make your head explode, you have quite the fragile head.
Christian theology (specifically the concept of the Incarnation) really wasn't designed to cope with a planet with separated hemispheres, let alone planetary systems separated by trillions of miles.
Read the article. The writer specifically says that this exact issue (the possibility that God created other worlds) was addressed by the Catholic church in the 13th century. They decided that, theologically, the possibility could not be ruled out.
Hmm. So Jesus died for our sins but didn't die for their sins, and they didn't have their own Jesus either? This can only mean that god loves us so much more than he loves them.
Or that the aliens didn't screw up so badly that God Himself had to die for them.
Aren't Christians required to worship God? Isn't that what they are doing during "worship" services on Sunday? Ass-kissing is a less flatering term for this of course.
Is it ass-kissing when a husband praises his wife, and professes his adoration and devotion to her? Do you not know the difference between vain flattery and professions of love?
Then why is the Old Testament still included in the bible, and still quoted frequently? Are you saying that we are no longer sinning if we don't follow the rules in the Old Testament?
A good part of the New Testament is devoted to answering this very question. In a nutshell, the Old Testament (the Law) is there just to show us how big of a problem we have. But the Law is not the solution to the problem, Jesus is.
I thought that Christians belived in absolutes for good and evil (i.e. homosexuality is wrong because God said so). Are some of God's laws more absolute than others?
God's forgiveness is absolute, too. No amount of sin can overcome Christ's sacrifice. That goes for gay, straight, everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
So do not mistaken selfinflicted damage caused by a Blairesque spinmeistering for an Al Qaeda achievement.
What you say may well be true.
But it remains a fact that the end result was one that Al Qaeda desired. First, withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq, second the removal of the government that put them there. Also, without the bombs there would have been no aftermath for Aznar to bumble, and he would likely still be in power. So I'm sure Al Qaeda feels they played a large part in precipitating the events that transpired.
Thus, my argument that Al Qaeda are brilliant at PR. They achieve the results they desire, while those they influence have ulterior justifications that have nothing to do with supporting Al Qaeda.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Money is not enough. You have to have knowledge and intelligence. These do not mix well with religious fundamentalism.
Wishful thinking. Al Qaeda has shown a lot of ingenuity and creativity in their activities. Would that it were otherwise.
They are quite adept at public relations, too. They've even been able to swing an election in a Western European nation, and have won over most of that continent to agreeing with their major policy positions.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Of course there are still a good many other poor countries who have such a dated infrastructure that will insure that POTS sticks around a while.
But when those countries start to expand their service, they'll go mobile wireless because it's much cheaper to install the infrastructure. And places without existing POTS infrastructure will go straight to digital wireless.
So poor countries may end up with an even higher proportion of wireless to wired service than the developed world.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
"The media down plays the fact that thousands of Muslims ARE living in our Country!" - SheLion Perhaps nobody has explained to everyone yet that Muslim is not a synonym for terrorist.
Uhhh, nothing in that quote conflates the meaning of Muslim and terrorist. Perhaps there's something in the original context that implies that, but without any such context, your comment on this quotation is a non-sequitir.
"+4 Interesting" for a non-sensical post? About par for the course for /., eh?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Hundreds of years ago it was witches. Our parents' generation feared the communists, and now we have the terrorists.
...
Today not only are innocents like Sami Al-Hussayen losing their freedom, but we're all losing a little freedom as we exchange privacy for so-called "protection".
It's great that you are vigilant about Americans "losing a little freedom". We all must always be vigilant in guarding our freedoms.
But you toss in Communism and Islamism (the word terrorism today is really just a euphimism for this) with witchcraft, implying you do not believe any of these things actually exist.
I suggest that Communism may have actually existed, and may have somewhat inconvenienced the freedoms of some people living in the Soviet Union in the last century. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist now, but, I believe it might be a real possibility that the Communist phenomenon still inconveniences the freedoms of a few Chinese and maybe even Cubans to this very day. Radical thought, I know.
