runninmac
Oct 26, 05:33 PM
Oh dang, these firmware updates make me nervous... so im going to wait and let others be the guinea pig.
PS: This should save apple a ton of cash
PS: This should save apple a ton of cash
mrcammy
Oct 15, 06:04 PM
Typical machead responses on this thread:
microsoft wireless media player - aww that's sooo stupid...
apple wireless media player (when it comes out) - aww that's sooo cool...
now go drink your kool-aid everyone...:)
microsoft wireless media player - aww that's sooo stupid...
apple wireless media player (when it comes out) - aww that's sooo cool...
now go drink your kool-aid everyone...:)
spicyapple
Oct 15, 03:53 PM
Is there any medical concern with sharing earbuds?
No more than sucking on someone's tongue. :)
No more than sucking on someone's tongue. :)
Flowbee
Nov 27, 07:27 PM
I'm sorry; the list was real (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communications). It wasn't an official ban per se, more of a suggestion, sent by Clear Channel Communications to stations they owned.
There's a lot of speculation in that Wikipedia article and very few citations of credible sources.
And then there's this...Official response to controversy
Clear Channel officially denies most of these allegations. An article titled Know the Facts (http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporate/PressRelease.aspx?PressReleaseID=1167&p=hidden) on its corporate website addresses many of these concerns."
There's a lot of speculation in that Wikipedia article and very few citations of credible sources.
And then there's this...Official response to controversy
Clear Channel officially denies most of these allegations. An article titled Know the Facts (http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporate/PressRelease.aspx?PressReleaseID=1167&p=hidden) on its corporate website addresses many of these concerns."
chrmjenkins
Apr 1, 12:56 PM
As much as i hate to admit it, i have to agree with dime on this one. European countries cannot defend themselves, their militaries are a joke. The US pretty much has to do everything on their own, and then we take the heat for everything. Which is pretty much where american arrogance comes from. Sad but true.
On what grounds do you say that? Which of the foremost European countries such as the UK, France, Germany etc. do you think would be unable to defend themselves in a military conflict with a nation that is anything other than orders of magnitude greater in population such as the US, China or India? The scale is completely relative to the other powers at play, and I don't think they exist like you seem to think they do.
That being said, if Republicans put half the effort into saying what Obama is doing is wrong as they did into legislating, this country would be far better off.
On what grounds do you say that? Which of the foremost European countries such as the UK, France, Germany etc. do you think would be unable to defend themselves in a military conflict with a nation that is anything other than orders of magnitude greater in population such as the US, China or India? The scale is completely relative to the other powers at play, and I don't think they exist like you seem to think they do.
That being said, if Republicans put half the effort into saying what Obama is doing is wrong as they did into legislating, this country would be far better off.
Xenc
May 6, 05:33 AM
A few minutes ago my Nexus S notified me of a new Android update. It had automatically downloaded the 90mb file over my WiFi network and was asking for permission to install. Two minutes later and my phone is now completely up to date (Google fixed some bugs and added FaceTime-like video calling).
There was no backup process, no lengthy resync and, most of all, no fuss. This seamless experience would be awesome on iOS.
There was no backup process, no lengthy resync and, most of all, no fuss. This seamless experience would be awesome on iOS.
ddrueckhammer
Sep 12, 04:37 PM
This thing will sell like mad but why didn't they just make the the mini smaller and flash based last year?
bdj21ya
Nov 27, 10:30 AM
I could care less about the Beatles, but if this means the whole "Apple" issue is amicably and finally resolved, then I think it's outstanding. :)
Do you mean "couldn't care less", because otherwise your post is pretty confusing.
I'm not a big Beatles fan, but I'd probably buy 1 or 2 songs if they put em on iTunes. Even so, I think this would be a deal maker for a lot of people. Especially if they come out with a Beatles branded iPod.
Do you mean "couldn't care less", because otherwise your post is pretty confusing.
I'm not a big Beatles fan, but I'd probably buy 1 or 2 songs if they put em on iTunes. Even so, I think this would be a deal maker for a lot of people. Especially if they come out with a Beatles branded iPod.
bousozoku
Sep 22, 04:45 PM
I hate Walmart, I always have. they make people think they're so cheap. they really aren't cheap at all. they never have sales.
I wouldn't give a crap if walmart did anything to hurt the film studios. I don't buy movies there anyway because they actually check your ID if its R or unrated. not that I'm not old enough but I sure as hell hate taking my ID out to justify that I'm at least 17. they never have special editions or unrated versions so why the hell does it matter.
STICK TO BEST BUY OR CIRCUIT CITY.
BOYCOTT WALMART
It's appropriate to check identification for age, whether it's movies, music, or video games. What's wrong with doing the right thing?
I wouldn't give a crap if walmart did anything to hurt the film studios. I don't buy movies there anyway because they actually check your ID if its R or unrated. not that I'm not old enough but I sure as hell hate taking my ID out to justify that I'm at least 17. they never have special editions or unrated versions so why the hell does it matter.
STICK TO BEST BUY OR CIRCUIT CITY.
BOYCOTT WALMART
It's appropriate to check identification for age, whether it's movies, music, or video games. What's wrong with doing the right thing?
iphone3gs16gb
Mar 18, 02:34 PM
Do you guys think it's time for an flash memory based iPod classic?
skunk
Apr 8, 03:59 PM
I think what you said is very interesting and insightful. I have a big problem with the concept of original sin, or that people need saving in some way.
If I could just pick out some small thing?
I'm not sure everyone is born strictly neutral. There is a lot of evidence to show morality is, in part, evolutionary. I'm not saying people are born to be automatically wonderful, but if there was no structured society people would not all become mass murderers. Therefore I'd say people (with a few exceptions) are born with very basic morality already in place. However, upbringing and society can add or detract from this.
Of course, this is viewed by a modern standard, and as you suggested- what is "good" and what is "bad" without a standard to judge it by? My head hurts! :confused:Monotheism was invented by priests in exile: they needed to acquire leverage over a scattered population. How better than to tell everyone they were damned by default and could only be saved through the intercession of God's Go-Betweens™. In the Good Old (Polytheistic) Days, you could play one god off against another.
If I could just pick out some small thing?
I'm not sure everyone is born strictly neutral. There is a lot of evidence to show morality is, in part, evolutionary. I'm not saying people are born to be automatically wonderful, but if there was no structured society people would not all become mass murderers. Therefore I'd say people (with a few exceptions) are born with very basic morality already in place. However, upbringing and society can add or detract from this.
Of course, this is viewed by a modern standard, and as you suggested- what is "good" and what is "bad" without a standard to judge it by? My head hurts! :confused:Monotheism was invented by priests in exile: they needed to acquire leverage over a scattered population. How better than to tell everyone they were damned by default and could only be saved through the intercession of God's Go-Betweens™. In the Good Old (Polytheistic) Days, you could play one god off against another.
monsterinawc
Aug 3, 10:24 PM
i love it how apple brands everything
thats why its such a great company
if you look at the crates in the foreground, you can see the Apple logo on each side of the crates
thats why its such a great company
if you look at the crates in the foreground, you can see the Apple logo on each side of the crates
kwajo.com
Sep 6, 10:13 AM
And you will still have people saying that isn't enough....
it isn't, I have 4GB now and I still get tons of pageouts by the end of the work day :p
it isn't, I have 4GB now and I still get tons of pageouts by the end of the work day :p
Cloud9
Sep 22, 01:41 PM
If walmart refuses to sell hollywoods dvds its not like the consumers arent going to find a way to buy them. Infact it hurts walmart more. Dvds wll be purchased. Its just that walmart will not be the retailer they purchase from. I dont understand why they think they have so mch power. If tommy wants a copy of "(Movie name here)" for christmass, mom, dad, sibling, or spouse will find a way to get it.
floatingspirit
Oct 27, 08:47 PM
i have a week 26 white 2.0 MB. it has a screw on the bottom in the dead center. it was never serviced.
Dunno what week it is, but I got it in October. I got screwed too, right in the middle right out of the box. Hasn't been serviced. As I said though, it was nice and quiet before the firmware update...
Can anyone show a pic of a MB without the center screw? lol
Dunno what week it is, but I got it in October. I got screwed too, right in the middle right out of the box. Hasn't been serviced. As I said though, it was nice and quiet before the firmware update...
Can anyone show a pic of a MB without the center screw? lol
szsiddiq
Nov 8, 09:35 AM
what better way to find out about the C2D macbooks, than to find out instore! and actually inform the staff that they've been updated!! they didn't know apparently! well.. so they said, but yeah! was a nice suprise!
lol, yea the store employees are usually only informed when we are. managers and inventory people may kno earlier, but they're unlikely to say much.
lol, yea the store employees are usually only informed when we are. managers and inventory people may kno earlier, but they're unlikely to say much.
Marion
Mar 11, 06:47 PM
As I've stated before, No Way does Apple realease the updated MBPs before the iPad is released!
Yes, I know that they are two different categories, but the MBPs would definitely steal a lot of the iPad's thunder.
I, too, would love to have the MBPs. Unfortunately, we are all just going to have to wait a while longer...
Interesting.... and what is your prediction for International (Int) since we won't get the iPad before the end of April ? I also believed that once, but with different date for the iPad release (US vs Int) and knowing that about 50% of the sales are Int, I'm not sure about that anymore. End of April will be a shame for Apple... Friends around me already have there i7 laptop... but of course, they had to pay the ultimate price... being on Windows :eek:
Yes, I know that they are two different categories, but the MBPs would definitely steal a lot of the iPad's thunder.
I, too, would love to have the MBPs. Unfortunately, we are all just going to have to wait a while longer...
Interesting.... and what is your prediction for International (Int) since we won't get the iPad before the end of April ? I also believed that once, but with different date for the iPad release (US vs Int) and knowing that about 50% of the sales are Int, I'm not sure about that anymore. End of April will be a shame for Apple... Friends around me already have there i7 laptop... but of course, they had to pay the ultimate price... being on Windows :eek:
UTclassof89
Nov 5, 08:03 PM
Apple never used flash for anything more than simple animated ads on their site! And moved away from that to Quicktime based video. If you were seeing Flash it was because you were on a PC with out quicktime and the Apple site was falling back to flash!
Flash is evil it is not searchable, it is a black stain on the open web!
Learn about it before you bash it. Flash IS searchable (Google something with "filetype:swf" to show only results occurring in SWF files). It's also deep-linkable (see greenplanetsearch.com). It's used for much more than ads (see pandora.com and youtube.com). Anyone who's taken a Flash class knows that its easy to detect the FlashPLayer, so non-flash content can be served up in the absence of the FlashPlayer.
Wake up: it isn't 1998 anymore: Flash is a full-fledged OOP environment now!
Flash is evil it is not searchable, it is a black stain on the open web!
Learn about it before you bash it. Flash IS searchable (Google something with "filetype:swf" to show only results occurring in SWF files). It's also deep-linkable (see greenplanetsearch.com). It's used for much more than ads (see pandora.com and youtube.com). Anyone who's taken a Flash class knows that its easy to detect the FlashPLayer, so non-flash content can be served up in the absence of the FlashPlayer.
Wake up: it isn't 1998 anymore: Flash is a full-fledged OOP environment now!
nick9191
Apr 14, 08:57 AM
Nope. Probably not even close. The Air doesn't have the processors or graphics required for even the current version
1GB of RAM, 2GB recommended, 4GB for uncompressed HD.
ATI or Nvidia graphics processor.
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/specs/
Maxed out Air matches that, hell, low end Air matches that. I'm not saying it will be fast, because it will be deathly slow. But it'll run.
1GB of RAM, 2GB recommended, 4GB for uncompressed HD.
ATI or Nvidia graphics processor.
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/specs/
Maxed out Air matches that, hell, low end Air matches that. I'm not saying it will be fast, because it will be deathly slow. But it'll run.
ChrisA
Aug 3, 11:08 AM
I completely agree. It would be a big surprise to me that any method of connecting to an OS X Mac would allow it to be controlled without specific permissions granted by the administrator account, suggesting these guys left the account open on purpose .
No, the way this works is to effectly by-pas all that. All buffer overflow "hacks" do this.
What you do is send a poorly formatted, out of spec network packet. The driver reads the packet which is oversized and places it in memory. The packet being over sized over writes some of the driver code. Some of this over written code is an entry point to the driver. So the next time that entry point is called the hackers code is executed. One you are able to incert your own code into the Kernel all that "permissions stuff" is moot because you have effectiviely loaded your own operating system code over top of Mac OS. In a real-world exploit the little bit of code in the first oversized packet would contain a loader that would read following packets.
This kind os hack is very, very hard to do. and very easy to patch the driver so it can't happen. In fact any code review should have caught it. Kind of proves that whoever wrote the wireles driver didn't bother with a peer review code walkthrough.
No, the way this works is to effectly by-pas all that. All buffer overflow "hacks" do this.
What you do is send a poorly formatted, out of spec network packet. The driver reads the packet which is oversized and places it in memory. The packet being over sized over writes some of the driver code. Some of this over written code is an entry point to the driver. So the next time that entry point is called the hackers code is executed. One you are able to incert your own code into the Kernel all that "permissions stuff" is moot because you have effectiviely loaded your own operating system code over top of Mac OS. In a real-world exploit the little bit of code in the first oversized packet would contain a loader that would read following packets.
This kind os hack is very, very hard to do. and very easy to patch the driver so it can't happen. In fact any code review should have caught it. Kind of proves that whoever wrote the wireles driver didn't bother with a peer review code walkthrough.
Dont Hurt Me
Sep 22, 01:45 PM
Thanks Crap-Mart, one less reason to shop at your store! :)I agree, I hate Walmart with a passion. They are helping destroy the middle class everywhere they go. Apple does have a problem with the studios because they want to have their cake and eat it to. Im sure they are all looking into downloading movies themselves so they can avoid that 3rd party. Did I say Walmart sucks?:p
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. :)
OllyW
Nov 25, 10:04 AM
Don't you have to pay extra for that??
No. All the music on iTunes is now DRM free as standard.
No. All the music on iTunes is now DRM free as standard.
SFStateStudent
Mar 28, 09:08 PM
Dang! Had $1599 extra cash burnin' a hole in my pocket...:p
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire