How can activity be stimulating and satisfying and glorifying if there is no choice?
You can have several good choices. Or it can be the case that you have the choice between good and evil but will always freely (and happily) choose the good one.
Man was supposedly created to be a companion to god and to glorify him - this is why we have free will.
The Bible never uses the term 'free will.' It talks about the accountability and responsibility of man and the sovereignty of God. We are accountable for the decisions we make, while God's sovereign will is carried out.
If there is glory in heaven, then there must exist the potential for evil.
Only under your philosophy. The Bible describes a different philosophy under which glory is possible without the potential for evil and in fact is greater following the defeat of evil.
That means, if heaven exists, there still exists within that realm the potential to lose one's grace and thus being ejected.... or, it's just emotional and intellectual nothingness. Some paradise.
The Bible talks about people not losing their salvation while at the same time partaking in the glory of the new creation and finding it emotionally and intellectually stimulating. I therefore draw the conclusion that your philosophy is inapplicable.
Why would I want to live in a world without evil? A world without evil would be boring as hell - no unrest, nothing to change, nothing to comment on, no need to work or think or even feel. It would be death.
The biblical description of a world without evil is pretty different from what you imagine. It's a place with plenty of activity. Activity that is stimulating, rewarding, satisfying and glorifying. You don't honestly think that evil is required for something to be interesting do you? Is evil required in a loving relationship? To raise a child? To explore uncharted terrain? To invent? To discover? To compose? To paint? To do all manner of interesting and edifying things?
And I dunno why you think your country is a democracy, but I can assure this one isn't - it wasn't meant to be. The U
I think the UK is a democracy because as a constitutional monarchy, it has a form of representative democracy known as parliamentary democracy i.e. I vote for people to represent me in parliament where they were discuss and vote on issues for me. The US, for all the complaining of people there, is also a representative democracy. You are, I presume, familiar with the phrase 'government of the people by the people for the people' or something along those lines?
Whew that's a lot to answer and as I'm about to head off to bed I'll think about it another day.
I know what you mean; I was ready to head off to bed after writing it. Time to give the old brain muscle a bit of a rest.
I just wanted to say that I've marked you as friend since you can provide discourse on subjects like this without getting angry, petty, or vile.
Likewise. Makes a nice change from the glib flippantry of a lot of people. Look forward to continuing the discussion when you're more awake.
Just noticed your other post...
Actually I have a bit of time some I'm going to reply with a little short note. In general I'm pretty apathetic to people's choice of religion because it's just that a choice. I'll also agree that most religions do more harm than good and are good for a lot of people. The only issues I have is when making controversial decisions reagarding the lives and happiness of other people that sometimes a person's religion will make the decision for them. If it doesn't affect you and yours and all it serves is to maybe bring a little happiness to someone's life then I think the moral highground is to sometimes let it go even if your religion says that it's wrong.
If you don't believe that any one religion is right, then that's a fairly logical position to take I guess. It only really becomes an issue if (and yes, it's a big if!) a particular religion is true. I can understand the frustration people have when it seems like someone else's religion is intruding on their life - I certainly get rather peeved when the government looks like it's butting in on religious issues and feel quite concerned about places where Christians are faced with authorities who want to implement Sharia law (or already have). The thing about Christianity is that it's holistic, it affects every part of an individual's life so it becomes impossible to interact with society without God figuring into the equation somewhere (and ideally being the underlying, driving force behind things). That probably sounds a little invasive, but from our perspective it's pretty awesome to think that God actually has an interest in every part of our lives and wants to use every part for good. Everything from brushing your teeth in the morning to giving the neighbour's son a lift home from school, from doing the gardening to going out and voting can be an act of worship to God.
Also yes, I have had bad experiences with religions. Mostly because I spent two years fighting in Iraq and saw more fighting over foolish ideals than anyone should ever have to.
I had a quick look at your profile and wondered if that might be the case. I certainly have no interest in trying to prove that religion has never started a war or made a conflict worse - would be a bit of a lie if I tried to do that! And certainly the history of the church shows that even great men of God have their moments of weakness where they can commit terrible acts. Even without church history we could look at the Bible and see the horrific things that some followers of God did there. King David tried to cover up his adultery with Bathsheba by bringing her husband back from a war to make it look like he had got her pregnant and not David. That wasn't working too well though, so he shipped him off to the worst part of the fighting instead to ensure that he would die and David could marry Bathsheba legally. And all of this while he, as king, should have been out leading the fight himself instead of oggling girls from the palace roof. It's pretty reassuring to know though that God could take a guy like that, use him for his glory and ultimately redeem him. If God can forgive David, he can forgive me.
Out of curiosity, which army did you serve in? I used to work for a church in London that was headed up by an ex-SAS colonel - no slacking on the job there! His son was in the British army and just got married after a tour of duty.
in fact there's nothing against gay marriage in mainstream christian theology
Actualy the historic and orthodox position has been that homosexual activity is morally wrong. Homosexual temptation, orientation - call it what you will - is no mroe sinful than any temptation is (i.e. not al all), but giving in to temptation is no better (and no worse) than other sin.
in most readings it's pretty much mandated
Where one earth are you getting that from?
if you accept the no sex without marriage bit (disputed, but I won't get into that)
The historic and orthodox position is very much that there should be no sex outside of marriage.
then to ban gay marriage is to force people into sin.. completely the opposite of christian values.
Such a law wouldn't force people to have sex outside of marriage. It would make it more likely to happen, but would in no way compel behaviour from people, so that's rather a weak argument.
OTOH I've heard some pretty disturbing stuff coming out of the US that's labeled 'christian' - advocating violence against people, promoting hatred, even calling for political assassinations!! I live in hope that's just a tiny vocal minority rather than what you guys have to live with.
I agree that none of that is Christian behaviour, however some people are very quick to label certain stances as hateful just because they endorse a different form of morality.
but if they want to collect money for entertainment (which is what services really are), they should be taxed just like the civic center down the street
In some churches, maybe it is just entertainment, but that goes against the official orthodox role of a service.
On the first point, I do apologize because I mispoke myself. I very tired at the moment and not really in the best state of mind.
No problem, we all have our bad days.
For the second that hasn't always been the case, it's fairly recent and modern. Throughout history leaders of church/state nations used the religion to garner taxes and make the man at the top/emporer/king/whatever rich and the man/woman was often the physical embodiment of some supreme being. You'll notice that I didn't specify any religion and you make it out like I was attacking christianity in general.
You did say 'The same goes for just about every church' which rather sounded like an attack on Christianity in general. And your description of history certainly isn't a fair generalisation to level at the church.
I really wasn't I honestly don't care, people can and will believe what they want and more power to them, just don't force it on me and mine and for fuck's sake don't fight over it.
It sounds like your issue isn't really anything to do with taxation, but rather a bad experience.
As for the third time I'll take you up on your use of the Bible as an example. Most people who read the Bible attend a church, most of them in turn present a tithe to the church, so yes for most people it's a return on investment so that they can feel good about themselves and have someone tell them that the choices they make will be forgiven and that the morality of the church protects them.
Some people do that, yes, but it isn't the orthodox teaching of the church. It's quite similar to the 'prosperity gospel,' which I abhor and detest, but it certainly isn't representative of the teaching of mainline Christianity. Now, if you want to disagree with people who do the things you mention, then I'll happily join you in condemning the practice because I certainly don't believe that people can buy off guilt with money. If you want to say that orthodox Christianity is similar to a cult in teaching this, then I would take issue.
I would like to pose a question though, why does the church feel a need to force it's morality on others.
I'll answer you with another question: why do democracies feel a need to legislate any form of behaviour? I live in a democracy (well, a constitutional monarchy), as presumably do you. In a democracy, the people discuss and vote on a variety of issues, including legislative matters. Some people think some things should be legal and illegal and others think the opposite. People make their decision based on a combination of pragmatism and conscience. For some people, their decision is influenced by culture, others largely make up their mind on their own, while a few make decisions based on their faith. Now do the votes of people who make decisions based on their faith have less value or worth than for instance atheists? Is there anything which makes them less valid?
If so, then you probably don't actually want to live in a democracy. If not, then can you accept that when someone votes differently to you, they are not trying to force their belief on you any more than you are trying to force your opinion on them?
Moving on then from politics and legislation to the matter of exhorting people to follow a certain system of morality, the church feels it has the authority to encourage (not force at the point of a sword or a gun - Paul points out in Romans that legislation and the enforcement thereof is a matter for the state, not the church) certain behaviours and beliefs because of the belief that the Bible is the word of God and in it he encourages certain behaviours and beliefs. It's not a matter of forcing the church's morality in people - it's a matter of encouraging people to follow God's morality. Actually, it's a case of telling people that they've failed to live up to God's morality, presenting Je
You're not crazy; you're just confusing descriptive with prescriptive and socio-economic policy with the voluntary actions of a community.
Also, given Acts 4:32-35, which is literally the pretext of the story of the deaths of Ananias and Saphira, it is clear from the text that the church community had laid claim to an expectation that all the proceeds from any sale of property would go to the community, as Peter himself reminds Ananias right before he drops dead.
Actually, the text says the complete opposite. Verse 3:
But Peter said "Ananias why has Satan filled you heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land'
You presumably would focus on the keeping things back part of that quote, but taken in its entirety and in the context of verse 4...
"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."
... that the problem is lying about the about sold. After selling the land, it (or rather, the money gained) was still the property of Ananias an Sapphira. They could have kept all the money, but by pretending they had given it all to the church, they had foolishly attempted to deceive God. There was no expectation that all the money would go to the church.
ho said anything about what was in the bible? I sure didn't. The word 'bible' was never used once in my post,
You said "'God' used to levy taxes. They were called tithes." Now, given that the Bible contains God's words, it was quite reasonable to assume that that was what you were referring to.
and neither were the tenets mentioned.
You alleged certain things about the practices of the church and compared what Christians do to what cults teach, so it seemed relevant to talk about what churches actually believe and teach.
As for being stronger, religious leaders generally have a degree of "pious and devout" that says they are less likely to give in to temptation than a normal worshipper. That pious and devout translates to "able to do what our god/being of a higher power wants as opposed to what human tendency ends up doing".
The Bible exhorts leaders to a high standard, but makes no guarantees about them achieving it by virtue of their position. faithful churches would teach this.
They let in non-rich people, but you have to pay to advance in the religion. The same goes for just about every church
I can think of a few frauds for whom that might have been the case anda few weak-willed people who gave in to the temptation of money, but can't think of any major Chrstian denominations which require a monetary contribution to 'advance' in it. In fact, given the equality in Christ of all members of the church (including between laity and clergy), the concept of advancement is meaningless. You can become more mature as a believer, but that's always talked about in the context of knowing Christ better, being more loving, etc.
it's just that the rest of them take your money to actually do society some good once in a while and make sure the cats at the top are fat and happy
I seem t recall a lot of church leaders from the New Testament being rather poor and frequently martyred, so that's certainly not the model for Christianity. Nothing in the set up of churches to encourage it either. The pay for high ranking figures in most denominations would be pretty poor compared to a corporation. Some major denominations, e.g. Presbyterianism, even rotate the "cats at the top" every year, so there wouldn't ever be an opportunity while others don't really have anyone at the top e.g. independent churches.
They also give you a set of morals and ethics in return for your investment
That would seem to be freely available in the Bible.
not that it makes a whole lot of difference since if you're going to be moral you will and if not you won't. Religion really doesn't have a whole lot to do with it other than pushing the blame for you actions somewhere else.
That's probably the closest you've got to making a semi-accurate statement about Christianity, except that instead of forcibly pushing blame, the blame is freely (and necessarily) taken by Christ.
'God' used to levy taxes. They were called tithes. Part of it was religious reasoning, but if I remember my schooling correctly then there was also a degree of taking away some of your worldly possessions so that the church could protect you from their evil influences
Either you remember incorrectly, or you have been misinformed. Nothing about that in the Bible.
since the church members are, of course, stronger in this kind of thing than your normal person
Nothing about that either.
Hang on, that last bit sounds like something Scientologists and strange cults do - "Here, join us and give up your worldly possessions. No, it's okay, we'll be kind and look after them for you so that you no longer have to burden yourself with them"
Well then it's a good thing that it's not remotely similar to any of the tenets of Christianity, isn't it?
EXACTLY what I was going to mention. Countless billions funnel through the Vatican untaxed by countless countries. Massive case of hypocrisy, as is usual for the Catholic Church.
Do you think charities should be taxed? I imagine that the Pope, in common with a lot of people, would consider charities to be a better model for church finances than corporations. You might disagree, but just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a hypocrite.
And yes, Pope Ratz was a member of the Nazi youth.
So adults should be held hostage to their decisions as teenagers? Not that being a member of the Hitler Youth would have been much of an option at the time. Seriously, do you tihnk that every German in their 70s today must be a Swastika-waving, Hitler-mourning Nazi?
I suspect you're not interested in knowing, but in fact the God of the Bible has a long history of taxation.
Citizens were required to pay a flat tax of 10% of all earnings.
The crucial detail here being that it was citizens of the ancient theocratic state of Israel. It is pretty clear from the New Testament that God's people are citizens of heaven, rather than of an earthly state and that they should follow the laws of the states they reside in, so long as those laws do not force them to go against the law of God.
Further on, according to the Bible, in Christian communities this developed into an entirely socialist system, where resources were jointly held and distributed by a central authority
Nothing about a central authority distributing possessions in the New Testament. Believers voluntarily shared possessions with those in need and people like Paul would go round from time to time making voluntary collections so that those who were well off could those in need.
Failure to comply was punishable by death.
You're either misinformed, or have completely misunderstood Ananias and Saphira. They were killed by God for lying about the money they were giving. In fact, the amount they were giving wasn't an issue at all. If they had been honest and said "We got x talents for our field and our giving y talents to the church" rather than "We got y and are giving y," with the subtext that they were great, then everything would have been fine. There were quite a few early Christians who were well off, but were never required to surrender ownership of their possessions to the community. Called to be good stewards and loving neighbours, yes, but never forced to give things up.
Some would say I have no 'entitlement' to the programs and should just wait for the DVD. This is correct from a legal standpoint, but clearly not from a moral one.
What is the clear moral right to see theses for free that trumps the legal right of the copyholders?
If it were, piracy wouldn't be as widespread as it is.
You're not seriously suggesting that people wouldn't pirate if it was morally dubious are you?
Ad pirating shows is really sticking it to the man. Yeah, you'll really bring down the government and change the laws that way.
If you're seriously concerned about phone taps, why don't you go do something about it, rather than pirating shows? Or are your priorities so upside down that it's ridiculous?
While I sympathise with your position and think they're greedy fools., you kinda lose the moral highground when you decide to go and pirate stuff instead of waiting and getting DVDs or just plain not watching them. What exactly makes you better than them?
Just realised why 34 seems strange: it's talking about the mantle/core edge, not the centre of the core. It would be easy to get questions wrong in this paper because of poorly worded questions and badly labelled diagrams.
D produces the smallest number, but the question isn't asking for the smallest number; it's asking for the closest distance, which is B.
27 is D not C
For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction, according to Sir Isaac Newton, which is presumably what the examiners have in mind when they want you to answer C.
30 none of the answers make sense.
Well, A kinda does, but the question itself is flawed since there was no spatial origin to the Big Bang; everything is moving from everything else, rather than from a common point, so technically the galaxies are moving away from each other, but they're not moving away from a common origin.
34 (6370/10) * 2 is not 56000s - but who knows, maybe I am wrong with my understanding of this question.
Most people in England seem to wonder why so many Scots want independence.... but don't know the difference between UK (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland), Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), and England (a catch all, that normally means whatever combination of the above countries happens to be convienient at the time).
The irony of that statement is that you talked about Scotland doing different exams to England and Wales.... and left poor old Northern Ireland out:^)
I'm pretty sure I did some calculus during GCSEs 8 years ago. That said, here in Northern Ireland we have an Advanced Mathematics GCSE, as well as the standard Mathematics course, so it may well have been on that. I'd guess that about half of grammar school pupils are encouraged to take it. Let's you sleep through a fair chunk of the first year of A-Level Mathematics because it's already been covered.
Wait, you can access the iTunes store from an iPhone? news to me.. last I checked, you couldn't
But you can play music and videos purchased from it. If you've bought anything from it, that's and advantage for the iPhone.
The k790 also has a removable M2 memory card, which I have a 2 gig chip for so storage is not a problem.
But it's a little disingenuous to compare the price of the k790 without memory card to the price of the iPhone and then claim the iPhone doesn't offer anything more. If you want to do the price comparison including memory cards, that's fine; I'm sure the k790 still wins out price-wise, though not by as much and if you need that much storage, then the iPhone's other features start to come into play as well, making it more attractive.
Did I mention the battery is user replaceable?
No though I was quite aware of it. I've never had to buy a new battery for a phone and will probably end up with a new phone before replacing the one in my (2 year old) k750i. Others use their phones more, so I can see why this would be an issue. Apple can replace the battery, however and no doubt other companies will offer a cheaper service to add a better battery, as happened with the iPod, so it's not something that would really bother me. It would be a genuine disadvantage for anyone who uses their phone so much that they have to carry a spare battery around, but they're a pretty small segment of the market.