If I can go out even more on a limb here, I think it's conceivable that the autocratic imposition of sharia law on many millions of people today may continue to inconvenience the freedom of women in burkas, women killed by their own fathers for the crime of being raped, homosexuals for existing, and anyone considering the idea of believing in something other than Islam. Yea, I know, I'm seriously approaching tin-hat territory now, but I think there might be something to this idea.
So please, as you seek to be vigilant in the defense of freedom, I ask you to be open to the idea that freedom is being violated in ways that you maybe haven't considered yet. And the radical idea that freedom may be restricted even in places other than the United States of America, even today.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
In Brazil a typical restaurant meal, for instance, will cost about US$4.
Costs about the same in the U.S., as long as the restaurant has golden arches outside.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Tell me, Can I make a dynamic screen, that adjusts itself based on the data inside it (AKA Java Swing)....
Yuck. Gag. Barf. Retch.
First off, MVC is really not very controversial. Most developers accept that MVC design is a Best Practice for applications with a significant user interface.
Secondly, if you honestly prefer writing a ton of code to create a Swing GUI to drawing exactly what you want in IB and being done with it, you are a masochist. With bindings, it's even easier now to hook up the GUI to your model. And if you use a tool that generates the GUI code for you, you're justing putting the pain off a little bit. Sooner rather than later, you will need to dive into all that autogenerated code, and what you see won't be pretty.
Thirdly, yes, I'm sure you can do the Currency Converter app faster in VB. BUT THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE MORE EXPERIENCED IN VB! Maybe you can save a small amount of time writing Currency Converter in VB if you eschew MVC design, but that's just because Currency Converter is not a serious application. Write anything more complex, and a good MVC design will give you a huge advantage in development time and code quality. It's a matter of being penny wise and pound foolish.
What about creating reuseable, database linked components, that can be dropped into any screen in a line of code?
Apple owned the definitive technology in this space. It was called Enterprise Objects (it kind of still exists but only Java and only works with WebObjects). Apple apparently decided it gave them too much of a competitive advantage for enterprise development and were afraid it might lead to success in that market segment, so they dropped Cocoa support for it.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
The basic engine may very well be quite portable. I doubt Google would rely on any MS technology for something that strategic. If that's true, it would just require the GUI to be rewritten for each platform.
Still probably won't happen for other platforms, though, but it's not totally improbable.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president.
The STRENGTH of the Constitution is that the Founders were perfectly aware of this fact. That is why they set it up so the nut case President would be forever at odds with the nut case law makers and the nut case judges. It helps all of them stay out of trouble and hinders them from messing things up for us as badly as they would like.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Take an iPOD, a Laptop with a wireless card in it, and a wireless access point to a retirement home. Place them on a table right next to an Internet connection of any kind. Now ask if any of the residents can get a song from the iTunes store onto the iPOD.
On the other hand, if you tell them that they can use it to download pictures of their grandkids, they'll probably have it up and running faster than a 19 year old nerd could :).
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
This puts an unimaginable gap between the wealth of the different nations, so much so that the impoverished nations form a terrorist group to halt the conference where it is to be announced and hold the people hostage in order to make them change it.
And that's different from now, how, exactly?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Why would god give us a mind that naturally questions things, and then tell us not to use it when it comes to him?
Huhhhh???? Who ever said not to ask questions about God?
Christian apologetics has a very long history of asking and trying to answer difficult questions about God. Please please please continue to ask questions about God. It's exactly what God wants you to do.
When I was in college, my Christian group invited a Christian apologist, Cliff Knechtle, to our campus a couple of times. All he did was stand in a public place and answer ANY question about God, religion, Christianity, etc. that anyone asked him. He never failed to draw a large crowd, with lots of smart college students playing "try to stump Cliff".
A friend of mine decided to become a Christian after listening to Cliff a few times.
I know there's a lot of Christians out there who love to debate ideas about God. And a lot of people who had serious questions about Christianity that eventually became Christians because they received answers that satisfied them. So, yes, ask questions, but prepared to be honest enough to go where the answers lead you.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Help with what? Why do I need help? What's my bad situation? I can live a good life on my own, and contribute to the good lives of others without His help, thanks very much.
