You may actually want to check out some Christian rock (or pop, or whatever you're in to), even if you are not a Christian. Much of it is "watered down" enough that it doesn't sound like a sermon in any way.
Try Switchfoot or Pillar. Both have "crossed over" into the mainstream market.
One thing to remember is that salaries are very region dependent, so a Computer Engineering degree may not command the highest starting salaries in your region.
it's not hard to imagine a world where most wikipedia users were creationists. Would you trust the evolution article then?
So should we trust the creation article then?
I am not trying to start a creation vs. evolution war here, but this is just something to think about. If most popular sources are from an evolution standpoint, should we take what they say about creation with a grain of salt? That is, should we research the creation standpoint in more depth?
I must admit, if I am going to be honest and consistent with myself, that is what I need to do.
Just search for pictures of your favourate stars without makeup and/or airbrushing. They literally look like the girl next door, nothing special at all.
I just did a search. They look WORSE than the girl next door.
Visual is quicker than audio, and one of the reasons is that it is nonlinear (not in the mathematical sense, but the dimensional sense).
Visually you can look at a screen of replies and skip to the next "line" instantly if the current line is not what you want. Difficult for audio.
Also, you can look at the screen as a whole and can often see the answer you desire because it essentially "jumps out at you" from visual filtering. Listening to all the audio output as a whole will most likely give you nothing.
So what would really be cool (and more practical) is to have the voice input (a la Star Trek) and then have an instant display of results on a viewable surface in mid-air.
When I first saw the advertisement for Firefly, I was very excited. But then when they said it would be shown on Friday night, I was bummed. I usually go out on Friday nights.
Of course I could record it, but to be honest I just don't record that often. I wonder if others are like this. There are many shows that I will give a half or full hour of my life to when they are on TV, yet at the same time I will hardly ever record any shows. And I don't know why.
So what are you waiting for?
on
What's Always Next?
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
breach of the rules would result in punishment in the form of hell or alternately reward in the form of heaven
One thing that might be interesting to note is that the Bible does not teach that being good and trying to *not* break the rules will get you into heaven.
The Bible *does* teach that everybody has broken the rules at least once, but something I find very interesting is that even if you stopped breaking the rules this would still not get you into heaven.
I am not trying to bash you or your theory, and it may very well be true in some cases, but something that I think sets Christianity apart is that rule guidance has nothing to do with your entrance into heaven. Thus I have a hard time conceiving it as a crime deterrent method.
The three religions being discussed agree that they follow the same God.
I have been a Christian for 10 years, grew up in a Christian family, and consider myself to know more about the Bible than the average person. Yet I have NEVER seen/heard anything that states this.
I am a little confused by your allegory. It is inconsistent in itself since you say Everybody agrees that Clinton was president of the USA for a period of time and then say and some people don't agree that he even existed. Aside from that, are you equating Clinton with God (quite a stretch!) and the phrase Not everybody agrees with what he did, why he did it, or what he hoped to accomplish by it addresses the different religions? Now I think you would agree that on the factual level there are certain things Clinton did and did not do (this is outside of how people perceive him). Now say I write a fake biography of Clinton that *does* have some truth in it but also has quite a bit of falsehoods in it, such as that he does not like to play the saxophone and that he is not a democrat. Now if I asked Hillary, after she reads my biography, if who I talked about in the book was Bill Clinton, she would say NO!
We may actually agree more than we disagree. There is a difference in the *perception* of God, the *label* of God, and the *truth* of God (although some of these may end up being the same). The truth of God is what it is and has nothing to do with us, right? That is, our actions/thoughts do not changes God's existence or nature. The perception of God is how we view God. The label of God is what the perception "sticks to". I think I am talking about the perception of God and you may be talking about the label of God. Just like the Clinton example, sure my biography is addressing Bill Clinton (label) and that is a perception of Bill, but it is not the truth of Bill. My label is the same as any other bio on Bill -> it's still talking about Bill Clinton. The perception is different, though. And the truth either agrees or disagrees. The three religions have the same label but different perceptions of God.