I have used an iPhone, and while it was nice looking, try typing a word with a "p" in it. yeah, you hit the letter "o" instead.
From what I've read, the auto-correction is pretty good and accuracy improves after a couple of days, so I wouldn't find it off-putting. I could see it being more a problem with stuff like ssh where you're not necessarily using dictionary words, so I can understand you being put off by it, but again, that's not an issue for the intended market.
I wasnt trying to get into a features pissing match
Then here's some advice for the future: don't incorrectly claim another phone has all the same features and more, don't belittle its features and don't spend half a post talking about features, because when you do that, it looks like you're interested in features and don't think the features of the iPhone are up to scratch, while the features of your phone are. I can understand being irritated at the hype - I'm a little bemused by it all myself - but when you make those comments about features, you're just distracting form the core of your argument, especially if you get facts wrong.
If you can believe this, I did not own a cellphone until about a month ago.
I can believe it and find it somewhat en-heartening that not everyone gets dragged into technolust.
I thought about it and did some research, but went with the k790 instead because of feature set and price, and I am extremely happy with it.
Which is fine. From what you've said about your needs, you almost certainly made the right choice and given the same choice, I'd do the same thing. When the iPhone is released here in the UK, I wont be getting it. However, it won't be because of lack of features; it will be because I don't need the features it does have and therefore cannot justify the price. As I've already said or suggested, I'm not criticising your choice of phone, I just think that you could have made your point better by not making comparitive claims about the feature set which turned out to be incorrect or badly phrased.
Actually, they've sold about 18 million in Japan, which has a population of 127 million, so that's 'only' a seventh of the population. Very impressive, but quite far off the 65 million required for half the population.
I have a k750i. It's a great phone (aside from the defective joystick that seems to break on every phone I've ever seen) and I see nothing in the iPhone that would compel me to change at the current pricepoint. Even at a lower pricepoint, I quite like having something reasonably small. Just because it doesn't have features that compel me, however, that doesn't mean that there aren't superior features on it that the k790a doesn't have eg. large 3.5" 320*480 multitouch screen, vs. small 240*320 screen that you can't touch. There's the small matter of the storage space provided as well.
If you don't want a decent screen to watch videos on, the ability to use the iTunes Store, a proper web browser, or a pretty sweet UI, that's fine, I'm not too bothered about those things either - a phone is a phone is a phone, as far as I'm concerned - but clearly the state that the k790a does everything the iPhone does, is absurd. It does do a few things the iPhone doesn't, but it works both ways round.
Try editing photos or video and you'll begin to appreciate the advantages of a faster processor. There are plenty of keen amateur photographers out there, people who like to play with home videos and a few people using their computers as PVR solutions that can get plenty of mileage out of faster processors.
Slashdot Mirror
You can have several good choices. Or it can be the case that you have the choice between good and evil but will always freely (and happily) choose the good one.
The Bible never uses the term 'free will.' It talks about the accountability and responsibility of man and the sovereignty of God. We are accountable for the decisions we make, while God's sovereign will is carried out.
Only under your philosophy. The Bible describes a different philosophy under which glory is possible without the potential for evil and in fact is greater following the defeat of evil.
The Bible talks about people not losing their salvation while at the same time partaking in the glory of the new creation and finding it emotionally and intellectually stimulating. I therefore draw the conclusion that your philosophy is inapplicable.
The biblical description of a world without evil is pretty different from what you imagine. It's a place with plenty of activity. Activity that is stimulating, rewarding, satisfying and glorifying. You don't honestly think that evil is required for something to be interesting do you? Is evil required in a loving relationship? To raise a child? To explore uncharted terrain? To invent? To discover? To compose? To paint? To do all manner of interesting and edifying things?
I think the UK is a democracy because as a constitutional monarchy, it has a form of representative democracy known as parliamentary democracy i.e. I vote for people to represent me in parliament where they were discuss and vote on issues for me. The US, for all the complaining of people there, is also a representative democracy. You are, I presume, familiar with the phrase 'government of the people by the people for the people' or something along those lines?
I know what you mean; I was ready to head off to bed after writing it. Time to give the old brain muscle a bit of a rest.
Likewise. Makes a nice change from the glib flippantry of a lot of people. Look forward to continuing the discussion when you're more awake.
Just noticed your other post...
If you don't believe that any one religion is right, then that's a fairly logical position to take I guess. It only really becomes an issue if (and yes, it's a big if!) a particular religion is true. I can understand the frustration people have when it seems like someone else's religion is intruding on their life - I certainly get rather peeved when the government looks like it's butting in on religious issues and feel quite concerned about places where Christians are faced with authorities who want to implement Sharia law (or already have). The thing about Christianity is that it's holistic, it affects every part of an individual's life so it becomes impossible to interact with society without God figuring into the equation somewhere (and ideally being the underlying, driving force behind things). That probably sounds a little invasive, but from our perspective it's pretty awesome to think that God actually has an interest in every part of our lives and wants to use every part for good. Everything from brushing your teeth in the morning to giving the neighbour's son a lift home from school, from doing the gardening to going out and voting can be an act of worship to God.
I had a quick look at your profile and wondered if that might be the case. I certainly have no interest in trying to prove that religion has never started a war or made a conflict worse - would be a bit of a lie if I tried to do that! And certainly the history of the church shows that even great men of God have their moments of weakness where they can commit terrible acts. Even without church history we could look at the Bible and see the horrific things that some followers of God did there. King David tried to cover up his adultery with Bathsheba by bringing her husband back from a war to make it look like he had got her pregnant and not David. That wasn't working too well though, so he shipped him off to the worst part of the fighting instead to ensure that he would die and David could marry Bathsheba legally. And all of this while he, as king, should have been out leading the fight himself instead of oggling girls from the palace roof. It's pretty reassuring to know though that God could take a guy like that, use him for his glory and ultimately redeem him. If God can forgive David, he can forgive me.
Out of curiosity, which army did you serve in? I used to work for a church in London that was headed up by an ex-SAS colonel - no slacking on the job there! His son was in the British army and just got married after a tour of duty.
Actualy the historic and orthodox position has been that homosexual activity is morally wrong. Homosexual temptation, orientation - call it what you will - is no mroe sinful than any temptation is (i.e. not al all), but giving in to temptation is no better (and no worse) than other sin.
Where one earth are you getting that from?
The historic and orthodox position is very much that there should be no sex outside of marriage.
Such a law wouldn't force people to have sex outside of marriage. It would make it more likely to happen, but would in no way compel behaviour from people, so that's rather a weak argument.
I agree that none of that is Christian behaviour, however some people are very quick to label certain stances as hateful just because they endorse a different form of morality.
Personally I find it quite encouraging to to see a plurality of persons upholding God's name and confirming the words and meaning of scripture.
In some churches, maybe it is just entertainment, but that goes against the official orthodox role of a service.
And does he think the current Pope was in any way involved? He's got white hair, but he's not that old.
No problem, we all have our bad days.
You did say 'The same goes for just about every church' which rather sounded like an attack on Christianity in general. And your description of history certainly isn't a fair generalisation to level at the church.
It sounds like your issue isn't really anything to do with taxation, but rather a bad experience.
Some people do that, yes, but it isn't the orthodox teaching of the church. It's quite similar to the 'prosperity gospel,' which I abhor and detest, but it certainly isn't representative of the teaching of mainline Christianity. Now, if you want to disagree with people who do the things you mention, then I'll happily join you in condemning the practice because I certainly don't believe that people can buy off guilt with money. If you want to say that orthodox Christianity is similar to a cult in teaching this, then I would take issue.
I'll answer you with another question: why do democracies feel a need to legislate any form of behaviour? I live in a democracy (well, a constitutional monarchy), as presumably do you. In a democracy, the people discuss and vote on a variety of issues, including legislative matters. Some people think some things should be legal and illegal and others think the opposite. People make their decision based on a combination of pragmatism and conscience. For some people, their decision is influenced by culture, others largely make up their mind on their own, while a few make decisions based on their faith. Now do the votes of people who make decisions based on their faith have less value or worth than for instance atheists? Is there anything which makes them less valid?
If so, then you probably don't actually want to live in a democracy. If not, then can you accept that when someone votes differently to you, they are not trying to force their belief on you any more than you are trying to force your opinion on them?
Moving on then from politics and legislation to the matter of exhorting people to follow a certain system of morality, the church feels it has the authority to encourage (not force at the point of a sword or a gun - Paul points out in Romans that legislation and the enforcement thereof is a matter for the state, not the church) certain behaviours and beliefs because of the belief that the Bible is the word of God and in it he encourages certain behaviours and beliefs. It's not a matter of forcing the church's morality in people - it's a matter of encouraging people to follow God's morality. Actually, it's a case of telling people that they've failed to live up to God's morality, presenting Je
You're not crazy; you're just confusing descriptive with prescriptive and socio-economic policy with the voluntary actions of a community.
Actually, the text says the complete opposite. Verse 3:
But Peter said "Ananias why has Satan filled you heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land'
You presumably would focus on the keeping things back part of that quote, but taken in its entirety and in the context of verse 4...
"While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."
... that the problem is lying about the about sold. After selling the land, it (or rather, the money gained) was still the property of Ananias an Sapphira. They could have kept all the money, but by pretending they had given it all to the church, they had foolishly attempted to deceive God. There was no expectation that all the money would go to the church.
You said "'God' used to levy taxes. They were called tithes." Now, given that the Bible contains God's words, it was quite reasonable to assume that that was what you were referring to.
You alleged certain things about the practices of the church and compared what Christians do to what cults teach, so it seemed relevant to talk about what churches actually believe and teach.
The Bible exhorts leaders to a high standard, but makes no guarantees about them achieving it by virtue of their position. faithful churches would teach this.
I can think of a few frauds for whom that might have been the case anda few weak-willed people who gave in to the temptation of money, but can't think of any major Chrstian denominations which require a monetary contribution to 'advance' in it. In fact, given the equality in Christ of all members of the church (including between laity and clergy), the concept of advancement is meaningless. You can become more mature as a believer, but that's always talked about in the context of knowing Christ better, being more loving, etc.
I seem t recall a lot of church leaders from the New Testament being rather poor and frequently martyred, so that's certainly not the model for Christianity. Nothing in the set up of churches to encourage it either. The pay for high ranking figures in most denominations would be pretty poor compared to a corporation. Some major denominations, e.g. Presbyterianism, even rotate the "cats at the top" every year, so there wouldn't ever be an opportunity while others don't really have anyone at the top e.g. independent churches.
That would seem to be freely available in the Bible.
That's probably the closest you've got to making a semi-accurate statement about Christianity, except that instead of forcibly pushing blame, the blame is freely (and necessarily) taken by Christ.
Either you remember incorrectly, or you have been misinformed. Nothing about that in the Bible.
Nothing about that either.
Well then it's a good thing that it's not remotely similar to any of the tenets of Christianity, isn't it?
Do you think charities should be taxed? I imagine that the Pope, in common with a lot of people, would consider charities to be a better model for church finances than corporations. You might disagree, but just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a hypocrite.
So adults should be held hostage to their decisions as teenagers? Not that being a member of the Hitler Youth would have been much of an option at the time. Seriously, do you tihnk that every German in their 70s today must be a Swastika-waving, Hitler-mourning Nazi?
Somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
The crucial detail here being that it was citizens of the ancient theocratic state of Israel. It is pretty clear from the New Testament that God's people are citizens of heaven, rather than of an earthly state and that they should follow the laws of the states they reside in, so long as those laws do not force them to go against the law of God.
Nothing about a central authority distributing possessions in the New Testament. Believers voluntarily shared possessions with those in need and people like Paul would go round from time to time making voluntary collections so that those who were well off could those in need.
You're either misinformed, or have completely misunderstood Ananias and Saphira. They were killed by God for lying about the money they were giving. In fact, the amount they were giving wasn't an issue at all. If they had been honest and said "We got x talents for our field and our giving y talents to the church" rather than "We got y and are giving y," with the subtext that they were great, then everything would have been fine. There were quite a few early Christians who were well off, but were never required to surrender ownership of their possessions to the community. Called to be good stewards and loving neighbours, yes, but never forced to give things up.
What is the clear moral right to see theses for free that trumps the legal right of the copyholders?
You're not seriously suggesting that people wouldn't pirate if it was morally dubious are you?
Ad pirating shows is really sticking it to the man. Yeah, you'll really bring down the government and change the laws that way. If you're seriously concerned about phone taps, why don't you go do something about it, rather than pirating shows? Or are your priorities so upside down that it's ridiculous?
While I sympathise with your position and think they're greedy fools., you kinda lose the moral highground when you decide to go and pirate stuff instead of waiting and getting DVDs or just plain not watching them. What exactly makes you better than them?
Just realised why 34 seems strange: it's talking about the mantle/core edge, not the centre of the core. It would be easy to get questions wrong in this paper because of poorly worded questions and badly labelled diagrams.
D produces the smallest number, but the question isn't asking for the smallest number; it's asking for the closest distance, which is B.
For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction, according to Sir Isaac Newton, which is presumably what the examiners have in mind when they want you to answer C.
Well, A kinda does, but the question itself is flawed since there was no spatial origin to the Big Bang; everything is moving from everything else, rather than from a common point, so technically the galaxies are moving away from each other, but they're not moving away from a common origin.
Yeah, that's one seriously messed up question.
The irony of that statement is that you talked about Scotland doing different exams to England and Wales.... and left poor old Northern Ireland out :^)
I'm pretty sure I did some calculus during GCSEs 8 years ago. That said, here in Northern Ireland we have an Advanced Mathematics GCSE, as well as the standard Mathematics course, so it may well have been on that. I'd guess that about half of grammar school pupils are encouraged to take it. Let's you sleep through a fair chunk of the first year of A-Level Mathematics because it's already been covered.
But you can play music and videos purchased from it. If you've bought anything from it, that's and advantage for the iPhone.
But it's a little disingenuous to compare the price of the k790 without memory card to the price of the iPhone and then claim the iPhone doesn't offer anything more. If you want to do the price comparison including memory cards, that's fine; I'm sure the k790 still wins out price-wise, though not by as much and if you need that much storage, then the iPhone's other features start to come into play as well, making it more attractive.
No though I was quite aware of it. I've never had to buy a new battery for a phone and will probably end up with a new phone before replacing the one in my (2 year old) k750i. Others use their phones more, so I can see why this would be an issue. Apple can replace the battery, however and no doubt other companies will offer a cheaper service to add a better battery, as happened with the iPod, so it's not something that would really bother me. It would be a genuine disadvantage for anyone who uses their phone so much that they have to carry a spare battery around, but they're a pretty small segment of the market.
From what I've read, the auto-correction is pretty good and accuracy improves after a couple of days, so I wouldn't find it off-putting. I could see it being more a problem with stuff like ssh where you're not necessarily using dictionary words, so I can understand you being put off by it, but again, that's not an issue for the intended market.
Then here's some advice for the future: don't incorrectly claim another phone has all the same features and more, don't belittle its features and don't spend half a post talking about features, because when you do that, it looks like you're interested in features and don't think the features of the iPhone are up to scratch, while the features of your phone are. I can understand being irritated at the hype - I'm a little bemused by it all myself - but when you make those comments about features, you're just distracting form the core of your argument, especially if you get facts wrong.
I can believe it and find it somewhat en-heartening that not everyone gets dragged into technolust.
Which is fine. From what you've said about your needs, you almost certainly made the right choice and given the same choice, I'd do the same thing. When the iPhone is released here in the UK, I wont be getting it. However, it won't be because of lack of features; it will be because I don't need the features it does have and therefore cannot justify the price. As I've already said or suggested, I'm not criticising your choice of phone, I just think that you could have made your point better by not making comparitive claims about the feature set which turned out to be incorrect or badly phrased.
Actually, they've sold about 18 million in Japan, which has a population of 127 million, so that's 'only' a seventh of the population. Very impressive, but quite far off the 65 million required for half the population.
I have a k750i. It's a great phone (aside from the defective joystick that seems to break on every phone I've ever seen) and I see nothing in the iPhone that would compel me to change at the current pricepoint. Even at a lower pricepoint, I quite like having something reasonably small. Just because it doesn't have features that compel me, however, that doesn't mean that there aren't superior features on it that the k790a doesn't have eg. large 3.5" 320*480 multitouch screen, vs. small 240*320 screen that you can't touch. There's the small matter of the storage space provided as well.
If you don't want a decent screen to watch videos on, the ability to use the iTunes Store, a proper web browser, or a pretty sweet UI, that's fine, I'm not too bothered about those things either - a phone is a phone is a phone, as far as I'm concerned - but clearly the state that the k790a does everything the iPhone does, is absurd. It does do a few things the iPhone doesn't, but it works both ways round.
Try editing photos or video and you'll begin to appreciate the advantages of a faster processor. There are plenty of keen amateur photographers out there, people who like to play with home videos and a few people using their computers as PVR solutions that can get plenty of mileage out of faster processors.