It's fairly trivial to restart services in OS X via the terminal. I think I had the Dock freeze up once, killed it in the terminal and it relaunched itself. Pretty much anything can be dealt with like that. I've unstuck a frozen Mac via ssh as well. It's fairly trivial stuff really.
There''s no physical difference between reflected and transmitted light. They're both just photons and not perceived by the idea any differently, if they're the same wavelength and intensity. The crucial difference is that the light you use to read a book is usually a lot brighter than the light your monitor emits and the image has more detail.
Yes, I know that, I suspect the parent does also. How does that have anything to do with what I said? The first option requires me to move my hand off of the mouse to use a keystroke, the second is what we're complaining about.
When using the mouse, I pretty much permanently have my other hand at the keybaord, so it's fairly trivial to activate a keystroke. If your other hand is busy with some other task or you're one-handed and have to use your mouse hand, then I guess that's a legitimate objection.
Actually, truth be told, I use an iBook and rarely bother plugging a mouse in, so moving from trackpad to keyboard isn't really a big deal for me at all. That's one of the reasons I don't bother with the mouse. Being able to go between trackpad and keyboard so effortlessly is quite nice.
If I have a document pulled down where the dock is and I move the mouse down to that part of the document to copy something or simply to click on a control, then the dock will pop up and get in the way.
By having the Dock on the side of the screen, that problem is largely eliminated. You have to get fairly close to the edge of the screen to trigger it, so I rarely have a problem.
The kde button problem solves BOTH problems. You see, it solves BOTH problems.
In fact, it stays out of the way until I actively tell it to get back in the way
I guess I see having to click on a button as a waste of time and a distraction from what I'm doing. Being able to just move to the Dock and have it appear, or drag stuff to where it will appear allows me to flow a lot better. I guess different methodologies suit different people and different work patterns though.
Have you used kde?
Only very briefly, so I'm not intimately familiar with its workings. I messed around with X-Windows, etc. for a while, but never found much of a use for them. I spend most of my time in Coral Draw, Dreamweaver, and various flavours of word processors, browsers and email clients.
I would like to see the dock slide in and out with the press of a button ala kde. However, I doubt this would pass muster at apple because you have this unsightly little button protruding out of the corner.
From the beginning, you've been able to show/hide the Dock with a keystroke or by moving the mouse near it. I have it set up to auto show/hide in the bottom-right corner when the mouse comes near.
Hardware costs many times more then equivalent X86 hardware
And you're calling the other guy a troll?
Three farking mouse buttons.
What does CPU architecture have to do with mouse support? I don't recall having a problem using a three button mouse with a Mac. In fact, Apple makes a multi-button mouse.
Actually, according to the Strong's dictionary I have, which also includes information from various lexicons and Vine's expository dictionary, the word 'yowm' or 'yome' means either a literal or figurative day. We know it is literal because it is used in the literal sense in Exodus 20.
If you're interested in a mature and rational discourse, you could start by being polite and stating sources, rather than simply calling someone wrong in an insulting manner.
Out of curiosity, what kind of nonsense do you mean?
the way all windows of one app jump to the front if you close one
That's weird. I've never had that happen and I've even just tested it there now by closing a background TextEdit window. Or do you mean that when you've got say a TextEdit window in the foreground, with a Safari window behind it and more TextEdit windows behind it, the next TextEdit window jumps in front of the Safari window when you close the front TextEdit window? I guess I've always found that a useful behaviour, the reasoning being that the most likely programme for me to want to be working in is the one I've just been in, so it's natural to make sure a window is available. Certainly a lot nicer than Windows where everything wants to take over the screen and it feels like a real effort to look at windows from two applications at once.
Mail is a heinous crime to email management and thunderbird not being much better
Opinion on Mail.app seems to be split very much between loving it and hating it. Personally, I'm on the loving it side. Especially compared to Outlook, which drives me nuts. Never tried Thunderbird though. What exactly do you use? And what makes it better? There was a time when I used Entourage, but it felt a little bloated and I didn't like its database method of storing everything.
Overall, my experience is probably mostly personal preference. I just could not live with it, no matter how much I wanted too.
Will I ever buy another Mac? Probably, it's very nice hardware (I'm waiting for a cheap-o last run ppc powerbook). Will I willfully use OSX again? Probably not (KDE, and Gentoo, make *my* life easy).
Well, each to his own. Glad you at least like the hardware and it hasn't gone to waste. Not saying any of your opinions about the OS are wrong (the worst they could be is misinformed, but I doubt they're that). Just curious abut the reasons.
First off, you have your scripture messed up. Exodus 20 is the laying of the 10 Commandments.
I'm quite aware of what Exodus 20 contains, which is why I referred you to it.
During the creation of Life, The Universe, and Everyting (42!!), day, night, etc were meaningless concepts.