A rich young man came to Jesus and told him he had kept all the laws since he was a boy, and Jesus commended him. Then the man asked if he needed to do anything else to inherit eternal life.
Jesus told him to sell everything he owned and give it to the poor. The man was sad because he couldn't bring himself to do this.
Jesus said we sin even when we think bad thoughts about someone, without even doing anything about it. We sin when we want something or someone that isn't ours.
In short, we can't do it. We can't be good enough. But he was good enough for all of us.
The danger is believing we ARE good enough. By pointing to our list of accomplishments and saying "Look, here, at what I've done. Now you MUST let me into Heaven!" That's pride. Jesus said it doesn't work that way.
Jesus doesn't seek those who are proud of what they've done, who believe they need nothing from God. Jesus seeks those who know they need Him, that know they can't get to where they need to go on their own.
What I don't get is the whole praying thing. My son is currently on life support in hospital (born premature), and although he is doing well now, and will likely be okay, he was gravely ill several times.
That's a really tough situation. Have you considered that the prayers of your friends may have made a positive impact on your son? Did you ask your friends why they pray?
I can tell you that prayer is most definitely NOT an unconditional get out of jail free card. People who pray still have problems. And not every prayer gets answered the way we want. Job prayed. He still had problems.
We pray to come closer to God. To know him better. To be comforted, to get what we need from him. Sometimes this is different from what we want.
Is God waiting for the prayer count to decide if my son will live?
Do you want your son to ask you for what he needs? Would you give it to him anyways even if he doesn't ask?
God doesn't NEED us to ask him for what we need, but he appreciates it when we do. He also likes it when we just take the time to talk to him, too.
What about the baby next to us, who has not had a single visitor in weeks? "Sorry kid, nobody prayed for you".
I can tell you that the Bible says God has a special place in his heart for the widow, the fatherless, the poor, those who don't have anyone else looking out for them. He is their father, their husband, their protector. In regard to children, Jesus said anyone who harms one would be better off if he was in the water with a millstone around his neck.
If there is a God, he's done a pretty good job screwing my son. If he is not able to have a productive and happy life because of his situation, apparently he has to believe in the Christian God in order to have a second chance to be happy.
How is that "unconditional"?
I pray your son will have a happy, productive life. I don't know what God's plan is for him.
But I know that God's plan for all of us is eternal life with him. He's just waiting for us to accept the invitation. So, yeah, the fact we need to accept the invitation, I suppose, is a condition. But it's the only condition.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Is that why 90+% people in a country like say, Italy are christians? Is that why a person born to a Hindu family in India "chooses" to be hindu and not shinto? Because his belief was formed from careful analysis of arguments, reasoning and evidence? Is that why a Amreican Indian born in a Cherokee tribe in 1600AD chose his religion and "chose" not to be a neighbouring Chicksaw ?
I suppose, then, people who blow up other people because of their beliefs aren't personally responsible. Their religion made them do it?
People around the world change their religion every day, if given the freedom to do so.
Two thousand+ years ago, there were no Christians. If people only get religion from their parents, how is it there's about a billion Christians or so in the world today? Ditto for Islam (except started more recently and is maybe growing faster). Some of this may be coerced, but a lot of people freely convert from one faith to another.
In a free society, people have as much free will as they want to have. No more, no less.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
So non-Christians have to obey the Christian laws, while Chrisitnas do not? Seems just and fair.
It's the same deal for everyone. Free forgiveness. You're just playing word games here.
Does this mean that it's okay for Christians to sin?
Paul answered this, in Romans, I believe. In summary, his answer was "No".
Can you be a Christian homosexual as long as you ask forgiveness every week?
You keep asking the same question in different ways. You cannot exceed the limit to God's forgiveness. You can only choose to accept or reject it.
BTW, what about sacraficing clean animals to gain forgiveness for sins, why doesn't that work anymore?
You don't need the symbol when you have the real thing. Animal sacrifice was a forward reference to Jesus.
