I wish I hadn't just used all my points up. I would mod you up to remove the troll - you're simply supporting your employer and giving your point of view. I once worked for Cox Cable, so I know the feeling. In this case though, you're wrong, and I'd like those who browse at +1 to have a better chance to see how an EA employee views the consumer.
I do believe your detractors have a point. EA is not the most consumer-friendly of publishers, and while people do know that patches, etc., will be forthcoming for AAA titles and that the codebase will likely contain bugs, it is not unreasonable to expect to be able to play the game. A feature may not do what it should; inventory or resources or whatnot may not calculate correctly, or a visual glitch might be discovered. But to equate being able to play the game with unreasonable expectations is an exact example of why EA is loathed by many. YOU, as a representative of EA, are part of the culture, and have displayed what I can only interpret as disdain for your customers.
There are reasons far and few between to applaud a cable/ISP co, but I noted that Cox Communications didn't sign on (at least, as of three or four days ago they hadn't). Two years ago or so, I forgot to get my VPN going prior to torrenting the first episode of Game of Thrones to see if it alone would be strong enough of a reason to subscribe to HBO, and HBO apparently was policing this closely. Cox sent me a letter telling me that HBO wanted to know who I was, and that they refused to reveal; they asked me to refrain from uploading copyrighted content, but did not include any legal language. Now, maybe if I was often on their "list" the wording would have been strong, but as it was, they *seem* to be more on the side of the customer than the industry.
I'll support you on this. I look at processing power as analogous to income - them more most people have, the more ways we find we are capable of using all of it, and eventually find we could certainly use more.
I'm not 100% convinced of that. While it's only one example in a sea of thousands, CDProjekt looks like the next iteration of The Witcher will be a real step up. Also, there are always people who want and can afford the bleeding edge, even if they don't need it.
Agree here. Also, from watching the video, it looks like it got hot rapidly, but not instantaneously - more in keeping with a friction-based action than an explosive one. Granted, when it's at its brightest it's not east to see what could be going on there, and I'm no missile expert, but I didn't see anything that gave me the impression that a second object was involved.
This isn't a typical setup, but here's my situation. I was employed as a programmer by a company whose regular business had nothing to do with software development; they had what they thought would be a short-term contract need. Long story short, they kept me around for five years, during which time there was one company who used them / me to support and continue development of a ColdFusion business web app. When I was let go last year (due to, of course, lack of actual business need), I asked that employer to allow me to "take" this customer with me.
I negotiated a $75/hour rate, which saved the client about $35/hour while padding my own pocket nicely. I have a regular full-time salaried gig again, but I have kept the customer with the agreement that they have to understand that my ability to respond real-time during the day would be limited at best, and am still going strong with them.
The point is, to fit it in with a day job, you can advertise your services (I personally advise getting clearance from your employer - some hate moonlighting - but that's up to you of course) and let the customer know what your personal availability is, and then hope to find that lucky situation that works for both of you. My situation was certainly partial luck, but given that, a clear understanding between parties has worked out nicely for both of us.
I really don't understand why everyone hates the ribbon. I've used Word, Excel, etc., since the early 90's on Windows 3.1, and I have had zero issues adjusting to the ribbon. I don't have problems finding what I need (not any more so than with any "non-ribbon" menu system), and like any other menu system, once I've found something a couple of times, I remember where it is.
I am in the minority apparently, so I am curious as to why so many hate it.
In the end, it comes down to a combination of things. There are non-Biblical historical records for some of the events related in the Bible (be that archaeological, written, etc.) and for some there is not. For some events I reason for myself, "Is it *likely* that this happened the way it's related?" I'm not asking if it's possible - if I truly profess to be a believer in an all-powerful deity, then by that rationale, all things are. But I don't think God would purposefully seek to misguide or trick us. Facts might get mixed up at times, but the revealed truth remains.
Examples: Burning Bush? Maybe so (after all, being spoken to by God would have to happen in a pretty convincing manner I'd imagine), though I'll never have proof. The point is that God revealed Himself to Moses in a way that helped Moses believe what he experienced was real. I have no doubts that much of the action described played out in a manner that was very much akin to what is written, though the facts may not be 100% accurate (Moses' staff becomes a snake - again, possible with God, but I will never be certain; I'm being told though that Moses had SOMETHING about him that was divinely granted that convinced Pharaoh he'd better be careful, and that is what really matters). The truth they are intended to convey to us is still intact. Did God physically give Moses tablets? Maybe. It's also possible that God revealed commandments to Moses, and those commandments were later inscribed and a legend took hold that Moses himself received them (the tablets) from God directly. The real point concerning the events surrounding the prophets who came prior to Jesus is that they each played a role in preparing the world for the coming of Jesus Christ.
I do believe Jesus is both divine and human at once - I've posted about that in response to other questions in this thread so if you are interested I invite you to read, and object/question/even ridicule (you don't seem to be the sort to do the latter, but it's fine if what I write just doesn't seem sane to you:) ).
Far from it - you are most respectful, and it is entirely natural to want to discuss things which we don't agree upon. It helps us both grow (even if it's along differing paths). My impression is that those who get incensed at inquiry are not entirely confident of their belief, have not examined it closely, and don't understand that they don't have to be "right" in other people's eyes for their faith to have meaning in their lives.
Your question as to "why Christianity" for me as a layperson isn't actually entirely easy. I have to admit (to myself, which is the most difficult part) that it has an upper hand in my mind and heart because I was born into it. I am a "cradle Catholic," so... I can't deny that on some level you are correct. It's not that I haven't ever questioned, but my questioning has been about my religious affiliation, not my faith that God exists and that Jesus was indeed divine. And it's not that I haven't thought about points such as yours. I suppose in the end, it may be arbitrary and I am fooling myself in order to obtain a sense of comfort. I hope that if I had been born into another set of circumstances I would eventually find myself drawn to the convictions I hold today, but I can't swear that would happen. I do know a few people who were atheist and, through what started as simple academic interest, have become believers and converted to Catholicism; those people could certainly provide better insight than I. I can only offer that I find that, if I accept the premise that there is a God, the concept that He wanted us to understand the depth of His love for us by sending us His son to redeem us is plausible. At some point though, logic breaks down and you have to make that "leap of faith," and I cannot fault people who don't find that to be valid reasoning.
Early Christians did indeed take a little longer to write down what happened than some wish they had, but I don't find the number of years (a few decades versus thousands of years) to negate that these people could still faithfully have communicated what transpired. The primary generation were spreading by word of mouth their experiences (though recall Matthew, an Apostle, provides a primary source with his gospel). Most of the people of the time were not literate so the way to spread the word quickly was via oratory. The second and third generations realized, we had better make a record of this. Christians were being executed and persecuted, and it was vital, now that word had spread, to make a persistent source that could relate events in the case that "those who knew those who knew" Jesus were unable to continue the work. I have not studied why changes and edits were made later on - I will do that actually (I was aware, but never really looked closely). It's never a bad thing to question and poke/prod one's beliefs. They will either stand or fall, and I'd rather know as much as I can about the process that brought about the book that provides the foundation for my faith.
Just as tales of great flood events were in existence thousands of years prior to when "the" flood story is said to have taken place, you are right there were traditions of miraculous births in other faiths. The two gospels that relate Jesus' conception were written by Matthew (mentioned above) and by Luke, who was a physician and companion of Paul, another Apostle. I have wondered at this, and have done some reading myself, and have found modern researchers who were at first skeptical but concluded in the end that Paul is entirely trustworthy and honest. I cannot really defend it more than that, and as I likely won't suffice I can only encourage you to seek out arguments on both sides and see which feels better to you.
Mormons v. New Testament Christians - I think if we put ourselves in the context of the time, the success of converting Romans into Christians could almost be described as miraculous in itself. A small group of oppressed, illegal, and persecuted believers somehow survived the odds and converted an entire continent (well
I appreciate your comment (I felt I was rambling), and I actually I'd have to say you've clarified some of my thought process. I like how you put it (fact vs. truth, whereas I was unclear and simply stated truth vs. capital-T Truth). It *is* truly refreshing to read thoughtful discussion on a topic that can get so many people, on both sides, who are normally rational to throw about invective and hate. Thanks for the insight!
To my thinking, when it comes to religion (or really, faith), I will often be wrong, because I'm not perfect. I can accept that without feeling threatened. It just means that I will be readjusting my attitudes, behavior, etc, when I realize they're out of line. In fact, it's in questioning my faith that I become a better person, just as by questioning science I learn more, and correct errors I may not have caught before. When I question my faith, I am not questioning, "should I believe," but, "do I believe what I should, or do I try to fit my "beliefs" to what I want the truth to be?"
Sigh - closed my browser about 1/3 of the way through... let's try again.
So I'm 100% with you on the science not contradicting (nor precluding) God's existence, nor do I feel the reverse. "Science" in fact is neither for nor against any idea; science is the discernment of the real, actual, observable universe (excluding theoretical fields, which may one day become for us observable ones). Science, to me, is about truth. The Bible though is about Truth.
I do not turn to the Bible when I need to understand how planets revolve around stars, just as I don't turn to science for strength when facing tough moral or ethical moments in my life. I'm going to try to walk through why I believe and how I reconcile it - I warn you though, many people who are a lot smarter and much more studied than I have done this before so the following may not satisfy if you've read anyone of actual intellectual value:).
Let's start with why I don't believe much of the Bible is literal truth (at least the Old Testament) and yet I can still have faith in it. Science tells us that the universe was created billions of years ago, while the Bible gives us 6,000 years or so. Given the evidence at hand, clearly 6,000 years is not enough time to account for the existence of what we find around us (unless you adhere to "dino bones were put here to test your faith" - believe me, there are many other things that test my faith - lust, greed, gluttony, etc., - far more strongly and gravely than do dinosaur bones). I don't believe in a God who is trying to catch or trick His own creation. I believe in a God who revealed Himself in ways that early people could relate to their everyday world experiences. He loves us, and in turn wants us to love Him back, not by command but by true acceptance and surrender on our part. We have been given free will; that is what makes our belief and love for Him have meaning. We must choose. Outcomes based on coercion are meaningless. And I cannot conceive that God would condescend to trickery.
Since I know from valid science that the universe is not a static place, I know then that existence did not come about as portrayed in Genesis. But so what? I think about it and realize, with the first books of the Bible being written about 3,500 years ago, even then the original authors were writing about people (if we take Adam and Eve to be real people - which I actually do not but that is a whole other discussion) who had been dead and gone for 2,500 years. That's a long time before picking up a pen to make notes and not forget anything. Further, these first authors had no understanding of science at the level that we do. These authors were not motivated by known history - they were inspired (and I don't doubt that some were so without even realizing it) - not ordered or controlled or dictated to directly - by God Himself to write what they did, conveying meaning about God to the people of their times in ways that made sense to them. God could appear to us in a burning bush today and tell us, "Yep, I caused the Big Bang" and we'd get it, but those concepts were so far out of reach of the mind of the people of roughly 1500 BC that the easier way to say, "I love you, and so I created you" was through inspiring the concept of a God who literally build with His hands with the materials around Him. Big Bang or dirt that has undergone an amazing transformation - does it really matter? Not when the *point* is that I believe I was created, ultimately, by the God in whom I believe. I believe it was the former, because my mind, which God granted to me, is capable of grasping that concept and seeing that it makes sense. But spiritually, it does not matter which was the method.
So creation of the world, in my thinking, is not portrayed in the Bible with scientific truth, but it does give me Truth, that the Lord wanted humanity to exist, to create beings with free will and the capacity to love, and so ultimately, through various mechanisms including amazing exp
That is actually appreciated. I am Catholic, and in my 39 years have never felt that my *faith* was threatened by believing in the *facts* that science has discovered in our world. My belief that a God exists isn't shaken by the very strong likelihood that many biblical stories are allegories that teach a moral message, not a history of the "6000 year-old universe."
Again, on behalf of all believers (Christian and otherwise) in a higher power who are not raving fanatics wearing blinders, thanks. It's nice to know some people realize not all of us are that way.
You've made many generalities, not unlike the post about which you're complaining. I daresay the events you describe bother a LOT of people. In support of what you're getting at though, I'm sure the citizens of nations who are experiencing daily car bombings and missile strikes also are not okay with it, whether the acts are carried out by militant extremists or American/British/etc. forces. Those citizens may be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, or any number of other denominations - I'm Christian but I certainly wish the Crusades, the treatment of the natives of the Americas, and any number of other abuses of "religious" power had never happened.
It only takes a relatively few people committing violent acts to make a whole nation seem as though it is crazed with the desire for destruction. Meanwhile, the millions of random acts of kindness that do take place each and every day, across every parcel of land on this planet, don't get much attention.
It's not a problem. I provide them with e-mail and cell numbers. If they choose not to make that one, very minor, effort to reach out, eff 'em. Now I know where I stand and can move on. I ditched my account several months ago, and have not missed it. Still see the same people that I gave a damn about on line, and don't have to hear from/about the ones I don't (and they in turn don't have to pretend to like me, either).
It's because the art world has flat-lined and become an echo chamber of received opinion and toxic over-praise.
So she's railing against over-praise by... over-praising something. Maybe there's genius in that, but I think she believes she is being deep, which is ironic, and doubly so when you read what she said just prior to that:
There's too much gimmickry and irony and not enough intuition and emotion.
Gimmickry? I'm not sure it's possible that he could have included any more in the movie (everything from "gimmicky" CGI to story gimmick - I mean come on, Anakin BUILT the two 'droids? Really? It's a big fuckin' galaxy, I ain't buyin' it. And yes I know, that reveal wasn't in THIS film, but still...). Irony? Well, not only is her choice ironic considering WHY she says she chose it, but the irony of Lucas eschewing his younger self's statement that (paraphrasing here) technology should not win out over humanity is a most perfect example of the meaning of the word. And if she was looking for emotion, boy did she pick something with an overdose.
Amen. My life is quite nice without an account on FB. My fiancee deleted hers just after the most recent US presidential election, as she got tired of all the posts claiming that "this is it - the world is now going to end, our country will become 100% socialist and fall apart" etc. She, too, is less stressed/annoyed without one. It's not very hard to survive cutting the cord.
Slashdot Mirror
And fully left-justified!
I wish I hadn't just used all my points up. I would mod you up to remove the troll - you're simply supporting your employer and giving your point of view. I once worked for Cox Cable, so I know the feeling. In this case though, you're wrong, and I'd like those who browse at +1 to have a better chance to see how an EA employee views the consumer.
I do believe your detractors have a point. EA is not the most consumer-friendly of publishers, and while people do know that patches, etc., will be forthcoming for AAA titles and that the codebase will likely contain bugs, it is not unreasonable to expect to be able to play the game. A feature may not do what it should; inventory or resources or whatnot may not calculate correctly, or a visual glitch might be discovered. But to equate being able to play the game with unreasonable expectations is an exact example of why EA is loathed by many. YOU, as a representative of EA, are part of the culture, and have displayed what I can only interpret as disdain for your customers.
There are reasons far and few between to applaud a cable/ISP co, but I noted that Cox Communications didn't sign on (at least, as of three or four days ago they hadn't). Two years ago or so, I forgot to get my VPN going prior to torrenting the first episode of Game of Thrones to see if it alone would be strong enough of a reason to subscribe to HBO, and HBO apparently was policing this closely. Cox sent me a letter telling me that HBO wanted to know who I was, and that they refused to reveal; they asked me to refrain from uploading copyrighted content, but did not include any legal language. Now, maybe if I was often on their "list" the wording would have been strong, but as it was, they *seem* to be more on the side of the customer than the industry.
You know, they probably sell medication to treat your condition.
I'll support you on this. I look at processing power as analogous to income - them more most people have, the more ways we find we are capable of using all of it, and eventually find we could certainly use more.
In the US, maybe they will be in the future, since "companies are people, too!"
I'm not 100% convinced of that. While it's only one example in a sea of thousands, CDProjekt looks like the next iteration of The Witcher will be a real step up. Also, there are always people who want and can afford the bleeding edge, even if they don't need it.
Agree here. Also, from watching the video, it looks like it got hot rapidly, but not instantaneously - more in keeping with a friction-based action than an explosive one. Granted, when it's at its brightest it's not east to see what could be going on there, and I'm no missile expert, but I didn't see anything that gave me the impression that a second object was involved.
That might depend upon your definition of "billion"
Actually, NYC has turned things around in the past few decades. Read up.
DC, otoh, yeah...
This isn't a typical setup, but here's my situation. I was employed as a programmer by a company whose regular business had nothing to do with software development; they had what they thought would be a short-term contract need. Long story short, they kept me around for five years, during which time there was one company who used them / me to support and continue development of a ColdFusion business web app. When I was let go last year (due to, of course, lack of actual business need), I asked that employer to allow me to "take" this customer with me.
I negotiated a $75/hour rate, which saved the client about $35/hour while padding my own pocket nicely. I have a regular full-time salaried gig again, but I have kept the customer with the agreement that they have to understand that my ability to respond real-time during the day would be limited at best, and am still going strong with them.
The point is, to fit it in with a day job, you can advertise your services (I personally advise getting clearance from your employer - some hate moonlighting - but that's up to you of course) and let the customer know what your personal availability is, and then hope to find that lucky situation that works for both of you. My situation was certainly partial luck, but given that, a clear understanding between parties has worked out nicely for both of us.
I really don't understand why everyone hates the ribbon. I've used Word, Excel, etc., since the early 90's on Windows 3.1, and I have had zero issues adjusting to the ribbon. I don't have problems finding what I need (not any more so than with any "non-ribbon" menu system), and like any other menu system, once I've found something a couple of times, I remember where it is.
I am in the minority apparently, so I am curious as to why so many hate it.
In the end, it comes down to a combination of things. There are non-Biblical historical records for some of the events related in the Bible (be that archaeological, written, etc.) and for some there is not. For some events I reason for myself, "Is it *likely* that this happened the way it's related?" I'm not asking if it's possible - if I truly profess to be a believer in an all-powerful deity, then by that rationale, all things are. But I don't think God would purposefully seek to misguide or trick us. Facts might get mixed up at times, but the revealed truth remains.
:) ).
Examples: Burning Bush? Maybe so (after all, being spoken to by God would have to happen in a pretty convincing manner I'd imagine), though I'll never have proof. The point is that God revealed Himself to Moses in a way that helped Moses believe what he experienced was real. I have no doubts that much of the action described played out in a manner that was very much akin to what is written, though the facts may not be 100% accurate (Moses' staff becomes a snake - again, possible with God, but I will never be certain; I'm being told though that Moses had SOMETHING about him that was divinely granted that convinced Pharaoh he'd better be careful, and that is what really matters). The truth they are intended to convey to us is still intact. Did God physically give Moses tablets? Maybe. It's also possible that God revealed commandments to Moses, and those commandments were later inscribed and a legend took hold that Moses himself received them (the tablets) from God directly. The real point concerning the events surrounding the prophets who came prior to Jesus is that they each played a role in preparing the world for the coming of Jesus Christ.
I do believe Jesus is both divine and human at once - I've posted about that in response to other questions in this thread so if you are interested I invite you to read, and object/question/even ridicule (you don't seem to be the sort to do the latter, but it's fine if what I write just doesn't seem sane to you
Far from it - you are most respectful, and it is entirely natural to want to discuss things which we don't agree upon. It helps us both grow (even if it's along differing paths). My impression is that those who get incensed at inquiry are not entirely confident of their belief, have not examined it closely, and don't understand that they don't have to be "right" in other people's eyes for their faith to have meaning in their lives.
Your question as to "why Christianity" for me as a layperson isn't actually entirely easy. I have to admit (to myself, which is the most difficult part) that it has an upper hand in my mind and heart because I was born into it. I am a "cradle Catholic," so... I can't deny that on some level you are correct. It's not that I haven't ever questioned, but my questioning has been about my religious affiliation, not my faith that God exists and that Jesus was indeed divine. And it's not that I haven't thought about points such as yours. I suppose in the end, it may be arbitrary and I am fooling myself in order to obtain a sense of comfort. I hope that if I had been born into another set of circumstances I would eventually find myself drawn to the convictions I hold today, but I can't swear that would happen. I do know a few people who were atheist and, through what started as simple academic interest, have become believers and converted to Catholicism; those people could certainly provide better insight than I. I can only offer that I find that, if I accept the premise that there is a God, the concept that He wanted us to understand the depth of His love for us by sending us His son to redeem us is plausible. At some point though, logic breaks down and you have to make that "leap of faith," and I cannot fault people who don't find that to be valid reasoning.
Early Christians did indeed take a little longer to write down what happened than some wish they had, but I don't find the number of years (a few decades versus thousands of years) to negate that these people could still faithfully have communicated what transpired. The primary generation were spreading by word of mouth their experiences (though recall Matthew, an Apostle, provides a primary source with his gospel). Most of the people of the time were not literate so the way to spread the word quickly was via oratory. The second and third generations realized, we had better make a record of this. Christians were being executed and persecuted, and it was vital, now that word had spread, to make a persistent source that could relate events in the case that "those who knew those who knew" Jesus were unable to continue the work. I have not studied why changes and edits were made later on - I will do that actually (I was aware, but never really looked closely). It's never a bad thing to question and poke/prod one's beliefs. They will either stand or fall, and I'd rather know as much as I can about the process that brought about the book that provides the foundation for my faith.
Just as tales of great flood events were in existence thousands of years prior to when "the" flood story is said to have taken place, you are right there were traditions of miraculous births in other faiths. The two gospels that relate Jesus' conception were written by Matthew (mentioned above) and by Luke, who was a physician and companion of Paul, another Apostle. I have wondered at this, and have done some reading myself, and have found modern researchers who were at first skeptical but concluded in the end that Paul is entirely trustworthy and honest. I cannot really defend it more than that, and as I likely won't suffice I can only encourage you to seek out arguments on both sides and see which feels better to you.
Mormons v. New Testament Christians - I think if we put ourselves in the context of the time, the success of converting Romans into Christians could almost be described as miraculous in itself. A small group of oppressed, illegal, and persecuted believers somehow survived the odds and converted an entire continent (well
I appreciate your comment (I felt I was rambling), and I actually I'd have to say you've clarified some of my thought process. I like how you put it (fact vs. truth, whereas I was unclear and simply stated truth vs. capital-T Truth). It *is* truly refreshing to read thoughtful discussion on a topic that can get so many people, on both sides, who are normally rational to throw about invective and hate. Thanks for the insight!
To my thinking, when it comes to religion (or really, faith), I will often be wrong, because I'm not perfect. I can accept that without feeling threatened. It just means that I will be readjusting my attitudes, behavior, etc, when I realize they're out of line. In fact, it's in questioning my faith that I become a better person, just as by questioning science I learn more, and correct errors I may not have caught before. When I question my faith, I am not questioning, "should I believe," but, "do I believe what I should, or do I try to fit my "beliefs" to what I want the truth to be?"
Sigh - closed my browser about 1/3 of the way through... let's try again.
:) .
So I'm 100% with you on the science not contradicting (nor precluding) God's existence, nor do I feel the reverse. "Science" in fact is neither for nor against any idea; science is the discernment of the real, actual, observable universe (excluding theoretical fields, which may one day become for us observable ones). Science, to me, is about truth. The Bible though is about Truth.
I do not turn to the Bible when I need to understand how planets revolve around stars, just as I don't turn to science for strength when facing tough moral or ethical moments in my life. I'm going to try to walk through why I believe and how I reconcile it - I warn you though, many people who are a lot smarter and much more studied than I have done this before so the following may not satisfy if you've read anyone of actual intellectual value
Let's start with why I don't believe much of the Bible is literal truth (at least the Old Testament) and yet I can still have faith in it. Science tells us that the universe was created billions of years ago, while the Bible gives us 6,000 years or so. Given the evidence at hand, clearly 6,000 years is not enough time to account for the existence of what we find around us (unless you adhere to "dino bones were put here to test your faith" - believe me, there are many other things that test my faith - lust, greed, gluttony, etc., - far more strongly and gravely than do dinosaur bones). I don't believe in a God who is trying to catch or trick His own creation. I believe in a God who revealed Himself in ways that early people could relate to their everyday world experiences. He loves us, and in turn wants us to love Him back, not by command but by true acceptance and surrender on our part. We have been given free will; that is what makes our belief and love for Him have meaning. We must choose. Outcomes based on coercion are meaningless. And I cannot conceive that God would condescend to trickery.
Since I know from valid science that the universe is not a static place, I know then that existence did not come about as portrayed in Genesis. But so what? I think about it and realize, with the first books of the Bible being written about 3,500 years ago, even then the original authors were writing about people (if we take Adam and Eve to be real people - which I actually do not but that is a whole other discussion) who had been dead and gone for 2,500 years. That's a long time before picking up a pen to make notes and not forget anything. Further, these first authors had no understanding of science at the level that we do. These authors were not motivated by known history - they were inspired (and I don't doubt that some were so without even realizing it) - not ordered or controlled or dictated to directly - by God Himself to write what they did, conveying meaning about God to the people of their times in ways that made sense to them. God could appear to us in a burning bush today and tell us, "Yep, I caused the Big Bang" and we'd get it, but those concepts were so far out of reach of the mind of the people of roughly 1500 BC that the easier way to say, "I love you, and so I created you" was through inspiring the concept of a God who literally build with His hands with the materials around Him. Big Bang or dirt that has undergone an amazing transformation - does it really matter? Not when the *point* is that I believe I was created, ultimately, by the God in whom I believe. I believe it was the former, because my mind, which God granted to me, is capable of grasping that concept and seeing that it makes sense. But spiritually, it does not matter which was the method.
So creation of the world, in my thinking, is not portrayed in the Bible with scientific truth, but it does give me Truth, that the Lord wanted humanity to exist, to create beings with free will and the capacity to love, and so ultimately, through various mechanisms including amazing exp
That is actually appreciated. I am Catholic, and in my 39 years have never felt that my *faith* was threatened by believing in the *facts* that science has discovered in our world. My belief that a God exists isn't shaken by the very strong likelihood that many biblical stories are allegories that teach a moral message, not a history of the "6000 year-old universe."
Again, on behalf of all believers (Christian and otherwise) in a higher power who are not raving fanatics wearing blinders, thanks. It's nice to know some people realize not all of us are that way.
No, but we park on "driveways" and drive on "parkways" - t'is a silly place.
You've made many generalities, not unlike the post about which you're complaining. I daresay the events you describe bother a LOT of people. In support of what you're getting at though, I'm sure the citizens of nations who are experiencing daily car bombings and missile strikes also are not okay with it, whether the acts are carried out by militant extremists or American/British/etc. forces. Those citizens may be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, or any number of other denominations - I'm Christian but I certainly wish the Crusades, the treatment of the natives of the Americas, and any number of other abuses of "religious" power had never happened.
It only takes a relatively few people committing violent acts to make a whole nation seem as though it is crazed with the desire for destruction. Meanwhile, the millions of random acts of kindness that do take place each and every day, across every parcel of land on this planet, don't get much attention.
It's not a problem. I provide them with e-mail and cell numbers. If they choose not to make that one, very minor, effort to reach out, eff 'em. Now I know where I stand and can move on. I ditched my account several months ago, and have not missed it. Still see the same people that I gave a damn about on line, and don't have to hear from/about the ones I don't (and they in turn don't have to pretend to like me, either).
It's because the art world has flat-lined and become an echo chamber of received opinion and toxic over-praise.
So she's railing against over-praise by... over-praising something. Maybe there's genius in that, but I think she believes she is being deep, which is ironic, and doubly so when you read what she said just prior to that:
There's too much gimmickry and irony and not enough intuition and emotion.
Gimmickry? I'm not sure it's possible that he could have included any more in the movie (everything from "gimmicky" CGI to story gimmick - I mean come on, Anakin BUILT the two 'droids? Really? It's a big fuckin' galaxy, I ain't buyin' it. And yes I know, that reveal wasn't in THIS film, but still...). Irony? Well, not only is her choice ironic considering WHY she says she chose it, but the irony of Lucas eschewing his younger self's statement that (paraphrasing here) technology should not win out over humanity is a most perfect example of the meaning of the word. And if she was looking for emotion, boy did she pick something with an overdose.
Amen. My life is quite nice without an account on FB. My fiancee deleted hers just after the most recent US presidential election, as she got tired of all the posts claiming that "this is it - the world is now going to end, our country will become 100% socialist and fall apart" etc. She, too, is less stressed/annoyed without one. It's not very hard to survive cutting the cord.
Sorry that was my AC - forgot to log in. Cheers!
You've either posted a successful troll comment, or have truly misunderstood the girl's points of objection.