But Genesis was written when they were meaningful concepts. The words 'morning' and 'evening' were there and the meaning they would have had for the readers of Genesis would have been that every day is marked by a morning and evening, therefore it is referring to a standard day.
And, because I'm completely anal about shit like this
Well, that's helpful. Saves me typing it up:^) I would have used the English Standard Version, since it's a slightly better translation, but the KJV is more than adequate for this purpose.
Exd 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work
Exd 20:10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [iit] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] withithy gates
Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaveand earth, the sea, and all that ithem [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
God says to take the sabbath day off because he made the world in six days and took the seventh day off. Uses the same word. The standard meaning of the word in Genesis is of literal days. There are much better and clearer words to use if 'epoch' or 'period of time' were intended.
Actually, the words morning and evening are used to indicate literal days and such an interpretation is confirmed in Exodus 20 when the Sabbath is explained to Moses.
There's more to understanding the passage than simply knowing the meaning of the words. There's the historical context of the Corinthian church to consider and the wider Biblical context. We know that women are encouraged to pray and that women teaching men is condemned, therefore the conclusion to draw is that it is not total silence, but rather silence in teaching.
Me. I'm the only one who can decide whether, to me, an action seems justified.
On that basis, morality is an individual thing and you have no right to calll your morality superior or expect others to follow it. There is no such tihng as truly goor or evil because everything is relative. The holocaust wasn't evil; Hitler just had a different morality. Pol Pot wasn't evil, he just defined morality differently to others. Stalin wasn't evil; he just thought that good and evil had different meanings to you.
Dumping all responsibility for making moral choices over to God is a wonderful idea, but then you have to state the basis of this moral choice itself.
I give God his due honour by accepting that he is the one should should define morality, rather than a much lesser being such as myself, but I have a responsibility to follow it. It's a lot harder to follow someone else' morality than one I make up, twist to suit my circumstances and which requires no accountability. One day I will be accountable before God.
What contradictions do you think I believe? And don't you think it's a little hypocritical for an AC to be accusing someone of lying about their identity. If you don't believe I read Physics at Oxford, it's a simple matter to go to my webpage and see photos of me at uni there.
The killing of jews by christians is hardly a small matter
In the past and wasn't over doctrine. In fact, it was completely contrary to the doctrines of forgiveness and love that the Bible upholds. The early church was entirely Jewish and the debate was about whether Gentiles could be Christians, not over whether Jews should be killed.
killing of moslems and christians by one another is hardly a small matter
See previous.
the killings of the hugeunots by the catholics
Roman Catholicism is so far diverged from Christianity that it is at polar opposites on critical doctrines, so that certainly doesn't count.
the persecution of catholics by luther and his followers
There is no doctrine in the Bible encouraging persecution.
the fighting in irelands
I live in Northern Ireland. The fighting is tribal, cultural or criminal, not religious. It's the churches that try to stop the violence.
side note: how many religious wars can you think of between two sets of polytheistic people? The romans and greeks never fought "holy wars", I can't remember any religious wars between greeks and egyptions. This concept of killing people because they believe in a different god seems to be largely a result of the concept of "exclusive salvage" found in the bible.
They had plenty of wars over power, resources, trade, etc. Many wars purportedly caused by religion are actually over such things, with religion used as a convenient excuse.
Oh and I'm not familiar with the term 'exclusive salvage.'
If this was true you wouldn't have hundreds of conflicting formulas for salvage:
Again, you're using a rather odd term that I'm afraid I'm not familiar with.
whether or not you can dance, drink, work on the sabbath, use religious icons and symbols, divorce, etc, etc, etc.
The bible is very clear on such matters. You can do anything which is beneficial, anything which can be done in love. You can drink, but if you get drunk, that's condemned, or if you drink round an alcoholic and thereby put temptation in his path, that isn't loving. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath and said it is better to do good than to do evil, better to save life than to lose it. The Sabbath was made for the benefit of man, not to ensnare him. God's rules are there is help form a relationship with him, not to trap people. Divorce is permitted only in cases of marital unfaithfulness and even then it should only be a last resort.
And of course, you can say that those that disagree with you are misguided, or aren't christians BUT they call themselves christians are are following the same book. The problem is that the book is SO subject to interpretation.
It's not that subject to interpretation. It's just that people don't want to hear what it really says because then they'd have to change their lives or their attitudes.
Again, this cuts away at the entire concept of a small god - you'd think he would write something people could agree upon, rather than something that causes wars.
The Bible doesn't cause wars. The hate and greed of people causes wars more often than not. And God didn't set out to create something that everyone would agree on. Romans is very clear that people deny the truth about God, without having a Bible and will continue to do so even when some of them hear. People don't want to hear the truth because the truth is uncomfortable. People don't like to hear they're wrong. Jesus, in the parable of the sower, said that many would reject the word of God. Prophets in the Old Testament were often called to say things that they knew people wouldn't
The killing of jews by christians is hardly a small matter
In the past and wasn't over doctrine. In fact, it was completely contrary to the doctrines of forgiveness and love that the Bible upholds. The early church was entirely Jewish and the debate was about whether Gentiles could be Christians, not over whether Jews should be killed.
killing of moslems and christians by one another is hardly a small matter
See previous.
the killings of the hugeunots by the catholics
Roman Catholicism is so far diverged from Christianity that it is at polar opposites on critical doctrines, so that certainly doesn't count.
the persecution of catholics by luther and his followers
There is no doctrine in the Bible encouraging persecution.
Give me a break. Which part is the "moral law" and how do you tell it apart?
There are plenty of books on the subject if you're interested. Basically though, you look at what the law is setting out to achieve and ask in what way this is fulfilled in Christ and therefore whether it is a law that still needs followed. The food laws for instance were about cleanliness and uncleanliness, an issue dealt with by Christ on the cross, when he laid open the possibility of anyone being clean in God's sight.
Are you talking about the supposed prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus?
The plain reading of the text is clear the homosexual actions are prohibited and this is backed up by New Testament comments on the need for sex to be kept within marriage.
I'm sure you pick-and-choose your verses carefully there
Picking and choosing verses would be inconsistent. It's a question of correctly interpreting each verse in the light of the events of the cross.
unless you stone wizards
Defining what is right and wrong is different from determining the punishment that must be carried out. The church is not theocratic Israel. It is a family that leaves punishment to the state authorities.
and shun those who touch women during their menstrual period?
That's a question of cleanliness and uncleanliness, which I've already dealt with.
Or have you put anyone to death for cursing their parents lately? I'll take it that putting someone to death for cursing their parents is to set the Jews apart. Maybe it's Deuteronomy you're talking about?
Already dealt with. These things are still wrong, but the punishment is different.
Convince me you haven't made any graven images or "the likeness of any thing" before I'll believe you don't pick and choose there. I suppose that graven image thing is just to set the Jews apart.
I haven't made an image of anything that I'm then going to go and worship as god, no.
Maybe it's your mistranslated Judges or Kings? Maybe your god should have been a little clearer. Apparently only the self-righteous can "properly" interpret these things.
The translations we have are very good and the interpretations quite clear. I've never listened to an interpretation by any self-righteous person. The gospel is quite clear that no-one is righteous, not even one and that we are in no position to make ourselves righteous. Paul himself declared that he was the worst of sinners. The problems come when people set themselves up in judgement over the Bible, picking and choosing which bits they want and interpreting according to the morality they have chosen for themselves, rather than taking it from God.
Oh, now I see... if you want to follow it and impose it on others, then it's a "moral law". If you don't want to follow it, it's just something to set the Jews apart.
Are you interesting in a reasonable discussion, or are you intent on casting judgement before you've received an answer?
Providentially, I don't claim moral authority from a book made up of rules that even I don't want to follow!
I would love to follow the Bible and the law of grace established in it better than I currently do.
There are a lot of people in this world who like to say "you attack Christianity without having made any attempt to understand it." I understand it perfectly -- you delude yourself.
Yet you are the one who passes judgement and reaches conclusions before you've even received an answer to your questions. Are you interested in the answers, or simply in sustaining a caricature in your own mind?
If that God says for you to do immoral things, then I would say man
If something is 'justified' then it is moral.
If your going to say God decides morals, then you have a probelm on your hands. Namely, that if God creates morality, then it is merely an arbitrary system that can change whenever God wants. If this is the case, then killing could become morally correct if God says its morally correct, which goes against our our basic moral principles. Now, if there is a moral code seperate from God, then God isn't the highest authority on morality, which means that God has to follow rules, which means he's not all powerful. And if God created the moral code, he would then have the power to change it whenever he wants
At the moment you surely are making moral judgements based on an arbitrary system - your own moral code. If God is by definition holy and righteous and wise then his morality will be infinitely superior to ours. And at the end of the day, morality has no meaning if it does not have consequences. If God's morality is enforced, then the ultimate justice will be God's justice and it will be the one that everyone has to face, so he will decide who is justified and who isn't.
That, however is still sexist. It draws a very clear line of God > Man > Woman.
It draws a line of authority, but not of superiority. It shows differences in roles, not differences in status. In fact, man gets the tougher role here as his position of authority has to be acted out sacrificially. It is more costly than the position of the woman.
And I don't care if it was sexist out of "love", its immoral.
Immoral by what standard? Your own? Why should your particular morality have any more validity than God's? Why should it even be equal?
Its a negative thing because its morally wrong to think that women are in submission to men, because that means that men > women. That is sexist, any way you look at it.
Submission does not necessitate a difference in value, but rather a difference in role. In a job, your boss would have authority over you, but that doesn't make him a more valuable human being. Christ is in submission to the Father, but is no less valuable or glorious. He is equal in standing. In the same way, men and women are equally valuable before God. They just have different roles. Don't import your own definition of what submission entails over the Bible's description of what it entails.
Acts 10:13 '[God said] "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."'
He didn't eat, but he was told he could by God.
The message was that God had not declared the Gentiles to be unclean, had not forbidden them to "eat" of the Gospel.
God declared that the Gentiles could now be clean and receive the gospel. He did this by telling Peter to eat food that was formerly unclean. Therefore the laws about unclean food are images of the idea that people were unclean before God.
The shellfish thing is actually an inconsistent interpretation of Scripture.
What is inconsistent?
Because Judaists blindly followed it and other "obsolete" rules, they survived a lot of disease. If most of Christianity had also avoided shellfish, pork etc, they would have likewise escaped, but didn't.
What did Christians not escape? Disease? to be honest, I'm not sure I'm following your argument here, or its relevance.
The witchcraft thing, on the other hand... consider the burning of the books in Acts 19:19.
What about the part (in the same gospel), where it says that RAPE is OK, provided you give her a month to grieve the parents you MURDERED (sorry, it's 'slain' when they are unbelievers).
What part of the gospel are you under the impression says that?
I respect your right to believe what you want, but anyone who believes in this nonsense is an idiot IMHO. If you had been born in any other time or any other country, you'd likely have completely different beliefs than you have now. Zeus, Ra, Budda yadda yadda yadda.
Let's deal with realities rather than fictions, shall we?
I just find it a little too convenient that so many people were BORN INTO the 'one true religion'.
In my experience a lot of people come from non-Christian or very much anti-Christian families. One of my friends, for instance, had to flee Iran when he converted to Christianity. Not a lot of incentive from family there.
If you blindly accept the religion of your parents 'just because? without study of the alternates, then yes, you are anti-science. You are anti-logic, anti-reasoning and anti-common sense.
I've a degree in Physics from Oxford University. Science is not an alternative to religion. It's a tool for building models of the universe in an attempt to make predictions about how it will behave. It tells us nothing about God, nothing about history, nothing about morality, etc.
Bill Hicks said it best: 'have you noticed how people who believe in creationism look unevolved?'
You condemn Christians for being anti-logic, anti-reason, etc. then go and make an ad-hominen like this. Don't you see the blatant hypocrisy and inconsistency in that?
The passage fits very well with 1 Timothy 2:8-15, which itself is based on Genesis 2-3. God has established an order and authority structure for mankind and the church, with God in ultimate authority over man, who is in a position of authority over woman, who is designated as man's companion and helper. The authority that mean wields, however, is to be sacrificial and loving, not domineering. It's to be modelled over the authority that Jesus has over the church i.e. he is the teacher, the leader, but he was also the one to die on behalf of the church. Submission is not a negative thing in this context because we are taught that Christ himself submits to the Father.
The silence referred to here is silence with regards to teaching. They have some opportunity to do so privately, or in public gatherings of women and/or children and are certainly free to evangelise. Additionally, if there is no man present who can teach, God may raise up a woman to do the job, which is something of a judgement on the men for not taking on their responsibilities e.g. Deborah and Barak in Judges.
Thats great, but I fail to see how the following passage could EVER be justified, regardless of what was going on at the time.
Who is in a better position to justify an action: God or man?
1 Corinthians 14:34: the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
This fits very well with 1 Timothy 2:8-15, which itself is based on Genesis 2-3. God has established an order and authority structure for mankind and the church, with God in ultimate authority over man, who is in a position of authority over woman, who is designated as man's companion and helper. The authority that mean wields, however, is to be sacrificial and loving, not domineering. It's to be modelled over the authority that Jesus has over the church i.e. he is the teacher, the leader, but he was also the one to die on behalf of the church. Submission is not a negative thing in this context because we are taught that Christ himself submits to the Father.
The silence referred to here is silence with regards to teaching. They have some opportunity to do so privately, or in public gatherings of women and/or children and are certainly free to evangelise. Additionally, if there is no man present who can teach, God may raise up a woman to do the job, which is something of a judgement on the men for not taking on their responsibilities e.g. Deborah and Barak in Judges.
It depends on how you view the Bible. If you believe it was literally God writing these things down on paper, then that passage is pretty tough to justify. On the other hand, if you view the Bible as being "inspired" by God, but written (and translated) by fallible people, you tend to try and find the essence of what is being said (yes, I realize there's a cheap-shot rebuttal here).
Why would it be hard to justify if written directly by God? Surely that would make it impossible to disagree with? The doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture would say that God inspired people to write on his behalf, with something of their personality coming through, but at the same time the Holy Spirit guiding what they write so that it is all precisely the message God wishes to communicate, meaning that we do not sit in judgement on the Bible, but let it sit in judgement over us.
Also, some parts of the New Testament are believed to have been written by people writing under assumed names (like, you know, Paul) and attempting to either pass off their writing as authentic or to appeal to the Greco-Roman society more. I couldn't dig up anything quick off of Google, but if anyone has the info, please add it.
There have been a few such claims, but none of them fit with the facts.
Understand it? there is no simple "understanding of it" that is possible. This is clearly demonstrated by the facts that:
1. so many "followers of the book" are quite eager to kill one another over differrences in their interpretation of it
The proportion of people claiming to be Christians and willing to kill each other over matters of doctrine is fairly small.
2. so many christian religious schools spend so much of their time learning how to interpret minor parts of the bible in order to support their particular sect
That's a big claim, but I'm not sure what evidence you have for it. The places I'm familiar with would concentrate their time on broadly similar topics: Old Testament studies, New Testament studies, Systematic Theology, Greek, Hebrew, etc. The amount of time devoted to minor denominational issues isn't that large. And I say that as someone who is at Belfast Bible College, a large inter-denominational college, thinking of attending Union Theological College, a Presbyterian college in Belfast, has worked for a church based near Oakhill, one of the main Anglican theology colleges in England, studied at Cornhill, a fairly significant non-denominatinal college in London and frequented Wycliffe College in Oxford, another large mainly Anglican college.
3. there is any value in graduate studies in christian theology - if the book was "understandable" and not subject to so much interpretation then it would read like a printer repair manual.
False dichotomy. Just because it is easy to understand what is necessary for salvation and a lot of other stuff as well doesn't mean that there aren't bits requiring more thought and training and deeper understanding and insight available through further study. It isn't that the Bible is obscure in its meaning, but rather than it is rich and multi-layered. There's a lot I can understand from the Bible with a knowledge of English and a good English translation, but I gain a deeper and richer understanding by learning Hebrew and Greek and gaining access to the nuances of the original language.
Beyond the question of whether or not the thousands of christian, jewish, and islamic sects would agree with you in your interpretation...please, if there is a god that is omnipotent and omniscient I would sincerely hope that he would communicate a little more clearly than via one person's dreams from 2,000 years ago. Heck, it sounds like something out of a Diskworld no
You're being a little silly there, reducing the Bible to 'one person's dreams.' It contains thousands of years of God clearly intervening in history and making himself known, sometimes in dramatic, obvious ways, sometimes in more subtle ways, but most significantly in the person of Jesus. To claim that God has not communicated clearly when we have a document such as the Bible with a historicity far surpassing that of other documents from antiquity, an event such as the crucifixion which divides time in two and a life such as Jesus' which few have not heard of, is ludicrous.
use the part of the bible that says homosexuality is bad, ignore the part that says wearing two different types of cloth is bad
The first was a moral law, the second was one to show how the Jews were supposed to be set apart. That became redundant when the gospel was opened up to Gentiles as Jesus' coming.
use the part of the bible that says witchcraft is bad, ignore the part that says not to eat shellfish
Similar thing applies here, as is clearly shown by Peter's dream in Acts.
There are quite a few people in the world who attack Christians for being ignorant of science, then go and attack Christianity without having made any attempt to understand it. Providentially, I'm both a physicist and a Christian.
I've got a Z43 and a K750i and the Z3 is vastly superior in terms of photo quality. Maybe you're using it with ISOs of higher than 100? It gets a little noisy at 200 and unbearably so at 400. At 100 or 50 though it's pretty clean. The K750i is very noisy in poorly lit environments but quite adequate outdoors or in well lit indoor conditions with 'flash' on.
Isn't that a rather artificial situation? Ok, Microsoft Office may 'cheat' a bit by having some stuff built into Windows, but if that stuff is running when you use Open Office and the real world memory use for Office is bigger, then that matters more than an artificial benchmark-type set-up.
Slashdot Mirror
It's fairly trivial to restart services in OS X via the terminal. I think I had the Dock freeze up once, killed it in the terminal and it relaunched itself. Pretty much anything can be dealt with like that. I've unstuck a frozen Mac via ssh as well. It's fairly trivial stuff really.
There''s no physical difference between reflected and transmitted light. They're both just photons and not perceived by the idea any differently, if they're the same wavelength and intensity. The crucial difference is that the light you use to read a book is usually a lot brighter than the light your monitor emits and the image has more detail.
When using the mouse, I pretty much permanently have my other hand at the keybaord, so it's fairly trivial to activate a keystroke. If your other hand is busy with some other task or you're one-handed and have to use your mouse hand, then I guess that's a legitimate objection.
Actually, truth be told, I use an iBook and rarely bother plugging a mouse in, so moving from trackpad to keyboard isn't really a big deal for me at all. That's one of the reasons I don't bother with the mouse. Being able to go between trackpad and keyboard so effortlessly is quite nice.
By having the Dock on the side of the screen, that problem is largely eliminated. You have to get fairly close to the edge of the screen to trigger it, so I rarely have a problem.
I guess I see having to click on a button as a waste of time and a distraction from what I'm doing. Being able to just move to the Dock and have it appear, or drag stuff to where it will appear allows me to flow a lot better. I guess different methodologies suit different people and different work patterns though.
