jameshopkins
Sep 6, 08:34 AM
So do we keep waiting for updated Macbooks and Macbook Pro's or not? :confused:
I dont see the MacBook going core 2 duo, but i reckon the MBP will, maybe with a new case design on the 12th?
I dont see the MacBook going core 2 duo, but i reckon the MBP will, maybe with a new case design on the 12th?
Over Achiever
Nov 1, 10:56 AM
Hmm, after updating and using it for a few days I have observed that the fan runs much more often than it used to, simple processes that kick the processor usage to 100% for a few seconds will cause the fans to spin ... while I like the prevention of RSS, I have not experienced it, and now my macbook tends to be louder than usual which is a little frustrating at the library. I have not had much of a heat issue with this laptop before (monitored the temperature) so this is a bit annoying.
But something I can live with.
But something I can live with.
mscriv
Apr 7, 07:07 PM
This is not true. There is no specific assertion in the Old Testament of any triune nature of god.
I could type up a bunch of stuff, but this website (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html) does a good job of covering all the bases regarding our difference of opinion on this matter. Here's two quick excerpts:
Jews say that the Shema (pronounced Shmah), "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord"1 contradicts the Christian doctrine that Jesus is God. In addition, there are a number of other verses that proclaim that God is one (see God is One). However, the triunity of God is taught throughout the Old Testament, including the Shema! How can a statement of oneness imply plurality? The word translated "one" from the Hebrew is echad, which demonstrates compound unity of oneness.
and
Some of the verses above include all members of the triunity (Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 48:16, and Isaiah 61:1). Therefore, the Old Testament does reveal the Christian concept of the Godhead, with God being one God, consisting of three persons.
Remember what I said in the beginning. Complete understanding of the old testament comes through knowledge gained by the revelation of the new testament. They really can't be separated in terms of understanding the whole of God's message and work throughout history. Additionally, for the average person (who cannot read Hebrew and is not familiar with Jewish history and doctrine) it could be difficult to see the trinity in the old testament. That's why I suggest to people that they invest in a study Bible, possibly a Bible Encyclopedia, and some commentaries. These additional tools can help bring out the contextual clues provided by the original languages, the historical context, and the skill of cross referencing within the Bible.
Of course not any interpretation is valid; however, the Bible is very complex and contradicts itself in places. There is no set interpretation that can said to be right, rather a spectrum that can be justified. "Clear" is not a word I would use.
Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The Bible does not contradict itself in it's overall message of God's revelation of himself and plan for restoring the relationship with man that was destroyed by sin. Sure there are differences of application and interpretation regarding secondary matters (food laws, sexuality, alcohol, etc. etc.) and that is why we have different denominations within the Christian faith. However, the primary matter of who God is, how he dealt with the problem of sin, and how he we are to treat one another is clear and without contradiction. That is why I feel confident in telling you that Westboro is "off the mark" because they are not following Christ's example with how they treat their fellow man and how they represent God to others.
I realize that, to you, what I'm about to say might be viewed as an issue of semantics or "word manipulation", but to a genuine follower of Christ there is no such thing as "my interpretation". I believe what God says in his word and if I am confused about something I look to other parts of scripture to help me get at the correct interpretation of what is confusing me. You see it doesn't matter what I think or what I wish it would say, I come to the Bible with no preconceived notions and let it stand on it's own.
This is obviously where we part ways. For me the Bible is the product of man. Nothing more.
I understand. In most, if not all, of these discussions the eventual impasse that arises is centered on the issue of faith. Some choose to believe, some don't. Some are open to putting God to the test, some are not.
I could type up a bunch of stuff, but this website (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html) does a good job of covering all the bases regarding our difference of opinion on this matter. Here's two quick excerpts:
Jews say that the Shema (pronounced Shmah), "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord"1 contradicts the Christian doctrine that Jesus is God. In addition, there are a number of other verses that proclaim that God is one (see God is One). However, the triunity of God is taught throughout the Old Testament, including the Shema! How can a statement of oneness imply plurality? The word translated "one" from the Hebrew is echad, which demonstrates compound unity of oneness.
and
Some of the verses above include all members of the triunity (Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 48:16, and Isaiah 61:1). Therefore, the Old Testament does reveal the Christian concept of the Godhead, with God being one God, consisting of three persons.