This is my last post in this thread. You don't address my questions and points, so I have a hard time developing an "argument" when there is no logical flow. That is not meant to be rude, and I apologize if you have been offended in any of my previous posts.
Some shared history? Then where is the dividing line? Creation is history, and other religions have a god that supposedly created the universe. Does that mean they follow the same god? Of course not. The division can't be arbitrary.
Claims by one of the religions to be the same god? If that religion is "false" then the claim means nothing (what stops me from creating a fourth religion in this group and say it is the same god?). And at least two of these religions have to be false due to contradiciton.
Please realize that it is more than a disagreement on what god said or meant. It is a disagreement on what god did and thus who god is. If they disagree on who god is, then how could it be the same god?
They are the same god in the since that each is monotheistic and they think they are "filling that position" with the One True God (i.e., each think they follow the One True God, and each think there is only one god, so thus you get the same "god"). If that is what you mean, then I agree with you. But like I said earlier, what prevents other monothestic religions from coming in? Perhaps they do come in.
But if you mean they follow the same god as far as who god is, then I disagree with you. Each has there own concept of god, and thus it can't be the same god.
Slashdot Mirror
stealing someone's indentity, which he then used to launch his spam messages
How long until we find out that the real spammer used Howard Carmak's identity to spam and is still on the loose?!?
This reminds me of a certain Car Talk Puzzler.
I holding out for the one that Homer made.
Remember: it's more than just the story.
Even some of the earliest action-oriented video games had elaborate stories behind them, but that usually didn't mean much when playing.
create positive motivational CDs
How about positive, motivational music?
You may actually want to check out some Christian rock (or pop, or whatever you're in to), even if you are not a Christian. Much of it is "watered down" enough that it doesn't sound like a sermon in any way.
Try Switchfoot or Pillar. Both have "crossed over" into the mainstream market.
No xbox mod-chip costs more than $100.
Logically, you can't say this. Examples of mod-chips costing less than $100 does not disprove the existence of a mod-chip > $100.
But what I think you intended to mean is correct: mod-chips are available that are less than the reduced-price Xbox.
The Qualification Inspection and Demonstration was rumored to be the state's Driver's License Test.
The vehicles had been fretting about the dreaded parallel parking portion of the test.
Ignition interlocks require a breath test
What about a (small) device that just blows air into the breath sensor?
which takes 30 seconds to complete, to start the car
How about you can start the car but can't put it in gear? That was during those 30 seconds you could at least have the car start "warming up".
If the driver fails a retest, the horn sounds and the lights flash until the car is turned off.
If they are drunk enough, they won't even notice (or they will think they are a police officer themselves - that's not good).
One thing to remember is that salaries are very region dependent, so a Computer Engineering degree may not command the highest starting salaries in your region.
it's not hard to imagine a world where most wikipedia users were creationists. Would you trust the evolution article then?
So should we trust the creation article then?
I am not trying to start a creation vs. evolution war here, but this is just something to think about. If most popular sources are from an evolution standpoint, should we take what they say about creation with a grain of salt? That is, should we research the creation standpoint in more depth?
I must admit, if I am going to be honest and consistent with myself, that is what I need to do.
When growing up, my father would give similar advice to sleep on it. Is actual phrase would be to "let my subconscious work on the problem."
I don't know if that is actually what is happening, but it makes sense somewhat, and it has provided some good results for me.
Looks something like a repeat.
I've heard that Jar Jar will not be in episode IV.
I wonder if somebody will suggest mining for coal? ;-)
Just search for pictures of your favourate stars without makeup and/or airbrushing. They literally look like the girl next door, nothing special at all.
I just did a search. They look WORSE than the girl next door.
Visual is quicker than audio, and one of the reasons is that it is nonlinear (not in the mathematical sense, but the dimensional sense).
Visually you can look at a screen of replies and skip to the next "line" instantly if the current line is not what you want. Difficult for audio.
Also, you can look at the screen as a whole and can often see the answer you desire because it essentially "jumps out at you" from visual filtering. Listening to all the audio output as a whole will most likely give you nothing.
So what would really be cool (and more practical) is to have the voice input (a la Star Trek) and then have an instant display of results on a viewable surface in mid-air.
...was it's Friday night time slot.
When I first saw the advertisement for Firefly, I was very excited. But then when they said it would be shown on Friday night, I was bummed. I usually go out on Friday nights.
Of course I could record it, but to be honest I just don't record that often. I wonder if others are like this. There are many shows that I will give a half or full hour of my life to when they are on TV, yet at the same time I will hardly ever record any shows. And I don't know why.
Duke Nukem Forever
I'm waiting for Skynet to become self-aware. Aren't we pass due?
No "need".
Have you read it?
the most important book ever to be written about the subject of comic books
Most would probably say that honor belongs to "Comics and Sequential Art" by Will Eisner.
I also would highly recommend "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud.
breach of the rules would result in punishment in the form of hell or alternately reward in the form of heaven
One thing that might be interesting to note is that the Bible does not teach that being good and trying to *not* break the rules will get you into heaven.
The Bible *does* teach that everybody has broken the rules at least once, but something I find very interesting is that even if you stopped breaking the rules this would still not get you into heaven.
I am not trying to bash you or your theory, and it may very well be true in some cases, but something that I think sets Christianity apart is that rule guidance has nothing to do with your entrance into heaven. Thus I have a hard time conceiving it as a crime deterrent method.
Imagine a Beowulf....ah, you know the rest.
The three religions being discussed agree that they follow the same God.
I have been a Christian for 10 years, grew up in a Christian family, and consider myself to know more about the Bible than the average person. Yet I have NEVER seen/heard anything that states this.
I am a little confused by your allegory. It is inconsistent in itself since you say Everybody agrees that Clinton was president of the USA for a period of time and then say and some people don't agree that he even existed. Aside from that, are you equating Clinton with God (quite a stretch!) and the phrase Not everybody agrees with what he did, why he did it, or what he hoped to accomplish by it addresses the different religions? Now I think you would agree that on the factual level there are certain things Clinton did and did not do (this is outside of how people perceive him). Now say I write a fake biography of Clinton that *does* have some truth in it but also has quite a bit of falsehoods in it, such as that he does not like to play the saxophone and that he is not a democrat. Now if I asked Hillary, after she reads my biography, if who I talked about in the book was Bill Clinton, she would say NO!
We may actually agree more than we disagree. There is a difference in the *perception* of God, the *label* of God, and the *truth* of God (although some of these may end up being the same). The truth of God is what it is and has nothing to do with us, right? That is, our actions/thoughts do not changes God's existence or nature. The perception of God is how we view God. The label of God is what the perception "sticks to". I think I am talking about the perception of God and you may be talking about the label of God. Just like the Clinton example, sure my biography is addressing Bill Clinton (label) and that is a perception of Bill, but it is not the truth of Bill. My label is the same as any other bio on Bill -> it's still talking about Bill Clinton. The perception is different, though. And the truth either agrees or disagrees. The three religions have the same label but different perceptions of God.
This is my last post in this thread. You don't address my questions and points, so I have a hard time developing an "argument" when there is no logical flow. That is not meant to be rude, and I apologize if you have been offended in any of my previous posts.
What makes it the same god?
Some shared history? Then where is the dividing line? Creation is history, and other religions have a god that supposedly created the universe. Does that mean they follow the same god? Of course not. The division can't be arbitrary.
Claims by one of the religions to be the same god? If that religion is "false" then the claim means nothing (what stops me from creating a fourth religion in this group and say it is the same god?). And at least two of these religions have to be false due to contradiciton.
Please realize that it is more than a disagreement on what god said or meant. It is a disagreement on what god did and thus who god is. If they disagree on who god is, then how could it be the same god?
They are the same god in the since that each is monotheistic and they think they are "filling that position" with the One True God (i.e., each think they follow the One True God, and each think there is only one god, so thus you get the same "god"). If that is what you mean, then I agree with you. But like I said earlier, what prevents other monothestic religions from coming in? Perhaps they do come in.
But if you mean they follow the same god as far as who god is, then I disagree with you. Each has there own concept of god, and thus it can't be the same god.