Only very briefly, so I'm not intimately familiar with its workings. I messed around with X-Windows, etc. for a while, but never found much of a use for them. I spend most of my time in Coral Draw, Dreamweaver, and various flavours of word processors, browsers and email clients.
From the beginning, you've been able to show/hide the Dock with a keystroke or by moving the mouse near it. I have it set up to auto show/hide in the bottom-right corner when the mouse comes near.
And you're calling the other guy a troll?
What does CPU architecture have to do with mouse support? I don't recall having a problem using a three button mouse with a Mac. In fact, Apple makes a multi-button mouse.
Actually, according to the Strong's dictionary I have, which also includes information from various lexicons and Vine's expository dictionary, the word 'yowm' or 'yome' means either a literal or figurative day. We know it is literal because it is used in the literal sense in Exodus 20.
If you're interested in a mature and rational discourse, you could start by being polite and stating sources, rather than simply calling someone wrong in an insulting manner.
Out of curiosity, what kind of nonsense do you mean?
That's weird. I've never had that happen and I've even just tested it there now by closing a background TextEdit window. Or do you mean that when you've got say a TextEdit window in the foreground, with a Safari window behind it and more TextEdit windows behind it, the next TextEdit window jumps in front of the Safari window when you close the front TextEdit window? I guess I've always found that a useful behaviour, the reasoning being that the most likely programme for me to want to be working in is the one I've just been in, so it's natural to make sure a window is available. Certainly a lot nicer than Windows where everything wants to take over the screen and it feels like a real effort to look at windows from two applications at once.
Opinion on Mail.app seems to be split very much between loving it and hating it. Personally, I'm on the loving it side. Especially compared to Outlook, which drives me nuts. Never tried Thunderbird though. What exactly do you use? And what makes it better? There was a time when I used Entourage, but it felt a little bloated and I didn't like its database method of storing everything.
Well, each to his own. Glad you at least like the hardware and it hasn't gone to waste. Not saying any of your opinions about the OS are wrong (the worst they could be is misinformed, but I doubt they're that). Just curious abut the reasons.
I'm quite aware of what Exodus 20 contains, which is why I referred you to it.
But Genesis was written when they were meaningful concepts. The words 'morning' and 'evening' were there and the meaning they would have had for the readers of Genesis would have been that every day is marked by a morning and evening, therefore it is referring to a standard day.
Well, that's helpful. Saves me typing it up :^) I would have used the English Standard Version, since it's a slightly better translation, but the KJV is more than adequate for this purpose.
God says to take the sabbath day off because he made the world in six days and took the seventh day off. Uses the same word. The standard meaning of the word in Genesis is of literal days. There are much better and clearer words to use if 'epoch' or 'period of time' were intended.
Actually, the words morning and evening are used to indicate literal days and such an interpretation is confirmed in Exodus 20 when the Sabbath is explained to Moses.
There's more to understanding the passage than simply knowing the meaning of the words. There's the historical context of the Corinthian church to consider and the wider Biblical context. We know that women are encouraged to pray and that women teaching men is condemned, therefore the conclusion to draw is that it is not total silence, but rather silence in teaching.
On that basis, morality is an individual thing and you have no right to calll your morality superior or expect others to follow it. There is no such tihng as truly goor or evil because everything is relative. The holocaust wasn't evil; Hitler just had a different morality. Pol Pot wasn't evil, he just defined morality differently to others. Stalin wasn't evil; he just thought that good and evil had different meanings to you.
I give God his due honour by accepting that he is the one should should define morality, rather than a much lesser being such as myself, but I have a responsibility to follow it. It's a lot harder to follow someone else' morality than one I make up, twist to suit my circumstances and which requires no accountability. One day I will be accountable before God.
What contradictions do you think I believe? And don't you think it's a little hypocritical for an AC to be accusing someone of lying about their identity. If you don't believe I read Physics at Oxford, it's a simple matter to go to my webpage and see photos of me at uni there.
In the past and wasn't over doctrine. In fact, it was completely contrary to the doctrines of forgiveness and love that the Bible upholds. The early church was entirely Jewish and the debate was about whether Gentiles could be Christians, not over whether Jews should be killed.
See previous.
Roman Catholicism is so far diverged from Christianity that it is at polar opposites on critical doctrines, so that certainly doesn't count.
There is no doctrine in the Bible encouraging persecution.
I live in Northern Ireland. The fighting is tribal, cultural or criminal, not religious. It's the churches that try to stop the violence.
They had plenty of wars over power, resources, trade, etc. Many wars purportedly caused by religion are actually over such things, with religion used as a convenient excuse.
Oh and I'm not familiar with the term 'exclusive salvage.'
Again, you're using a rather odd term that I'm afraid I'm not familiar with.
The bible is very clear on such matters. You can do anything which is beneficial, anything which can be done in love. You can drink, but if you get drunk, that's condemned, or if you drink round an alcoholic and thereby put temptation in his path, that isn't loving. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath and said it is better to do good than to do evil, better to save life than to lose it. The Sabbath was made for the benefit of man, not to ensnare him. God's rules are there is help form a relationship with him, not to trap people. Divorce is permitted only in cases of marital unfaithfulness and even then it should only be a last resort.
It's not that subject to interpretation. It's just that people don't want to hear what it really says because then they'd have to change their lives or their attitudes.
The Bible doesn't cause wars. The hate and greed of people causes wars more often than not. And God didn't set out to create something that everyone would agree on. Romans is very clear that people deny the truth about God, without having a Bible and will continue to do so even when some of them hear. People don't want to hear the truth because the truth is uncomfortable. People don't like to hear they're wrong. Jesus, in the parable of the sower, said that many would reject the word of God. Prophets in the Old Testament were often called to say things that they knew people wouldn't
In the past and wasn't over doctrine. In fact, it was completely contrary to the doctrines of forgiveness and love that the Bible upholds. The early church was entirely Jewish and the debate was about whether Gentiles could be Christians, not over whether Jews should be killed.
See previous.
Roman Catholicism is so far diverged from Christianity that it is at polar opposites on critical doctrines, so that certainly doesn't count.
There is no doctrine in the Bible encouraging persecution.
There are plenty of books on the subject if you're interested. Basically though, you look at what the law is setting out to achieve and ask in what way this is fulfilled in Christ and therefore whether it is a law that still needs followed. The food laws for instance were about cleanliness and uncleanliness, an issue dealt with by Christ on the cross, when he laid open the possibility of anyone being clean in God's sight.
The plain reading of the text is clear the homosexual actions are prohibited and this is backed up by New Testament comments on the need for sex to be kept within marriage.
Picking and choosing verses would be inconsistent. It's a question of correctly interpreting each verse in the light of the events of the cross.
Defining what is right and wrong is different from determining the punishment that must be carried out. The church is not theocratic Israel. It is a family that leaves punishment to the state authorities.
That's a question of cleanliness and uncleanliness, which I've already dealt with.
Already dealt with. These things are still wrong, but the punishment is different.
I haven't made an image of anything that I'm then going to go and worship as god, no.
The translations we have are very good and the interpretations quite clear. I've never listened to an interpretation by any self-righteous person. The gospel is quite clear that no-one is righteous, not even one and that we are in no position to make ourselves righteous. Paul himself declared that he was the worst of sinners. The problems come when people set themselves up in judgement over the Bible, picking and choosing which bits they want and interpreting according to the morality they have chosen for themselves, rather than taking it from God.
Are you interesting in a reasonable discussion, or are you intent on casting judgement before you've received an answer?
I would love to follow the Bible and the law of grace established in it better than I currently do.
Yet you are the one who passes judgement and reaches conclusions before you've even received an answer to your questions. Are you interested in the answers, or simply in sustaining a caricature in your own mind?
If something is 'justified' then it is moral.
At the moment you surely are making moral judgements based on an arbitrary system - your own moral code. If God is by definition holy and righteous and wise then his morality will be infinitely superior to ours. And at the end of the day, morality has no meaning if it does not have consequences. If God's morality is enforced, then the ultimate justice will be God's justice and it will be the one that everyone has to face, so he will decide who is justified and who isn't.
It draws a line of authority, but not of superiority. It shows differences in roles, not differences in status. In fact, man gets the tougher role here as his position of authority has to be acted out sacrificially. It is more costly than the position of the woman.
Immoral by what standard? Your own? Why should your particular morality have any more validity than God's? Why should it even be equal?
Submission does not necessitate a difference in value, but rather a difference in role. In a job, your boss would have authority over you, but that doesn't make him a more valuable human being. Christ is in submission to the Father, but is no less valuable or glorious. He is equal in standing. In the same way, men and women are equally valuable before God. They just have different roles. Don't import your own definition of what submission entails over the Bible's description of what it entails.
Acts 10:13 '[God said] "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."'
He didn't eat, but he was told he could by God.
God declared that the Gentiles could now be clean and receive the gospel. He did this by telling Peter to eat food that was formerly unclean. Therefore the laws about unclean food are images of the idea that people were unclean before God.
What is inconsistent?
What did Christians not escape? Disease? to be honest, I'm not sure I'm following your argument here, or its relevance.
What about it?
What part of the gospel are you under the impression says that?
Let's deal with realities rather than fictions, shall we?
In my experience a lot of people come from non-Christian or very much anti-Christian families. One of my friends, for instance, had to flee Iran when he converted to Christianity. Not a lot of incentive from family there.
I've a degree in Physics from Oxford University. Science is not an alternative to religion. It's a tool for building models of the universe in an attempt to make predictions about how it will behave. It tells us nothing about God, nothing about history, nothing about morality, etc.
You condemn Christians for being anti-logic, anti-reason, etc. then go and make an ad-hominen like this. Don't you see the blatant hypocrisy and inconsistency in that?
The passage fits very well with 1 Timothy 2:8-15, which itself is based on Genesis 2-3. God has established an order and authority structure for mankind and the church, with God in ultimate authority over man, who is in a position of authority over woman, who is designated as man's companion and helper. The authority that mean wields, however, is to be sacrificial and loving, not domineering. It's to be modelled over the authority that Jesus has over the church i.e. he is the teacher, the leader, but he was also the one to die on behalf of the church. Submission is not a negative thing in this context because we are taught that Christ himself submits to the Father.
The silence referred to here is silence with regards to teaching. They have some opportunity to do so privately, or in public gatherings of women and/or children and are certainly free to evangelise. Additionally, if there is no man present who can teach, God may raise up a woman to do the job, which is something of a judgement on the men for not taking on their responsibilities e.g. Deborah and Barak in Judges.
Who is in a better position to justify an action: God or man?
This fits very well with 1 Timothy 2:8-15, which itself is based on Genesis 2-3. God has established an order and authority structure for mankind and the church, with God in ultimate authority over man, who is in a position of authority over woman, who is designated as man's companion and helper. The authority that mean wields, however, is to be sacrificial and loving, not domineering. It's to be modelled over the authority that Jesus has over the church i.e. he is the teacher, the leader, but he was also the one to die on behalf of the church. Submission is not a negative thing in this context because we are taught that Christ himself submits to the Father.
The silence referred to here is silence with regards to teaching. They have some opportunity to do so privately, or in public gatherings of women and/or children and are certainly free to evangelise. Additionally, if there is no man present who can teach, God may raise up a woman to do the job, which is something of a judgement on the men for not taking on their responsibilities e.g. Deborah and Barak in Judges.
Why would it be hard to justify if written directly by God? Surely that would make it impossible to disagree with? The doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture would say that God inspired people to write on his behalf, with something of their personality coming through, but at the same time the Holy Spirit guiding what they write so that it is all precisely the message God wishes to communicate, meaning that we do not sit in judgement on the Bible, but let it sit in judgement over us.
There have been a few such claims, but none of them fit with the facts.
The proportion of people claiming to be Christians and willing to kill each other over matters of doctrine is fairly small.
That's a big claim, but I'm not sure what evidence you have for it. The places I'm familiar with would concentrate their time on broadly similar topics: Old Testament studies, New Testament studies, Systematic Theology, Greek, Hebrew, etc. The amount of time devoted to minor denominational issues isn't that large. And I say that as someone who is at Belfast Bible College, a large inter-denominational college, thinking of attending Union Theological College, a Presbyterian college in Belfast, has worked for a church based near Oakhill, one of the main Anglican theology colleges in England, studied at Cornhill, a fairly significant non-denominatinal college in London and frequented Wycliffe College in Oxford, another large mainly Anglican college.
False dichotomy. Just because it is easy to understand what is necessary for salvation and a lot of other stuff as well doesn't mean that there aren't bits requiring more thought and training and deeper understanding and insight available through further study. It isn't that the Bible is obscure in its meaning, but rather than it is rich and multi-layered. There's a lot I can understand from the Bible with a knowledge of English and a good English translation, but I gain a deeper and richer understanding by learning Hebrew and Greek and gaining access to the nuances of the original language.
You're being a little silly there, reducing the Bible to 'one person's dreams.' It contains thousands of years of God clearly intervening in history and making himself known, sometimes in dramatic, obvious ways, sometimes in more subtle ways, but most significantly in the person of Jesus. To claim that God has not communicated clearly when we have a document such as the Bible with a historicity far surpassing that of other documents from antiquity, an event such as the crucifixion which divides time in two and a life such as Jesus' which few have not heard of, is ludicrous.
The first was a moral law, the second was one to show how the Jews were supposed to be set apart. That became redundant when the gospel was opened up to Gentiles as Jesus' coming.
Similar thing applies here, as is clearly shown by Peter's dream in Acts.
There are quite a few people in the world who attack Christians for being ignorant of science, then go and attack Christianity without having made any attempt to understand it. Providentially, I'm both a physicist and a Christian.
I've got a Z43 and a K750i and the Z3 is vastly superior in terms of photo quality. Maybe you're using it with ISOs of higher than 100? It gets a little noisy at 200 and unbearably so at 400. At 100 or 50 though it's pretty clean. The K750i is very noisy in poorly lit environments but quite adequate outdoors or in well lit indoor conditions with 'flash' on.
Isn't that a rather artificial situation? Ok, Microsoft Office may 'cheat' a bit by having some stuff built into Windows, but if that stuff is running when you use Open Office and the real world memory use for Office is bigger, then that matters more than an artificial benchmark-type set-up.