Remember what I said in the beginning. Complete understanding of the old testament comes through knowledge gained by the revelation of the new testament. They really can't be separated in terms of understanding the whole of God's message and work throughout history. Additionally, for the average person (who cannot read Hebrew and is not familiar with Jewish history and doctrine) it could be difficult to see the trinity in the old testament. That's why I suggest to people that they invest in a study Bible, possibly a Bible Encyclopedia, and some commentaries. These additional tools can help bring out the contextual clues provided by the original languages, the historical context, and the skill of cross referencing within the Bible.
Of course not any interpretation is valid; however, the Bible is very complex and contradicts itself in places. There is no set interpretation that can said to be right, rather a spectrum that can be justified. "Clear" is not a word I would use.
Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The Bible does not contradict itself in it's overall message of God's revelation of himself and plan for restoring the relationship with man that was destroyed by sin. Sure there are differences of application and interpretation regarding secondary matters (food laws, sexuality, alcohol, etc. etc.) and that is why we have different denominations within the Christian faith. However, the primary matter of who God is, how he dealt with the problem of sin, and how he we are to treat one another is clear and without contradiction. That is why I feel confident in telling you that Westboro is "off the mark" because they are not following Christ's example with how they treat their fellow man and how they represent God to others.
I realize that, to you, what I'm about to say might be viewed as an issue of semantics or "word manipulation", but to a genuine follower of Christ there is no such thing as "my interpretation". I believe what God says in his word and if I am confused about something I look to other parts of scripture to help me get at the correct interpretation of what is confusing me. You see it doesn't matter what I think or what I wish it would say, I come to the Bible with no preconceived notions and let it stand on it's own.
This is obviously where we part ways. For me the Bible is the product of man. Nothing more.
I understand. In most, if not all, of these discussions the eventual impasse that arises is centered on the issue of faith. Some choose to believe, some don't. Some are open to putting God to the test, some are not.
PowerGamerX
Oct 12, 10:46 AM
Why'd you get a MacBook Pro 13" if you have the iPad. I would have gotten the 15" or an iMac/Mac Mini in that case...
NYC Russ
Apr 12, 01:17 PM
Manufacturing requires a lot of labor too.Sorry to burst your bubble again, but not all manufacturing requires a lot of labor. Painting all manufacturing processes with a broad brush is disingenuous. I've seen my share of robotic assembly lines, and as far as I'm aware, robots are not labor.
benthewraith
Aug 18, 12:35 PM
And apparently now they admit that it was bull-****.
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/08/18/secureworks-admits-to-falsifying-macbook-wireless-hack/
;)
Busted. Boy do I hate to be those guys. :rolleyes:
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/08/18/secureworks-admits-to-falsifying-macbook-wireless-hack/
;)
Busted. Boy do I hate to be those guys. :rolleyes:
ZoomZoomZoom
Sep 6, 08:58 AM
Does anyone know how the 7300GT compares to the X1600? I am leaning towards the 20" to replace my 17" rev. A iMacG5, but would upgrade to the 24" is the GPU is a big bump.
Apple has it benchmarked. It is a large jump.
http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html
Apple has it benchmarked. It is a large jump.
http://www.apple.com/imac/graphics.html
HecubusPro
Sep 22, 12:49 PM
Screw Wal-mart! They should shrivel up and die. I grew up in the epicenter of Wal-Mart's birthplace and it is nothing more than a plague on small-town (and larger city) life.
LouieSamman
Oct 17, 03:50 PM
In the process of moving so my setup is located squarely on my coffee table. Will post new pic once I am moved into my new place and set up the office.
Not shown in photo is the mountain of boxes just to the left.:D
Hows the magic trackpad working for ya? you use it more than the Magic Mouse?
Not shown in photo is the mountain of boxes just to the left.:D
Hows the magic trackpad working for ya? you use it more than the Magic Mouse?
bdj21ya
Nov 27, 03:33 PM
Good for Apple...bad for consumers.
People with a Zune or any other player for that matter won't be able to download Beetles songs legally.
Yeah they will. iTunes works on any Windows or Mac system. They can listen to it on their computer, burn a CD, or even rip that CD back into a format that any player can play, with a minimal quality loss. Besides, anything that discourages consumers from buying a Zune is probably good for consumers :) .