Try definition 2: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
Why did you skip over definition 1? "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
"Doesn't matter what I believe in. What matters is what's true."
Incorrect.
So now you're saying what I believe matters more than what's true? Wow, I didn't know I was that important :).
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
So, the "choice" I made is not choosing what you believe in?
Doesn't matter what I believe in. What matters is what's true.
If I'm wrong, you don't have any of the problems I described. Might have other problems, though :).
Since belief is an emotional response...
Where did you get this idea? Shouldn't beliefs be formed from careful analysis of arguments, reasoning and evidence? Forming beliefs based on emotion is foolish.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Does it still sound so selfless when it is required by the relegion?
What's being required? Christ gave his life for us when we had nothing to offer Him. He demanded nothing. He gave all.
I still can't see what your issue is with people voluntarily professing their love to God. If people are being coerced into the motions of worship, well, that's wrong and should be stopped.
Wow, way to dance around the question. Are we required to follow the laws of the Old Testament or not?
Uhhh, I guess I have to find a way to make it even simpler, then.
IF we had managed to obey the Law perfectly, we wouldn't need Jesus. But since Christ has paid the penalty for this imperfection for us, the only requirement is to accept the forgiveness that has already been purchased for us.
So the Law is there only to show us that we need Jesus. I suppose it's either/or, then. Either obey the Law perfectly, or trust Jesus. That's the requirement.
Also, no Christians I have heard of profess that Christ's forgiveness extends beyond death.
That's probably true, and maybe amounts to another requirement. But Christians do disagree about what happens to those who have never had the forgiveness provided by Christ properly offered to them before they die. Some Christians think there is an invitation made to them after they die. I don't know, but trust God to be merciful about it.
(with no proof BTW)
Now THAT is quite the parenthetical. Centuries of apologetics, theology and philosophy, brushed aside in just four words (six if you expand the acronym).
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Now, if there wasn't a threat, then believers and others would BOTH end up in Heaven forever.
The only condition for entering Heaven is a desire to enter. God won't force anyone to be there who doesn't want to be.
Hell is simply a word for the state of those who choose not to enter Heaven.
If you want to delve deeper into an examination of these ideas, read C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Anyone who wants it. It won't be forced on those who don't.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
In fact, I don't think there is anybody that considers himself 'evil', no matter what.
Any intellectually honest Christian MUST believe that he or she is evil (along with everyone else). The whole thing doesn't make much sense, otherwise.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
And this is in the 'science' section.
...of a web site who's whole reason for existence is discussing religion. If a religion web site discussing religion is enough to make your head explode, you have quite the fragile head.
(And this is insightful how, exactly?)
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Christian theology (specifically the concept of the Incarnation) really wasn't designed to cope with a planet with separated hemispheres, let alone planetary systems separated by trillions of miles.
Read the article. The writer specifically says that this exact issue (the possibility that God created other worlds) was addressed by the Catholic church in the 13th century. They decided that, theologically, the possibility could not be ruled out.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Hmm. So Jesus died for our sins but didn't die for their sins, and they didn't have their own Jesus either? This can only mean that god loves us so much more than he loves them.
Or that the aliens didn't screw up so badly that God Himself had to die for them.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Aren't Christians required to worship God? Isn't that what they are doing during "worship" services on Sunday? Ass-kissing is a less flatering term for this of course.
Is it ass-kissing when a husband praises his wife, and professes his adoration and devotion to her? Do you not know the difference between vain flattery and professions of love?
Then why is the Old Testament still included in the bible, and still quoted frequently? Are you saying that we are no longer sinning if we don't follow the rules in the Old Testament?
A good part of the New Testament is devoted to answering this very question. In a nutshell, the Old Testament (the Law) is there just to show us how big of a problem we have. But the Law is not the solution to the problem, Jesus is.
I thought that Christians belived in absolutes for good and evil (i.e. homosexuality is wrong because God said so). Are some of God's laws more absolute than others?
God's forgiveness is absolute, too. No amount of sin can overcome Christ's sacrifice. That goes for gay, straight, everyone.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo