I suspect that "native" software (of all categories) will sell better than identical non-native software, so there would be some incentive for software producers to differentiate themselves by offering a "native" product. The question of course is whether or not this is a large enough incentive. From an absolute numbers point of view, there are certainly enough Mac users out there to make writing Mac software profitable, but since there are a much larger Windows users, the maximum profit is greater on the Windows side.
I suspect that the market for Mac games will only increase as the Mac market share increases, thus the people now producing Mac games will have a larger market to sell to.
Ah, I guess some of my Catholic knowledge comes from tv. I thought priests in confession would have the person say the rosary a certain number of times depending on the severity of the sin.
While many non-Catholic Christians have difficulties with the idea that a priest is used as a confessor, it does serve at least one practical purpose - it forces the penetant to have a more real confrontation with their own actions. It is quite a different process to privately say "I am sorry for swearing at that person who cut me off on the road yesterday, God forgive me" and to make that same confession to someone else. It is realtively easy to overlook or minimize those actions we all take that move us away from God - the Catholic sacrament of reconciliation makes that a bit harder to do.
Hit the "preview" button before submitting and you can see what your post will look like. The HTML command for a new paragraph is:
if you are using the "HTML Formatted" pull-down.
I never said I was a "non Bible believing Catholic".
I have not been trying to convince you that Catholic dogma is "correct", but rather that it is not completely unsupported. If you are really interested in the history and theology of Christianity, Catholocism, and the Bible, I have been finding over the past few days that wikipedia is a treasure trove of relativley neutral-biased information.
You'll need a time machine if you want to get out of accepting Christ as your Savior.
Well, maybe - more likely one would need a brain erasing machine. I think the theologins generally agree that people raised without knowledge of Christ (ie some poor schmuck in the middle of "darkest Affrica" for example) probably have a way to salvation (theologically such salvation is still "through Christ", but of course for the person involved, they would not know the name "Christ" as such), and I think I have heard some theological arguments extending these sorts of ideas to those who have been given the wrong view of Christ, making it impossible for such acceptance to occur as we would normally think of it, but I digress.
But a quick question, all Christians are saints, can we pray to anyone who was a Christian?
The Catholic church has a very definite exclusive definition of who is a Saint - there is all sorts of politics that goes on in deciding that somone is or is not a Saint. According to that wikipedia page, the theology for asking a Saint to pray for you is similar to asking anyone alive to pray for you, so I suppose that asking for intercessional prayer from anyone living or dead makes a certain amount of sense.
Oh another question, why would one need to say the prayer more than once? Jesus even says in Matthew 6:7 "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
You seem to be thinking that Catholocism requires (ie your use of the word "need") behaviour that I understand is not required as such but rather is traditional. One does not *need* to say any particular prayer at all, let alone multiple times, any more than one *needs* to shake hands when being introduced to someone. Both are human cultural having to do with demonstrating certain respect and feelings. Repetition of prayers, such as in "saying the rosary" is used, I think, to focus one's attention on the glory of God and the eternal mysteries of existance, etc. rather than in any objective "value" that the prayer might have. The theology is that prayers are not magical incantations that bind the almighty to one's will. It is true however that any form of prayer can easily give the impression to an outsider that it is a pointless excercise in asking for special treatment ("God, please give me a pony.") and thinks like the rosary are easily seen in this manner.
Some women are very happy with a not-terribly-expensive ring, and others are not. At the same time, there are men who would not be happy with a woman who was satisfied with a $500 ring, and there are other men who would never consider marrying a woman who wanted them to drop $15k on a ring.
You are probably right, but the whole idea that the ring would make any difference in anyone's "satisfaction" is bizzare.
I "lucked out" in that my wife went out and found a ring and proposed to me (she tells a great story about the difficulty in finding an engagement ring for a man - the sales clerks just could not understand the concept). So far after hearing about 120 other engagement stories, we have yet to hear one where the woman poped the question. I often hear things like "I waited and waited and hinted and hinted and he finally asked me", and I respond with "Why didn't you just ask him?". "Oh, but what if he said no?" "Then you know his desire and you can move forward from there, that's why you would have asked him, you moron."
I rarely have cash to spare, but have offered to use my plastic to buy someone gas, food, or a bus ticket - and suprise suprise, have been turned down.
Such is one of the curses of being male and wanting to get married.
If your fiancee requires a $15,000 as a token of your commitment, you might want to question her priorities. I would think a more meaningful token could be had without needing to tie up a significant amount of captiol in a poor investment. Heck, spend the bucks on a big wedding and provide plane tickets to out-of-town guests who might not be able to attend, and you will make more people happier I would imagine. Even the most shallow of inlaws would probably prefer to have great aunt Tilda flown in from Walla-Walla.
But, whatever floats your boat. Hopefully it was some sort of non-blood diamond, or maybe a nice manufactured one? Those are cool.
I wouldn't mind paying for my winnings, as long as I could also deduct my losings, which even with those big wins is a lot larger.
You can, but the trick is you have to keep pretty good records, and maybe even get receipts from the casinos. If you are actually doing a lot of gambling, it is probably worthwhile to do so. I doubt you can carry foward losses from previous years however (but maybe you can, I haven't researched it). Gambling losses can only be deducted from gambling income, so you can't avoid all your income tax by blowing all your income at the track.
A google search for "deduct gambiling losses" turns up this from the IRS which says: "Gambling winnings are taxable on your tax return. You can deduct gambling losses on your tax return only if you itemize tax deductions and only to the extent of your gambling winnings. Claim your gambling losses as a miscellaneous tax deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040. It is important to keep an accurate diary or similar record of your gambling winnings and gambling losses. To deduct your gambling losses on your tax return, you must be able to provide receipts, tickets, statements or other records that show the amount of both your gambling winnings and gambling losses. You cannot deduct or carry forward a net gambling loss on your tax return; even if you are a professional gambler."
Oh I am aware that one can "explain" these sorts of contradictions by various interpretations of the various bits, I am just pointing out that doing so thereby removes one from the "literal" reading of the work, one is starting to "interpret". Similar interpretations are needed to preserve the "literalness" of the date for the expulsion from Eden and the spread of humanity across the globe, the lack of physical evidence for the flood, etc. It is very difficult being a literalist, as one has to make so many interpretations of the scriptures. In my mind this detracts greatly from the strength of the scriptures as a source of moral and theological knowledge.
The real point is accepting Jesus is the only way the Bible makes that clear. So as long as that is what the Catholics believe than it's better thant he rumors I heard that Baptism is required and that we are saved by works and not grace.
Do not give in to rumors - all of this stuff is available online - try wikipedia or google - that's where I am getting most of it.
Well, YOU may know the only path to salvation, but I put forward to you that your knowledge is based on a restrictive reading of the scriptures. I quote from here: "It is pointed out, however, that Paul declared in Ephesians, Chapter 2, verse 9, "Not of works lest any man should boast". It is true that no man can save himself by his own works, but he must work according to God's plan in order to be saved. We are told in Philippians, Chapter 2, and the last part of verse 12, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling". Also, James states in James, Chapter 2, verse 24, "Ye see then that by works a man is justified and not by faith only". It is interesting to note that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord according to Genesis, Chapter 6, verse 8, but that Hebrews, Chapter 11, verse 7, says "By faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith". Noah was saved by the grace of God, through faith on his part which prompted him to obey God's commands. A person may be saved from his sins by the grace of God when he believes what God says and when he obeys the Gospel which is God's power unto salvation. Romans, Chapter 1, verse 16."
From this and similar analysis, one quickly comes to the conclusion, that of course one is "saved" by faith in the Lord, but with that statement it is very easy to believe that professing such faith is sufficient. In actual fact you must LIVE that faith. The scriptures are full of things that the faithful should be doing - giving up their cloaks to their neighbours, feeding the least among them, leaving their father and mother to follow Jesus. It is not that Acts without Faith will lead to salvation that Catholic theology professes, but rather Cathlics generally hold that Faith without Acts is, in fact, not Faith.
My only point was that Catholics have some beliefs that could lead someone to believe they are saved when they are not.
I would argue that it is the other way around. Some non-Catholics might have some beliefs that could lead them to think they are saved when they are not.
Which do you think is more likely or troublesome: a) that someone will do good things, without accepting Jesus and yet think that they are going to go to heaven and then be dissapointed when the time comes, or b) that someone will not do good things, and trust that their faith in Jesus/professed acceptance of Jesus will get them into heaven and then be dissapoined when the time comes? In case (a) it seems unlikely that they will think
Gosh it is difficult to read single paragraph postings. Break them apart a bit, eh?
Your web link clearly supports my position that defining "the bible" is difficult to do, and there are valid reasons to question what constitutes canon. I quote from your source: "The canon of the New Testament was not closed historically by the early church. Rather, its extent was debated until the Reformation. Even then, it was closed in a sectarian fashion. Therefore the question must be asked, is it then heresy for a person to question or reject a book of the present canon ? There have been repeated reevaluations of the church's canon. This happened during the initial sifting period. It happened again during the Renaissance and Reformation period, and it is beginning to happen again now. In such instances the fringe books of the canon have been repeatedly questioned. "
Out of curiosity what Bible are you reading that says man was made before Cattle?
Well, according to the KJB as I sited previously, on of the creation stories in Genisis has man created last: 1:24 lists "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." as happening on the forth day, before 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth." Yet in 2:7 through 2:19 we have a slightly different creation story, and the order of creation puts man first among the creaturs.
believe in Genesis 100%. I think a lot of people started to not believe it because science was reporting to have proved the Bible wrong. It actually proved it right as long as you interpret the Bible correctly and know what translation errors there are.
I think the important point you make is "as long as you interpret the Bible correctly", which I might tend to agree with. But with that "interpretation" going on, it is difficult to be "literal".
Your quote from Pope John Paul II seems to me to clearly refute your assertation that Catholic theology derrives from paganism - I would say that the statement "only in the worship of Christ, true God and true Saviour" is surely Christian based. One might argue that good people without having been revealed Christianity were all dammed, but it doesn't seem particularly anti-scriptural to have a theology that good people's good actions come from the all-good God. The whole scriptural discussions on preaching to non-jews and revalations to the whole world tend to support this sort of arguement.
There are plenty of things that go directly against the Bible with Catholicism. Asking a priest for forgiveness is not from the Bible. Saying a Hail Mary to earn forgiveness is not from the Bible. Last Rites do not get you into Heaven. Purgatory is not a real place. Baptism is nothing more than a symbol that you have accepted Christ as your savior. The list goes on and on and the internet is filled with articles on the subject. I will say though I don't like some of them because they try to belittle Catholics and make fun of them.
Well, you should probably look into these sorts of things a bit more if they bug you so much - most of your characterizations seem a bit off, particularly when looking at what the Catholics actually say about their beliefs. As you are aware, debating theology over the Internet is "not in the Bible", yet you still do that, eh?
Catholic theology does not require a priest for forgiveness of sins. Saying a Hail Mary (taken directly from scripture) does not earn forgiveness according to Catholic theology. Catholic theology does state or at least imply that being in a 'state of grace' makes you a shoe-in for heaven, but how is that different from "accepting
Sorry, I mistyped, it should have been "Nicene" as in the "Nicene Creed", and I was using it as an example of a bunch of widely held Christian theological beleifs, that while clearly Christian in form, are not directly scriptural. The Nicene Creed was developed three or four hundred years after Christ, and there was much debate on exactly what it should include. The fact that there was such debate seems to imply that the answers are not completely obvious in the stricptures (which of course at the time were still in a state of flux).
My retoric was also obviously not clear in my comments about Genisis - I did not mean to imply that either you or I thought a literal interpretation of Genisis was silly, but rather that if one did think a particular piece of "the Bible" was silly, your theology would seem to imply that it was ok to not use a literal interpretation ("this is my body" vs "this [represents] my body" for example).
Claiming to base one's theology only on "scripture" leads one to the question of how do you decide what is "scripture"? At least the Mormons had Smith to produce a book, as did Mohammod for Islam - clearly they can speak with authority to their beleivers, but as a Christian, how does one decide who can legitimatly produce a complete bible?
I am confused though about your professed beleifs - are you saying that the creation stories in Genisis are literally accurate (even though the two stories are inconsistent? cattle made before man, or man made before cattle? see 1:25-26 vs 2:6-18 for example). "Replacing a few words in your mind" would seem to be a non-literal interpretation.
I am not sure in what way "Catholics admit it's a mixture of Christian theology and pagan theology." Certainly I have seen no references to Catholic dogma that claims to be in any way pagan. While it is hard to argue against the evidence that many Catholic (and in general Christian) rituals and practices have foundations in earlier traditions, the theological basis as definded by the Catholic theologans seems pretty firmly Christian.
Put some paragraphs in your postings, they are easier to read that way...
So, basically you try your best to figure out what the version of the bible you've got means, and go with that? Literal interpretation of Genisis seems silly, so that's out. Transsubstatiation seems bogus, so that's out. Do you stick with the Niean interpretations or build your own?
Face it, you have taken a few bits of the Bible, and decided that those bits (Jesus as personal saviour for example) are the most important bits, and using that as a guide, depreciated those parts that do not serve your purpose. It is certainly a valid method, but it clearly is not unambigiously the ONLY method. If it was, your church would be much larger, eh?
My claim is that while Catholicism may differ greatly from your interpretation of the Bible, I would put forth that your interpretation of the Bible also differs greatly from a vast body of learned theologans' (is that spelled correctly?) interpretations, and it is very difficult to decide who's interpretations are best.
All this yammering on, and I haven't even read "The Da Vinci Code".
I'm more in the boat of getting my theology straight from God through his Holy Word
Well, then of course one has to ask which of the multitude of versions of "his Holy Word" is definitive? Which translation? Which books?
The works commonly known as "the Bible" are clearly a connection of separate documents, which do not always fit together perfectly, and contain some very difficult to interpret sections. The Old Testament has a fairly extensive set of daily laws concerning food for example (no pork, etc.) which few Christians adhere to, siting passages in the Gospels as justification for not following them. How one decides on which bits trump which other bits is a non-trivial matter.
If you think that using "the Bible" as your only source for theological input is a complete solution, I think you are going to have difficulty in a number of areas.
While it is fairly easy to come up with a quick list of seeming contradictions in any faith tradition, it is also fairly easy to come up with some of the theology behind those teachings/beliefs. In the case of the Catholic Church, one has to figure that the theology cannot be completely vacuous, or it would have faded out compeltely by now. A few links such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church or http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html for specific details come up pretty quick in any search on "catholic apologists".
Catholics do not base their entire theology only on "scripture", but also include traditions of the church as "source" materials. Since such traditions stretch back to before the gosples were written, there certainly is some logical basis for such foundations.
The very first time I miss an emergency call because of this paint, I will be suing both the building and the company that made the paint.
Good luck finding a lawyer to work pro-bono. I doubt very much that you will have much of a case. Cell phone reception has yet to become a legal issue - it is currently a competitive issue between carriers. I doubt that you would be able to sue the building owner becase your cell phone doesn't work in the basement either. You MIGHT get someone to agree that disclosure of the use of such paint would be necessary, but I doubt you could ever REQUIRE cell phone forwarding numbers or the like.
If you live and die by the cell phone, what do you do about dead zones?
It seems unlikely that if the level of evidence needed is set too high that that would result in an increased number of convictions of innocent people, but rather it would result in an overall decrease in convictions total. Presumably as the "quality" of evidence increases against the accused, the chances of that person being innocent decrease, so raising the bar will result in fewer convictions of innocent people. The extreme case is when the bar is so high that there are no convictions at all - and then of course there would be no people wrongly convicted, at the cost of lots of guilty people not being convicted either.
If the guilty go free, it is quite possible that nobody gets convicted, particularly if the guilty was freed on technical grounds such as "tainted" evidence. Having someone else to point the finger at is usually a pretty good defense method for the innocent.
However, it means that an administration that wants to impose a dictatorship has only four years to do so; the next election, they will be smacked down.
That's what I thought too, but we re-elected the buggers.
The problem that the system is designed to limit is not that we might get incorrect verdicts due to lack of evidence, but that we make it very difficult for "the man" to get incorrect verdicts through fasification of evidence. It is much harder to convict an innocent person if all the rules of evidnce are followed. The price we pay for this is that it is also much harder to convict guilty people.
From what I understand, Camp X-Ray is such a workaround. That by doing what is being done outside of US soil, means that constitutional rights don't apply.
Which is pretty sad - as if the human rights enumerated in the constitution shouldn't apply to every human.
However people who sense radiowaves are hardly displaying ESP rather than a heightend sensetivity for... well... radiowaves.
I haven't seen anything in the literature showing anyone with such EM sensitivity - do you have any references? I have no doubt that people can damage themselves with high EM fields - one need only stick your head in a microwave to demonstrate that. I have been unable to find references to anyone who could detect cell-phone radiation in a controlled double-blind experiment and would be interested in and references you might have.
Randi's challenge does not have to be framed in terms of "ESP" - many things tested for the challenge have been similar to this type of claimed EM sensitivity.
I even know a woman who can sense the cellphone handshake (she has e-magnetic field sensetivity) from meters away and has the habbit of anouncing cellphone calls seconds before a phone rings. Fun to watch with unsuspecting others near by:-) . Her life isn't that fun though. When her neighbor above leaves his 20" CRT on she can't sleep. She's got other trouble with that aswell and people often don't believe her and think she's crazy.
Sounds more like a issue with sensitive hearing and high frequency noises. If she can demonstrate the ability to sense EM cell phone calls via a double blind test, she might qualify for Randi's $1 million.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect that the market for Mac games will only increase as the Mac market share increases, thus the people now producing Mac games will have a larger market to sell to.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address.
Calling a Macintosh a "MAC" looks a bit funny, and detracts from your valid points.
That's not totally innaccurate. Again, we see wikipedia is your friend. The Catholic sacrament of reconciliation generally does involve priest-directed penance, and as you would expect, the penance varies as do the sins being forgiven.
While many non-Catholic Christians have difficulties with the idea that a priest is used as a confessor, it does serve at least one practical purpose - it forces the penetant to have a more real confrontation with their own actions. It is quite a different process to privately say "I am sorry for swearing at that person who cut me off on the road yesterday, God forgive me" and to make that same confession to someone else. It is realtively easy to overlook or minimize those actions we all take that move us away from God - the Catholic sacrament of reconciliation makes that a bit harder to do.
if you are using the "HTML Formatted" pull-down.
I never said I was a "non Bible believing Catholic".
I have not been trying to convince you that Catholic dogma is "correct", but rather that it is not completely unsupported. If you are really interested in the history and theology of Christianity, Catholocism, and the Bible, I have been finding over the past few days that wikipedia is a treasure trove of relativley neutral-biased information.
You'll need a time machine if you want to get out of accepting Christ as your Savior.
Well, maybe - more likely one would need a brain erasing machine. I think the theologins generally agree that people raised without knowledge of Christ (ie some poor schmuck in the middle of "darkest Affrica" for example) probably have a way to salvation (theologically such salvation is still "through Christ", but of course for the person involved, they would not know the name "Christ" as such), and I think I have heard some theological arguments extending these sorts of ideas to those who have been given the wrong view of Christ, making it impossible for such acceptance to occur as we would normally think of it, but I digress.
But a quick question, all Christians are saints, can we pray to anyone who was a Christian?
The Catholic church has a very definite exclusive definition of who is a Saint - there is all sorts of politics that goes on in deciding that somone is or is not a Saint. According to that wikipedia page, the theology for asking a Saint to pray for you is similar to asking anyone alive to pray for you, so I suppose that asking for intercessional prayer from anyone living or dead makes a certain amount of sense.
Oh another question, why would one need to say the prayer more than once? Jesus even says in Matthew 6:7 "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
You seem to be thinking that Catholocism requires (ie your use of the word "need") behaviour that I understand is not required as such but rather is traditional. One does not *need* to say any particular prayer at all, let alone multiple times, any more than one *needs* to shake hands when being introduced to someone. Both are human cultural having to do with demonstrating certain respect and feelings. Repetition of prayers, such as in "saying the rosary" is used, I think, to focus one's attention on the glory of God and the eternal mysteries of existance, etc. rather than in any objective "value" that the prayer might have. The theology is that prayers are not magical incantations that bind the almighty to one's will. It is true however that any form of prayer can easily give the impression to an outsider that it is a pointless excercise in asking for special treatment ("God, please give me a pony.") and thinks like the rosary are easily seen in this manner.
You are probably right, but the whole idea that the ring would make any difference in anyone's "satisfaction" is bizzare.
I "lucked out" in that my wife went out and found a ring and proposed to me (she tells a great story about the difficulty in finding an engagement ring for a man - the sales clerks just could not understand the concept). So far after hearing about 120 other engagement stories, we have yet to hear one where the woman poped the question. I often hear things like "I waited and waited and hinted and hinted and he finally asked me", and I respond with "Why didn't you just ask him?". "Oh, but what if he said no?" "Then you know his desire and you can move forward from there, that's why you would have asked him, you moron."
OK, so some of that I don't often say...
I rarely have cash to spare, but have offered to use my plastic to buy someone gas, food, or a bus ticket - and suprise suprise, have been turned down.
If your fiancee requires a $15,000 as a token of your commitment, you might want to question her priorities. I would think a more meaningful token could be had without needing to tie up a significant amount of captiol in a poor investment. Heck, spend the bucks on a big wedding and provide plane tickets to out-of-town guests who might not be able to attend, and you will make more people happier I would imagine. Even the most shallow of inlaws would probably prefer to have great aunt Tilda flown in from Walla-Walla.
But, whatever floats your boat. Hopefully it was some sort of non-blood diamond, or maybe a nice manufactured one? Those are cool.
You can, but the trick is you have to keep pretty good records, and maybe even get receipts from the casinos. If you are actually doing a lot of gambling, it is probably worthwhile to do so. I doubt you can carry foward losses from previous years however (but maybe you can, I haven't researched it). Gambling losses can only be deducted from gambling income, so you can't avoid all your income tax by blowing all your income at the track.
A google search for "deduct gambiling losses" turns up this from the IRS which says: "Gambling winnings are taxable on your tax return. You can deduct gambling losses on your tax return only if you itemize tax deductions and only to the extent of your gambling winnings. Claim your gambling losses as a miscellaneous tax deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040. It is important to keep an accurate diary or similar record of your gambling winnings and gambling losses. To deduct your gambling losses on your tax return, you must be able to provide receipts, tickets, statements or other records that show the amount of both your gambling winnings and gambling losses. You cannot deduct or carry forward a net gambling loss on your tax return; even if you are a professional gambler."
Oh I am aware that one can "explain" these sorts of contradictions by various interpretations of the various bits, I am just pointing out that doing so thereby removes one from the "literal" reading of the work, one is starting to "interpret". Similar interpretations are needed to preserve the "literalness" of the date for the expulsion from Eden and the spread of humanity across the globe, the lack of physical evidence for the flood, etc. It is very difficult being a literalist, as one has to make so many interpretations of the scriptures. In my mind this detracts greatly from the strength of the scriptures as a source of moral and theological knowledge.
The real point is accepting Jesus is the only way the Bible makes that clear. So as long as that is what the Catholics believe than it's better thant he rumors I heard that Baptism is required and that we are saved by works and not grace.
Do not give in to rumors - all of this stuff is available online - try wikipedia or google - that's where I am getting most of it.
Well, YOU may know the only path to salvation, but I put forward to you that your knowledge is based on a restrictive reading of the scriptures. I quote from here: "It is pointed out, however, that Paul declared in Ephesians, Chapter 2, verse 9, "Not of works lest any man should boast". It is true that no man can save himself by his own works, but he must work according to God's plan in order to be saved. We are told in Philippians, Chapter 2, and the last part of verse 12, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling". Also, James states in James, Chapter 2, verse 24, "Ye see then that by works a man is justified and not by faith only". It is interesting to note that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord according to Genesis, Chapter 6, verse 8, but that Hebrews, Chapter 11, verse 7, says "By faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith". Noah was saved by the grace of God, through faith on his part which prompted him to obey God's commands. A person may be saved from his sins by the grace of God when he believes what God says and when he obeys the Gospel which is God's power unto salvation. Romans, Chapter 1, verse 16."
From this and similar analysis, one quickly comes to the conclusion, that of course one is "saved" by faith in the Lord, but with that statement it is very easy to believe that professing such faith is sufficient. In actual fact you must LIVE that faith. The scriptures are full of things that the faithful should be doing - giving up their cloaks to their neighbours, feeding the least among them, leaving their father and mother to follow Jesus. It is not that Acts without Faith will lead to salvation that Catholic theology professes, but rather Cathlics generally hold that Faith without Acts is, in fact, not Faith.
My only point was that Catholics have some beliefs that could lead someone to believe they are saved when they are not.
I would argue that it is the other way around. Some non-Catholics might have some beliefs that could lead them to think they are saved when they are not.
Which do you think is more likely or troublesome: a) that someone will do good things, without accepting Jesus and yet think that they are going to go to heaven and then be dissapointed when the time comes, or b) that someone will not do good things, and trust that their faith in Jesus/professed acceptance of Jesus will get them into heaven and then be dissapoined when the time comes? In case (a) it seems unlikely that they will think
Your web link clearly supports my position that defining "the bible" is difficult to do, and there are valid reasons to question what constitutes canon. I quote from your source: "The canon of the New Testament was not closed historically by the early church. Rather, its extent was debated until the Reformation. Even then, it was closed in a sectarian fashion. Therefore the question must be asked, is it then heresy for a person to question or reject a book of the present canon ? There have been repeated reevaluations of the church's canon. This happened during the initial sifting period. It happened again during the Renaissance and Reformation period, and it is beginning to happen again now. In such instances the fringe books of the canon have been repeatedly questioned. "
Out of curiosity what Bible are you reading that says man was made before Cattle?
Well, according to the KJB as I sited previously, on of the creation stories in Genisis has man created last: 1:24 lists "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." as happening on the forth day, before 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Yet in 2:7 through 2:19 we have a slightly different creation story, and the order of creation puts man first among the creaturs.
believe in Genesis 100%. I think a lot of people started to not believe it because science was reporting to have proved the Bible wrong. It actually proved it right as long as you interpret the Bible correctly and know what translation errors there are.
I think the important point you make is "as long as you interpret the Bible correctly", which I might tend to agree with. But with that "interpretation" going on, it is difficult to be "literal".
Your quote from Pope John Paul II seems to me to clearly refute your assertation that Catholic theology derrives from paganism - I would say that the statement "only in the worship of Christ, true God and true Saviour" is surely Christian based. One might argue that good people without having been revealed Christianity were all dammed, but it doesn't seem particularly anti-scriptural to have a theology that good people's good actions come from the all-good God. The whole scriptural discussions on preaching to non-jews and revalations to the whole world tend to support this sort of arguement.
There are plenty of things that go directly against the Bible with Catholicism. Asking a priest for forgiveness is not from the Bible. Saying a Hail Mary to earn forgiveness is not from the Bible. Last Rites do not get you into Heaven. Purgatory is not a real place. Baptism is nothing more than a symbol that you have accepted Christ as your savior. The list goes on and on and the internet is filled with articles on the subject. I will say though I don't like some of them because they try to belittle Catholics and make fun of them.
Well, you should probably look into these sorts of things a bit more if they bug you so much - most of your characterizations seem a bit off, particularly when looking at what the Catholics actually say about their beliefs. As you are aware, debating theology over the Internet is "not in the Bible", yet you still do that, eh?
Catholic theology does not require a priest for forgiveness of sins. Saying a Hail Mary (taken directly from scripture) does not earn forgiveness according to Catholic theology. Catholic theology does state or at least imply that being in a 'state of grace' makes you a shoe-in for heaven, but how is that different from "accepting
My retoric was also obviously not clear in my comments about Genisis - I did not mean to imply that either you or I thought a literal interpretation of Genisis was silly, but rather that if one did think a particular piece of "the Bible" was silly, your theology would seem to imply that it was ok to not use a literal interpretation ("this is my body" vs "this [represents] my body" for example).
Claiming to base one's theology only on "scripture" leads one to the question of how do you decide what is "scripture"? At least the Mormons had Smith to produce a book, as did Mohammod for Islam - clearly they can speak with authority to their beleivers, but as a Christian, how does one decide who can legitimatly produce a complete bible?
I am confused though about your professed beleifs - are you saying that the creation stories in Genisis are literally accurate (even though the two stories are inconsistent? cattle made before man, or man made before cattle? see 1:25-26 vs 2:6-18 for example). "Replacing a few words in your mind" would seem to be a non-literal interpretation.
I am not sure in what way "Catholics admit it's a mixture of Christian theology and pagan theology." Certainly I have seen no references to Catholic dogma that claims to be in any way pagan. While it is hard to argue against the evidence that many Catholic (and in general Christian) rituals and practices have foundations in earlier traditions, the theological basis as definded by the Catholic theologans seems pretty firmly Christian.
So, basically you try your best to figure out what the version of the bible you've got means, and go with that? Literal interpretation of Genisis seems silly, so that's out. Transsubstatiation seems bogus, so that's out. Do you stick with the Niean interpretations or build your own?
Face it, you have taken a few bits of the Bible, and decided that those bits (Jesus as personal saviour for example) are the most important bits, and using that as a guide, depreciated those parts that do not serve your purpose. It is certainly a valid method, but it clearly is not unambigiously the ONLY method. If it was, your church would be much larger, eh?
My claim is that while Catholicism may differ greatly from your interpretation of the Bible, I would put forth that your interpretation of the Bible also differs greatly from a vast body of learned theologans' (is that spelled correctly?) interpretations, and it is very difficult to decide who's interpretations are best.
All this yammering on, and I haven't even read "The Da Vinci Code".
Well, then of course one has to ask which of the multitude of versions of "his Holy Word" is definitive? Which translation? Which books?
The works commonly known as "the Bible" are clearly a connection of separate documents, which do not always fit together perfectly, and contain some very difficult to interpret sections. The Old Testament has a fairly extensive set of daily laws concerning food for example (no pork, etc.) which few Christians adhere to, siting passages in the Gospels as justification for not following them. How one decides on which bits trump which other bits is a non-trivial matter.
If you think that using "the Bible" as your only source for theological input is a complete solution, I think you are going to have difficulty in a number of areas.
While it is fairly easy to come up with a quick list of seeming contradictions in any faith tradition, it is also fairly easy to come up with some of the theology behind those teachings/beliefs. In the case of the Catholic Church, one has to figure that the theology cannot be completely vacuous, or it would have faded out compeltely by now. A few links such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church or http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html for specific details come up pretty quick in any search on "catholic apologists".
Catholics do not base their entire theology only on "scripture", but also include traditions of the church as "source" materials. Since such traditions stretch back to before the gosples were written, there certainly is some logical basis for such foundations.
Good luck finding a lawyer to work pro-bono. I doubt very much that you will have much of a case. Cell phone reception has yet to become a legal issue - it is currently a competitive issue between carriers. I doubt that you would be able to sue the building owner becase your cell phone doesn't work in the basement either. You MIGHT get someone to agree that disclosure of the use of such paint would be necessary, but I doubt you could ever REQUIRE cell phone forwarding numbers or the like.
If you live and die by the cell phone, what do you do about dead zones?
If the guilty go free, it is quite possible that nobody gets convicted, particularly if the guilty was freed on technical grounds such as "tainted" evidence. Having someone else to point the finger at is usually a pretty good defense method for the innocent.
That's what I thought too, but we re-elected the buggers.
The problem that the system is designed to limit is not that we might get incorrect verdicts due to lack of evidence, but that we make it very difficult for "the man" to get incorrect verdicts through fasification of evidence. It is much harder to convict an innocent person if all the rules of evidnce are followed. The price we pay for this is that it is also much harder to convict guilty people.
Which is pretty sad - as if the human rights enumerated in the constitution shouldn't apply to every human.
There is also this at wikipedia that gives a good overview.
I haven't seen anything in the literature showing anyone with such EM sensitivity - do you have any references? I have no doubt that people can damage themselves with high EM fields - one need only stick your head in a microwave to demonstrate that. I have been unable to find references to anyone who could detect cell-phone radiation in a controlled double-blind experiment and would be interested in and references you might have.
Randi's challenge does not have to be framed in terms of "ESP" - many things tested for the challenge have been similar to this type of claimed EM sensitivity.
Sounds more like a issue with sensitive hearing and high frequency noises. If she can demonstrate the ability to sense EM cell phone calls via a double blind test, she might qualify for Randi's $1 million.
And fags, and booze, and coffee, and cigarettes.
I thought "fags" were cigarettes? And you could give them both up?
Or were you using "a pejorative word for a homosexual man in American English slang" as Wikipedia notes.
And you are able to give them up at any time?
I thought Iceland was going to "be the first"?
Hear! Hear!
Or should that be "Here! Here!"?