I won't shut up. I will gladly debate the Bible's contents, but when it comes to PROVING it, you can't. The Bible itself has the answer to that:
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
A believer needs no proof except their faith itself.
Also, the Bible needs to be taken as a whole, and not a single phrase disbelieved. Which automatically rules out belief in any other doctrine.
I am not here to tell you that you are an idiot for not believing. So don't call me an idiot for my faith. I have had too much proof of its effect on my life to not have faith. Just as (Christian==Republican) is not always true, nor is (Christian==Geek). Considering the topic of the thread, I have every right to state my beliefs without offending someone else.
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
See my other reply, which for some reason is not on this part of the thread. As for your comparison to Douglas Adams, that is your opinion. I don't call you a blithering idiot for your opinion, so continue to strangle something.
He certainly was when He was on earth. He rebelled against umm... RELIGION. Religion is forcing people to do things to stay in the church...
2000 years later and we still haven't learnt a thing.
People ask me if I am religious. I tell them "no, I am a Christian". Meaning I am neither Lutheran nor Catholic nor Baptist nor any of the other sets of rules and regulations that make up a denomination.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
A tithe is either a [[tax]] when enforced by the state, or a [[membership fee]] when enforced by a church. Tithing according to the Old Testament of the Bible should be 10%, but the New Testament, which lays down the law to be followed by present day Christians, merely suggests we joyfully give that we may receive.
2 Corinthians 9:7
Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
I applied for a job there once. Out of desperation. I don't have a single certification but have 5 years job experience. I was obviously over-qualified.
And just to explain why it *can* and does work: If you order from Tescos and you live in Birmingham, you get the groceries delivered to you from your nearest store in Birmingham - or at least the one in your region that does deliveries.
So if you order from Walmart it is your local one that delivers, not the head office in Arkansas or the distribution centre 100 miles away. So distances are irrelevant to the issue. One store covers a radius which may include many other stores but is still able to manage a local distribution of perishable items.
But we thought the US was so great and the US invented the internet and the US this and the US that. Are you telling me the US is not so great now?
It doesn't matter how big the country is. There are plenty of stores here. It just needs someone from a single major retailer to admit that people only want to buy what they NEED, and not what gets placed at the end-caps, checkout lanes, and on falsely labeled sale shelves.
The biggest problem is the airbag factor. The more and more foolproof stuff gets, the more people rely on it and get caught unawares. People are more likely to drive like maniacs if they have a vehicle with airbags and ABS brakes than if they have one without. The AOL generation of internet users, whether using AOL or any of the mainstream services that try to mimic AOL to steal sales, are the ones who know nothing about the internet apart from a few anecdotal tips.
Look at the "only open attachments from someone you know" teaching that went the rounds 5 or 10 years ago. Virus makers then wrote code to steal e-mail addresses from your contact list. Not because they were short on e-mail addys. They knew that's what mainstream e-mail users were being taught.
Now everyone has the "if it has the lock, it's legit" thing in their head. Never mind checking the URL. Heck, how many people even have the address bar at the top of their browser? Many people have Yahoo as their homepage and type www.google.com in the search box... But checking a domain name? Knowing what a domain name is? That's too complicated for joe.public to comprehend.
I don't know much about cars. But I know what makes them work, and I know how to check fluids and top them up. And I can replace windshield wipers and headlamps. And I know what the roadsigns mean and why they are there.
The average computer user in 2006 just puts the thing in D and hits the gas.
I have already quizzed my local congressman as to why I can't (a) separate landline phone service from DSL [guess who my provider is] and (b) get the local area code on a service such as Vonage. While I await the reply I sent him this. It serves as my comment on here too.
Further to my recent letter about the Verizon/Vonage VoIP vacuum that is Muskegon, I am now presented with this:
FACT 1 ------ A) Google's local service provider already gets a fat load of money from Google for their bandwidth. B) I already pay $80 per month (see previous letter as to why it's 80 and not 30) for my internet service.
FACT 2 ------ If this becomes law, what is to stop cable companies from turning around and charging HBO, Fox and ABC for the TV "bandwidth", rather than paying them for the content they provide! This in turn would put a massive hole in TV networks' accounting which would be made up with? More advertising, and less quality programming.
As the lines between internet, phone and TV become more and more blurry, [snip/] this could set a precedent that would completely turn the TV industry upside down!
This is a ridiculous situation and needs some federal legislation to ensure it will never happen. If only to protect local [snip] service providers [/snip] and to protect the consumers.
What is Verizon doing with all their assets if they are ripping me off for $50 extra a month and also wanting to flip the directional switch on the entire information/entertainment industry?
Slashdot Mirror
I won't shut up. I will gladly debate the Bible's contents, but when it comes to PROVING it, you can't. The Bible itself has the answer to that:
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
A believer needs no proof except their faith itself.
Also, the Bible needs to be taken as a whole, and not a single phrase disbelieved. Which automatically rules out belief in any other doctrine.
I am not here to tell you that you are an idiot for not believing. So don't call me an idiot for my faith. I have had too much proof of its effect on my life to not have faith. Just as (Christian==Republican) is not always true, nor is (Christian==Geek). Considering the topic of the thread, I have every right to state my beliefs without offending someone else.
I am not here for a faith debate.
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
See my other reply, which for some reason is not on this part of the thread. As for your comparison to Douglas Adams, that is your opinion. I don't call you a blithering idiot for your opinion, so continue to strangle something.
No, Byte of Knowledge. As in a bite of the fruit of the tree of knowledge (Genesis 2:17)
I know, I use Wiki markup. Just being dumb ;o)
No, not Wikipedia. There's this reference work called the Bible, you may have heard of it.
He certainly was when He was on earth. He rebelled against umm... RELIGION. Religion is forcing people to do things to stay in the church...
2000 years later and we still haven't learnt a thing.
People ask me if I am religious. I tell them "no, I am a Christian". Meaning I am neither Lutheran nor Catholic nor Baptist nor any of the other sets of rules and regulations that make up a denomination.
Simple answer: No.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
A tithe is either a [[tax]] when enforced by the state, or a [[membership fee]] when enforced by a church. Tithing according to the Old Testament of the Bible should be 10%, but the New Testament, which lays down the law to be followed by present day Christians, merely suggests we joyfully give that we may receive. 2 Corinthians 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
I applied for a job there once. Out of desperation. I don't have a single certification but have 5 years job experience. I was obviously over-qualified.
And just to explain why it *can* and does work: If you order from Tescos and you live in Birmingham, you get the groceries delivered to you from your nearest store in Birmingham - or at least the one in your region that does deliveries. So if you order from Walmart it is your local one that delivers, not the head office in Arkansas or the distribution centre 100 miles away. So distances are irrelevant to the issue. One store covers a radius which may include many other stores but is still able to manage a local distribution of perishable items.
But we thought the US was so great and the US invented the internet and the US this and the US that. Are you telling me the US is not so great now?
It doesn't matter how big the country is. There are plenty of stores here. It just needs someone from a single major retailer to admit that people only want to buy what they NEED, and not what gets placed at the end-caps, checkout lanes, and on falsely labeled sale shelves.
The biggest problem is the airbag factor. The more and more foolproof stuff gets, the more people rely on it and get caught unawares. People are more likely to drive like maniacs if they have a vehicle with airbags and ABS brakes than if they have one without. The AOL generation of internet users, whether using AOL or any of the mainstream services that try to mimic AOL to steal sales, are the ones who know nothing about the internet apart from a few anecdotal tips. Look at the "only open attachments from someone you know" teaching that went the rounds 5 or 10 years ago. Virus makers then wrote code to steal e-mail addresses from your contact list. Not because they were short on e-mail addys. They knew that's what mainstream e-mail users were being taught. Now everyone has the "if it has the lock, it's legit" thing in their head. Never mind checking the URL. Heck, how many people even have the address bar at the top of their browser? Many people have Yahoo as their homepage and type www.google.com in the search box... But checking a domain name? Knowing what a domain name is? That's too complicated for joe.public to comprehend. I don't know much about cars. But I know what makes them work, and I know how to check fluids and top them up. And I can replace windshield wipers and headlamps. And I know what the roadsigns mean and why they are there. The average computer user in 2006 just puts the thing in D and hits the gas.
I have already quizzed my local congressman as to why I can't (a) separate landline phone service from DSL [guess who my provider is] and (b) get the local area code on a service such as Vonage. While I await the reply I sent him this. It serves as my comment on here too.
2 27257
Further to my recent letter about the Verizon/Vonage VoIP vacuum that is Muskegon, I am now presented with this:
Verizon wants to start charging Google and other major web sites for using their bandwidth!
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/07/2
FACT 1
------
A) Google's local service provider already gets a fat load of money from Google for their bandwidth.
B) I already pay $80 per month (see previous letter as to why it's 80 and not 30) for my internet service.
FACT 2
------
If this becomes law, what is to stop cable companies from turning around and charging HBO, Fox and ABC for the TV "bandwidth", rather than paying them for the content they provide! This in turn would put a massive hole in TV networks' accounting which would be made up with? More advertising, and less quality programming.
As the lines between internet, phone and TV
become more and more blurry, [snip/] this could set a precedent that would completely turn the TV industry upside down!
This is a ridiculous situation and needs some federal legislation to ensure it will never happen. If only to protect local [snip] service providers [/snip] and to protect the consumers.
What is Verizon doing with all their assets if they are ripping me off for $50 extra a month and also wanting to flip the directional switch on the entire information/entertainment industry?