People with a Zune or any other player for that matter won't be able to download Beetles songs legally.
Yeah they will. iTunes works on any Windows or Mac system. They can listen to it on their computer, burn a CD, or even rip that CD back into a format that any player can play, with a minimal quality loss. Besides, anything that discourages consumers from buying a Zune is probably good for consumers :) .
shecky
Jan 11, 01:50 PM
As people have pointed out, it isn't Myriad set.
it is, i believe Myriad Pro Light. i think banners are usually Myriad Pro semibold.
it is, i believe Myriad Pro Light. i think banners are usually Myriad Pro semibold.
pink-pony115
Sep 4, 08:23 PM
For the people who thinks that Vista is too expensive:
Mac users: Spend more $ on hardware. Spend less $ on software.
Windows users: Spend more $ on software. Spend less $ on hardware.
What a shock the computing industry works both ways. :eek:
Mac users: Spend more $ on hardware. Spend less $ on software.
Windows users: Spend more $ on software. Spend less $ on hardware.
What a shock the computing industry works both ways. :eek:
jegbook
Mar 25, 02:47 PM
I've seen some 3G models that work great w/ 4.2.1 and some that don't. One was jailbroken, so I wrote that one off. The one thing I've seen that helped a s l o w non-jailbroken one was a double reset (force the phone to reboot, load, then force reboot once more). You could also do a complete wipe and see if it performs well before restoring your backup -and then do a piece by piece restore if that solved the issue.
I don't think 4.x is that bad for everyone on a 3G, but I have seen it in "slow mode"- and the people experiencing this are not making it up. It's -bad-. I wish there were a definitive fix other than trial and error as above and hoping you don't put something on your phone to cause it again...
Yeah, I think a freshly restored 3G with iOS 4.2.1 is okay. Something in the restore from backup part is where it gets s - l - o - w. I've seen it, too, and having a 3Gs which is quick (but not FAST) for most stuff, using the s - l - o -w 3G was like running Win XP on an old computer that hasn't had an OS rebuild in years with 1GB free hard drive space, high fragmentation, and 512MB of RAM. Usable, but one could justifiably argue against that. ;)
I don't think 4.x is that bad for everyone on a 3G, but I have seen it in "slow mode"- and the people experiencing this are not making it up. It's -bad-. I wish there were a definitive fix other than trial and error as above and hoping you don't put something on your phone to cause it again...
Yeah, I think a freshly restored 3G with iOS 4.2.1 is okay. Something in the restore from backup part is where it gets s - l - o - w. I've seen it, too, and having a 3Gs which is quick (but not FAST) for most stuff, using the s - l - o -w 3G was like running Win XP on an old computer that hasn't had an OS rebuild in years with 1GB free hard drive space, high fragmentation, and 512MB of RAM. Usable, but one could justifiably argue against that. ;)
marsattacks
Apr 17, 10:07 AM
First in to Best Buy this morning - manager says the promotion is just a 'reservations' promotion - if you buy a $100 gift certificate they'll put you on the wait list and will call you in next 3-4 weeks when they expect to get stock. Don't bother. Is this not illegal - or just shady practice?
crackbookpro
Mar 29, 09:54 AM
It is really pending on whether AT&T will be up to par with Verizon's LTE by this fall... This is why I still think that the iPhone 5 will have no LTE(coming in June again), and the iPhone 6 will be coming out in June/July of 2012 offered with 4G(LTE) from either Verizon or AT&T...
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 11:04 AM
If CorvusCamenarum's theory is correct, white people better shape up! No more whining, no more excuses. Diminish funds for white people and expand them for black people.
ImAlwaysRight
Aug 24, 02:52 PM
Aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! It BURNS, it BURNS!
Oh, I thought I had an affected computer but don't. Was just practicing. :o
Nice for the thousands who have had no problems with their battery but get a new one after a year or more of use.
Ugh, this is going to give my PC-loving friends fuel for YEARS.
Bud, you've got enough fuel on PC folks for dozens of CENTURIES so I wouldn't worry about it. ;)
Oh, I thought I had an affected computer but don't. Was just practicing. :o
Nice for the thousands who have had no problems with their battery but get a new one after a year or more of use.
Ugh, this is going to give my PC-loving friends fuel for YEARS.
Bud, you've got enough fuel on PC folks for dozens of CENTURIES so I wouldn't worry about it. ;)
NathanCH
Mar 4, 10:14 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5212/5498724484_232fc9ebf8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathanch/5498724484/in/photostream/)
DeVizardofOZ
Aug 4, 08:07 AM
Hey, UNEMPLOYED
Looks to me like those are both 15" models, one just being a larger image. I can see that the speakers look somewhat more slender.
If this is the "new design of the MBP" it's nothing special. The scratch pad is larger, though. WHy on earth is APPLE limiting itself by using an extremely thin formfactor??
What diff does it make if the machine is 3 mm thicker, and has better sound, better heat dissipation etc.?
AND ALL SCREENS WOBBLE BECAUSE OF THE HINGE DESIGN. CLEARLY FAULTY ENGINEERING!:D
Here are some images of the banner, MBP 15 & 17[/QUOTE]
Looks to me like those are both 15" models, one just being a larger image. I can see that the speakers look somewhat more slender.
If this is the "new design of the MBP" it's nothing special. The scratch pad is larger, though. WHy on earth is APPLE limiting itself by using an extremely thin formfactor??
What diff does it make if the machine is 3 mm thicker, and has better sound, better heat dissipation etc.?
AND ALL SCREENS WOBBLE BECAUSE OF THE HINGE DESIGN. CLEARLY FAULTY ENGINEERING!:D
Here are some images of the banner, MBP 15 & 17[/QUOTE]
Popeye206
Jan 11, 04:06 PM
Hummm... I like the iPlane myself! :-)
Maybe Steve is cooking breakfast for the keynote? Really... it's probably a really thin, ultra portable and muti-touch version of the all new Airport Ultra Nano! :D Ohhhh.... I crack myself up sometimes! LOL!
Darn it! Is it Tuesday yet so we can just get this over with???? :-)
Maybe Steve is cooking breakfast for the keynote? Really... it's probably a really thin, ultra portable and muti-touch version of the all new Airport Ultra Nano! :D Ohhhh.... I crack myself up sometimes! LOL!
Darn it! Is it Tuesday yet so we can just get this over with???? :-)
iphone3gs16gb
Apr 26, 02:48 PM
Again, WHY do they lack positive male figures? I'm trying to get down to the bottom of this. I know they have poverty in their communities, i know there is a lack of black men who take responsibility for children and knock women up one after another. It's not only poor black men that knock women up, filthy rich rappers do the same thing, so poverty has nothing to do with it. Only difference is rappers can afford to pay child support, even though they usually "sing" about not paying it. But i'm asking why it is like this. Is it a genetic thing or is it a cultural thing?
My mind boggles up as well.
I believe its because most black kids never got to be raised along their fathers because they either left them because they didn't want the kid or they were in jail, therefore leaving them without a fatherly figure.
That leaves the mom with the extra job, or in other cases, the grandmother which I find to be very common to be the authoritarian figure in the house.
But they can't do it alone, they, in most cases, have to work long hours to have money for food and a home to live in.
My mind boggles up as well.
I believe its because most black kids never got to be raised along their fathers because they either left them because they didn't want the kid or they were in jail, therefore leaving them without a fatherly figure.
That leaves the mom with the extra job, or in other cases, the grandmother which I find to be very common to be the authoritarian figure in the house.
But they can't do it alone, they, in most cases, have to work long hours to have money for food and a home to live in.
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. :)
cherrypop
Nov 8, 08:16 AM
Ah good to see that it's not worth upgrading my Core Duo MB to the new one, I think the speed increase wil lbe negligble (comparing a 1.83Ghz CD with 1.83C2D)
I think that's right, for the most part.
Those Core Duo MB owners might consider a hardrive upgrade, to a 7200rpm drive, for a nice speedbump.
I think that's right, for the most part.
Those Core Duo MB owners might consider a hardrive upgrade, to a 7200rpm drive, for a nice speedbump.
XaPHER
Oct 25, 11:59 AM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs903.snc4/71648_164866660198726_100000261799253_456073_3612241_n.jpg
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق