LouieSamman
Oct 18, 06:50 PM
Here's my current setup. My camera isn't doing my cute little sidelights justice though...
Craig.
Where did you get that chair. If you have the link please link it in here. I know many people would like one.
Craig.
Where did you get that chair. If you have the link please link it in here. I know many people would like one.
Chundles
Sep 12, 03:41 PM
Full screen playback of videos now has Quicktime-style translucent controls.
You can properly tag TV shows.
You can properly tag TV shows.
/football_-_field.gif "Free to play!")
KeithJenner
Nov 24, 06:03 AM
That's not quite it. People were annoyed at the fact that the event was so hyped, not that it was somehow a "bad" thing.
You mean people were annoyed that they allowed themselves to overhype it.
You mean people were annoyed that they allowed themselves to overhype it.
morpheus256
Sep 12, 02:05 PM
Can we get the new ones with the school promotion?
nope, i called the store, and they will not do the new nano's with the school discount, but aparently they will do the new videos :confused:
seems kinda sly to unload the old nanos on poor students.
nope, i called the store, and they will not do the new nano's with the school discount, but aparently they will do the new videos :confused:
seems kinda sly to unload the old nanos on poor students.
Natsus
Sep 13, 07:16 AM
2 things
First, It's understandable to complain about the lack of EDU discounts on the new upods. Apple has ALWAYS given an edu discount... even for new products. To take that away now stinks.
Second, though these nanos look nice, I'm a little wary about the screen. If anyone remembers way back, that Apple is going to be using OLED technology instead of the normal screen.
here's the original rumor article:
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060712182701.shtml
For those lazy, I'll quote
OLED displays draw significantly less power than traditional TFT-LCD displays used in current iPod models, as they do not require a backlight (each pixel directly emits its own light). OLED contrast ratio's are generally considered far superior to LCD displays because the pixels can display true black when off. However, OLEDs are not well suited for outdoor use, and have a limited lifespan.
While I'm happy that this is probably the reason for the increased battery life, I'm concerned about the life span of the screen. How much of a limited span are we talking about?
Edit: according to wikipedia, 5,000 hrs. For comparison, a typical LCD has a life of 50,000 hrs (30,000 hrs for lamp).
First, It's understandable to complain about the lack of EDU discounts on the new upods. Apple has ALWAYS given an edu discount... even for new products. To take that away now stinks.
Second, though these nanos look nice, I'm a little wary about the screen. If anyone remembers way back, that Apple is going to be using OLED technology instead of the normal screen.
here's the original rumor article:
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060712182701.shtml
For those lazy, I'll quote
OLED displays draw significantly less power than traditional TFT-LCD displays used in current iPod models, as they do not require a backlight (each pixel directly emits its own light). OLED contrast ratio's are generally considered far superior to LCD displays because the pixels can display true black when off. However, OLEDs are not well suited for outdoor use, and have a limited lifespan.
While I'm happy that this is probably the reason for the increased battery life, I'm concerned about the life span of the screen. How much of a limited span are we talking about?
Edit: according to wikipedia, 5,000 hrs. For comparison, a typical LCD has a life of 50,000 hrs (30,000 hrs for lamp).
wake6830
Jan 11, 12:00 PM
They're skipping the whole touchscreen/tablet thing and moving straight to 3D holograms that allow you to type, drag/drop and everything else by moving your hands and fingers around inside the hologram.
gelinasbrian
Oct 17, 05:32 PM
Hows the magic trackpad working for ya? you use it more than the Magic Mouse?
The Magic Trackpad rules. Love it. Don't even use the mouse. It seems like you have to move the mouse so far to get it across the screen and with the Magic Trackpad its just gets you around the screen faster.
The Magic Trackpad rules. Love it. Don't even use the mouse. It seems like you have to move the mouse so far to get it across the screen and with the Magic Trackpad its just gets you around the screen faster.
BigDukeSix
Mar 28, 03:34 PM
If Apple had done this way back in the day, made their products readily available in stores, maybe they would have won the PC wars. I certainly remember the days when you could only get an Apple product via mail order, and you could never play with them in a store. Anytime you can get max products into max hands, its a good thing.
yudilks
Nov 8, 06:24 AM
OMG, the anticipation is killing me.. I'm pressing F5 every 30 seconds... :P
tuftywhite
Nov 24, 07:06 AM
All this proves is that Beatles fans like to waste their money repurchasing music they already own just because it's available in a new format. I bet that most of the albums and individual songs sold were purchased by people who already own that album/song.
I had about 6 albums on vinyl. I don't have a record player anymore and didn't want to buy CDs, that's why I bought the collection on iTunes.
You can't guess everyone's reasons. Live and Let Live!
I had about 6 albums on vinyl. I don't have a record player anymore and didn't want to buy CDs, that's why I bought the collection on iTunes.
You can't guess everyone's reasons. Live and Let Live!
/football_player_05.gif "Free to play!")
NebulaClash
Apr 14, 11:13 AM
The security-through-obscurity myth of OS X has long been debunked. Do you know what the most used computer OS in the world is? Linux. And there are very, very few viruses for linux.
The rampant virus ecosystem is a flaw in Windows, not an inherent fact of all operating systems.
Macs have a decent market share and a very large mindshare, but yet are still virus free (though there have been a couple trojans that fizzled out).
Thank you. I do get tired of the old lie that Macs are only secure because they've not been targeted yet.
The better analogy is Windows is a house made of flimsy material. They keep putting new locks on the doors, but crooks keep finding ways to push through the flimsy walls. Meanwhile Macs are in a nice neighborhood that's not as populated all right, but they have a great security system. Whenever anyone tries to invade, the owner is immediately notified. Dopey owners occasionally give permission to the invaders who pretend to be their Uncle Bob, but most owners get suspicious of invaders no matter who they claim to be.
No matter how popular Macs will get, they will NEVER have the security issue that Windows has. It's all a matter of the underlying architecture.
The rampant virus ecosystem is a flaw in Windows, not an inherent fact of all operating systems.
Macs have a decent market share and a very large mindshare, but yet are still virus free (though there have been a couple trojans that fizzled out).
Thank you. I do get tired of the old lie that Macs are only secure because they've not been targeted yet.
The better analogy is Windows is a house made of flimsy material. They keep putting new locks on the doors, but crooks keep finding ways to push through the flimsy walls. Meanwhile Macs are in a nice neighborhood that's not as populated all right, but they have a great security system. Whenever anyone tries to invade, the owner is immediately notified. Dopey owners occasionally give permission to the invaders who pretend to be their Uncle Bob, but most owners get suspicious of invaders no matter who they claim to be.
No matter how popular Macs will get, they will NEVER have the security issue that Windows has. It's all a matter of the underlying architecture.
QCassidy352
Oct 15, 04:49 PM
wireless capabilities is the way of the future. I don't see ourselves in 10 years still being limited by wired headphones and such. Maybe it'll be easier than the Zune (haven't seen the demo) but the idea of beaming a song for somebody else to download/hear is pretty cool to me.
wireless headphones, sure. That's coming, and soon. But beaming songs to other people? No, I don't think it will ever be a very popular idea. I want to listen to my music, not the guy's next to me. That's why I own what I own and not something else. Besides, if I'm wearing headphones that probably means I'm not with anyone I know, and I'm certainly not going to be sharing music with strangers because it would just be weird.
wireless headphones, sure. That's coming, and soon. But beaming songs to other people? No, I don't think it will ever be a very popular idea. I want to listen to my music, not the guy's next to me. That's why I own what I own and not something else. Besides, if I'm wearing headphones that probably means I'm not with anyone I know, and I'm certainly not going to be sharing music with strangers because it would just be weird.
puma1552
Oct 16, 06:43 AM
255273
This is the small headquarters of Japan-Saikou.com :)
I like it but let's face it, tatami FTMFL
This is the small headquarters of Japan-Saikou.com :)
I like it but let's face it, tatami FTMFL
Small White Car
Apr 13, 04:54 PM
I'm sure it'll be $999 full, or $299 upgrade for the full studio. At least I hope so. Here I stand, cash in hand!
Currently the Mac App Store has no way of offering an upgrade to existing Mac software. I don't see that changing.
I suspect that all these apps will be stripped of their sample media. They're all quite small without them. Perhaps Apple will sell those files separately on their own on DVDs?
Why am I getting such bitter responses from people who seem to agree with my point?
Because you made a post that claimed our editing skills have nothing to do with creativiy or experience, but simply that 'knowing the software' is the only advangate we have.
Telling people that they're useless at their jobs is gonna make people bitter.
I don't feel pissy about this, but you basically told me that I really should be because I'm actually useless and only Final Cut's complexity has been making me appear smart, when in fact I was not.
Currently the Mac App Store has no way of offering an upgrade to existing Mac software. I don't see that changing.
I suspect that all these apps will be stripped of their sample media. They're all quite small without them. Perhaps Apple will sell those files separately on their own on DVDs?
Why am I getting such bitter responses from people who seem to agree with my point?
Because you made a post that claimed our editing skills have nothing to do with creativiy or experience, but simply that 'knowing the software' is the only advangate we have.
Telling people that they're useless at their jobs is gonna make people bitter.
I don't feel pissy about this, but you basically told me that I really should be because I'm actually useless and only Final Cut's complexity has been making me appear smart, when in fact I was not.
bmorris
Mar 29, 10:58 AM
ALL OF ATLANTA IS OUT AT RADIO SHACK!
Only the Stone Mountain Radio Shack had them and they are sold out.
All the others said they won't have them and Stone Mountain would.
Trying again tomorrow!
Only the Stone Mountain Radio Shack had them and they are sold out.
All the others said they won't have them and Stone Mountain would.
Trying again tomorrow!
dejo
Nov 12, 11:41 AM
Joe Hewitt said that the App Store is setting a precedent that the Store for a particular handheld device needs to have a review process. Other companies are following suit.
What other companies? Seems to me the new "kids on the block" are touting their openness as an advantage vs. the App Store.
If you're going to create an app for THEIR phone I can understand Apple making sure they accept it, but they need a better policy.
I'd say the policy is OK, they just need to apply it much more consistently.
What other companies? Seems to me the new "kids on the block" are touting their openness as an advantage vs. the App Store.
If you're going to create an app for THEIR phone I can understand Apple making sure they accept it, but they need a better policy.
I'd say the policy is OK, they just need to apply it much more consistently.
andybno1
Mar 25, 12:43 PM
for the person who asked gestures on the iPad are still available you just need to go into xcode again and re-enable iPad for development
balamw
Sep 12, 05:45 PM
"Album Artist" tag is supposed to be for albums that have songs that are 'performed' by multiple artists, not for albums that have songs from different artists.
Yup, so for example you might have a track, "South Side" by Moby (featuring Gwen Stefani) and assign Album Artist as "Moby". It'll get files under Moby if you view the Album Artist tag, but it'll still find it if you search for Gwen Stefani.
Another example is that I have "The Best of Geroge Harrison", where half the tracks are by "The Beatles", I'd like the Album Artist to be "George Harrison", but have the individual tracks also tagges as Beatles tracks.
It is useful, but it's definitely not intended for "multiples" in the way you want it. (Me too).
B
Yup, so for example you might have a track, "South Side" by Moby (featuring Gwen Stefani) and assign Album Artist as "Moby". It'll get files under Moby if you view the Album Artist tag, but it'll still find it if you search for Gwen Stefani.
Another example is that I have "The Best of Geroge Harrison", where half the tracks are by "The Beatles", I'd like the Album Artist to be "George Harrison", but have the individual tracks also tagges as Beatles tracks.
It is useful, but it's definitely not intended for "multiples" in the way you want it. (Me too).
B
meowtown
Mar 29, 12:58 AM
Has anyone else noticed all the shaped app icons? As far as I know, I don't think that's a feature right now... Maybe I'm wrong. But there are a lot of circles, and there's even a gear. Also they're 3D. I don't think that would mean anything, but I saw an idea once that the iPhone could know what angle you're looking at it, and make the screen look 3D accordingly... But the battery life is already not great, so I'm sure they wouldn't want to kill it with some pointless (maybe not pointless, for games) feature...?
Yeap...
Yeap...
toughboy
Aug 29, 09:22 AM
At that price, I hope Apple considers preinstalling Vista on its machines.
240 bucks for Boot Camp is ludacris, when you'll probably hardly use it anyway...
I'd rather download it from torrent for free.. who'd give crap all that money?!
240 bucks for Boot Camp is ludacris, when you'll probably hardly use it anyway...
I'd rather download it from torrent for free.. who'd give crap all that money?!
Chundles
Aug 4, 01:53 AM
Name two things not on that banner? iSight and Cinema display. :D
iPod
iSight
Cinema Display
DVI -> VGA adapter
#3 Universal Dock insert
iPod
iSight
Cinema Display
DVI -> VGA adapter
#3 Universal Dock insert
iGrip
Jul 10, 12:22 PM
That's a very old render. I doubt MacAllen made it. Plus, why would you want a transparent display on a desktop? I can almost understand it on a window, but on a desktop it just looks like ****.
In addition, the keyboard curves in the wrong direction. It would be mucho painful to use.
In addition, the keyboard curves in the wrong direction. It would be mucho painful to use.
Get Shorty
Sep 22, 02:17 PM
Not cool of Wal-Mart at all... Competition is best for the consumer. :o
mscriv
Apr 11, 11:57 AM
I object to the notion that good deeds I do are due to vanity, pride etc.
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment