Gelfin
Mar 26, 07:30 PM
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
rxse7en
Oct 11, 01:40 PM
Er... No rotation with nVidia? nVidia supports rotation on Windows, haven't tried it on Mac. I don't see any option for it on my G5, but I just assumed it was a limitation of the 30" Dell I'm using (doesn't rotate). Actually that's a dumb assumption. Weird... Wonder why.
I'd like the link to that coupon as well too... Although it probably doesn't work with the current 15% off (which expires today, doesn't it?).
Here ya go: http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board/message?board.id=creativecontest&message.id=143&l=en&s=dhs
I'd like the link to that coupon as well too... Although it probably doesn't work with the current 15% off (which expires today, doesn't it?).
Here ya go: http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board/message?board.id=creativecontest&message.id=143&l=en&s=dhs
mac1984user
Apr 15, 10:20 AM
I think you have slightly misread my post or replied to the wrong post.
I did most certainly not say the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay.
;)
Ha! It's so true. I meant to copy BOTH quotes in. MY BAD! Editing happening now!
I did most certainly not say the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay.
;)
Ha! It's so true. I meant to copy BOTH quotes in. MY BAD! Editing happening now!
Lamarak
Jun 19, 05:52 PM
Guess it is really area dependent. Tried the droid incredible with Verizon, had more dropped lost calls in my 3 weeks with them than I had with my Iphone and ATT in 3 years ( or seemed like it). We went back to ATT and no problems thus far. This is here in San Antonio, TX.
bedifferent
May 2, 04:45 PM
google…
"OS X more secure than Windows"
There, fixed it for ya (and the "'s too) ;)
OS X and Windows have their pro's and con's, no OS is 100% secure. OS X based systems are generally more secure than Windows systems. I could google "OS X safer than Windows" and find as many claims as you suggest, but that would be bias. Google " 'OS X versus Windows' security' ", you will most likely discover articles/studies with no bias/agenda. If OS X wasn't more secure than Windows OS systems, why aren't more users running anti-virus/malware utilities?
However (and read my posts), working in the field I can assure you 75%+ of my clients have security/virus/malware issues with everything from XP-W7. Executable's are the equivalent to barfing into your system; they get everywhere and are difficult to remove.
If Windows followed Apple and developed hardware to utilize their OS instead of coding an OS for a myriad of profiles (and ditching antiquated BIOS for EFI) it would allow for a better end user experience and for MS to focus on better security. Yet this would mean millions to billions for businesses to reinvest in new hardware as well as MS producing a good product (based on their industrial design team and product history, I wouldn't bet on it).
"OS X more secure than Windows"
There, fixed it for ya (and the "'s too) ;)
OS X and Windows have their pro's and con's, no OS is 100% secure. OS X based systems are generally more secure than Windows systems. I could google "OS X safer than Windows" and find as many claims as you suggest, but that would be bias. Google " 'OS X versus Windows' security' ", you will most likely discover articles/studies with no bias/agenda. If OS X wasn't more secure than Windows OS systems, why aren't more users running anti-virus/malware utilities?
However (and read my posts), working in the field I can assure you 75%+ of my clients have security/virus/malware issues with everything from XP-W7. Executable's are the equivalent to barfing into your system; they get everywhere and are difficult to remove.
If Windows followed Apple and developed hardware to utilize their OS instead of coding an OS for a myriad of profiles (and ditching antiquated BIOS for EFI) it would allow for a better end user experience and for MS to focus on better security. Yet this would mean millions to billions for businesses to reinvest in new hardware as well as MS producing a good product (based on their industrial design team and product history, I wouldn't bet on it).
ChrisA
Sep 12, 06:40 PM
So what is this thing, anyway? .... I've seen no indication if it does or does not have a hard drive.
Who cares if it has a hard drive if you hve at least one other computer on your network you can "share" a folder and then the iTV will act as if it does have a hard drive..
My guess.. iTV is a mini with no optical drive, a very small hard drive (to store the software and hold a small local cache) and an Intel video chip that can do HD formats
I can envision a third party device that has the same form factor as the iTV so it could stack on or under it. This gadget would have a cable TV tunner and digitizer and connect to the iTV via USB. This way cable TV shows could be saved automatically to your iTunes library where they would show up in the Front Row menu. I doubt Apple would offer this but I'll bet someoe else will.
Is the Ethernet port 100BaseT or Gigabit? How many iTVs can you have on one network. Can a Mac Pro stream 2, 10 or 20 video streams. I can see this used in an educational setting. A school could keep large numbers of recored lectures on a server. Students could water on big screens, thier PC/Mac or on an iPod. There are uses for this other than to feed the typical brain dead TV zombie
Who cares if it has a hard drive if you hve at least one other computer on your network you can "share" a folder and then the iTV will act as if it does have a hard drive..
My guess.. iTV is a mini with no optical drive, a very small hard drive (to store the software and hold a small local cache) and an Intel video chip that can do HD formats
I can envision a third party device that has the same form factor as the iTV so it could stack on or under it. This gadget would have a cable TV tunner and digitizer and connect to the iTV via USB. This way cable TV shows could be saved automatically to your iTunes library where they would show up in the Front Row menu. I doubt Apple would offer this but I'll bet someoe else will.
Is the Ethernet port 100BaseT or Gigabit? How many iTVs can you have on one network. Can a Mac Pro stream 2, 10 or 20 video streams. I can see this used in an educational setting. A school could keep large numbers of recored lectures on a server. Students could water on big screens, thier PC/Mac or on an iPod. There are uses for this other than to feed the typical brain dead TV zombie
AppliedVisual
Oct 20, 02:36 PM
So the high end will no longer be at 3ghz?
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
StudioGuy
Sep 26, 10:45 AM
I originally thought that this would make a nice "best" model for the Mac Pro, but the 5160 is surely a great chip. Given the slower clock speed (although not always a good indicator) and more cores, this might be a great chip for a Server, like an updated XServe.
Not sure if the software guys are going to catch up enough in multithreading to make good use of 8 cores, but several folks on an XServe would appreciate it.
Not sure if the software guys are going to catch up enough in multithreading to make good use of 8 cores, but several folks on an XServe would appreciate it.
scottlinux
Oct 25, 11:11 PM
I think price will be the key. These are pricey chips. Apple will have to work their magic.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
Schizoid
Apr 21, 05:38 AM
...so anyway, back to the conference call.
Apple sold nearly 5 million iPads last quarter... now this sounds good to me, why are the media reporting this as "disappointing." Am I missing something here? Surely this should be at least "pretty good."
(EDIT: sorry I'm in the wrong post!)
Apple sold nearly 5 million iPads last quarter... now this sounds good to me, why are the media reporting this as "disappointing." Am I missing something here? Surely this should be at least "pretty good."
(EDIT: sorry I'm in the wrong post!)
iliketyla
Apr 20, 06:37 PM
Except for the inferior interface, battery life, apps and usability you mean.. Otherwise they are exactly the same!
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
rdowns
Apr 15, 12:45 PM
Those priests obviously weren't celibate, then.
Yes, it really does suck that there are bad people everywhere.
I know, right? You can't blame the Catholic Church because some of their chosen leaders like to diddle children. Sickos are bound to be found even in the most pristine of institutions.
What really sucks is how the leaders of the Catholic Church covered up this abuse and allowed it to continue. Surely they will burn in hell over that.
Yes, it really does suck that there are bad people everywhere.
I know, right? You can't blame the Catholic Church because some of their chosen leaders like to diddle children. Sickos are bound to be found even in the most pristine of institutions.
What really sucks is how the leaders of the Catholic Church covered up this abuse and allowed it to continue. Surely they will burn in hell over that.
skellener
Sep 12, 07:24 PM
At $2 a pop I'd be out maybe $6 per month.
Most shows air once a week so that's 3-5 times a month. So even 1 show will cost you $6-$10. So sure, if you watch one televison show (say LOST) at 3-5 episodes a month your doing fine. I would imagine most people take in 5 shows (3-5 episodes a month) or more per month. That's $30-$50 already for only 5 televison shows a month. $50 gets me all the standard and HD channels on DirecTV. iTunes is still not at that quality/price point yet.
Most shows air once a week so that's 3-5 times a month. So even 1 show will cost you $6-$10. So sure, if you watch one televison show (say LOST) at 3-5 episodes a month your doing fine. I would imagine most people take in 5 shows (3-5 episodes a month) or more per month. That's $30-$50 already for only 5 televison shows a month. $50 gets me all the standard and HD channels on DirecTV. iTunes is still not at that quality/price point yet.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 10:28 PM
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
This goes back to an earlier discussion where people were talking about the kinds of atheists that are out there. I've run into very few (none) who would describe themselves in the way you describe. And again, proving "a lack" of God is proving a negative, a logical fallacy.
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
Oh please. If you even bothered to read any of the descriptions of those sites you would find the majority of them are faith based to begin with. There is a huge difference pointless discussion for the sake of argument and forums dedicated to learning about how to better implement one's faith, learn about it, pray for each other, etc.
I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of people on the internet who call themselves Christian and are communicating with one another on forums.
If you want to make the value judgement about the quality of their faith, then that's your call.
Personally, I wouldn't go there.
This goes back to an earlier discussion where people were talking about the kinds of atheists that are out there. I've run into very few (none) who would describe themselves in the way you describe. And again, proving "a lack" of God is proving a negative, a logical fallacy.
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
Oh please. If you even bothered to read any of the descriptions of those sites you would find the majority of them are faith based to begin with. There is a huge difference pointless discussion for the sake of argument and forums dedicated to learning about how to better implement one's faith, learn about it, pray for each other, etc.
I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of people on the internet who call themselves Christian and are communicating with one another on forums.
If you want to make the value judgement about the quality of their faith, then that's your call.
Personally, I wouldn't go there.
firestarter
Mar 14, 06:45 PM
Would that be an "unearthly" green choice? As in "glow-in-the-dark"?
Well he seems to think (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm) that the alternative of burning hydrocarbons is quite bad in itself...
the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately, the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1,000 years. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and for civilisation.
I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
Over 80% of Icelandic electricity is from renewables, so they might be forgiven high use of it.
I suspect that the 'electrical energy per capita' figures may include industrial use. Apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iceland) Aluminium smelting is quite a big industry in Iceland - and this is a very heavy user of electricity.
I wonder how somewhere like the UK compares to the US. While the US figures seem much larger than ours, we probably have a much more ubiquitous gas distribution network. Perhaps our burning of gas in the home would be interesting to compare to US AC use?
Well he seems to think (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm) that the alternative of burning hydrocarbons is quite bad in itself...
the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately, the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1,000 years. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and for civilisation.
I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
Over 80% of Icelandic electricity is from renewables, so they might be forgiven high use of it.
I suspect that the 'electrical energy per capita' figures may include industrial use. Apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Iceland) Aluminium smelting is quite a big industry in Iceland - and this is a very heavy user of electricity.
I wonder how somewhere like the UK compares to the US. While the US figures seem much larger than ours, we probably have a much more ubiquitous gas distribution network. Perhaps our burning of gas in the home would be interesting to compare to US AC use?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:17 PM
He wouldn't have to: he wears his dogma on his sleeve.
Even if I'm dogmatic, I'm still distinct from my dogmatism. Being-dogmatic may be a property I have, but I'm not identical with that property.
Even if I'm dogmatic, I'm still distinct from my dogmatism. Being-dogmatic may be a property I have, but I'm not identical with that property.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:38 PM
I've never understood this. Do you really think there are Catholics in Africa who are saying "I really want to have pre-marital sex/sleep with this prostitute/rape this woman, but oh darn, the Pope says condoms are a sin"? Do you not see why that's a little strange?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
dragonsbane
Mar 21, 08:06 AM
My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.
Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.
Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
sunfast
Sep 20, 03:46 AM
If Iger is correct and iTV has a hard drive.. then I beleive iTV could serve as an external iTunes Library server/device. Authorized computers can access and manage it using iTunes (running as a client). iTS downloads, podcasts, imported physical CDs, etc would all be stored on iTV.
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
That would be sweet. I hate having to keep plugging and unplugging an external HDD into my MacBook.
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
That would be sweet. I hate having to keep plugging and unplugging an external HDD into my MacBook.
UnixMac
Oct 8, 04:38 PM
Sadly the lack of a system bus faster than 133/167 and use of leading edge RAM technology is a major downside to Mac hardware. G4 with software optomized for it is still on par with P4, but when Altivec is not in the picture or MultiProcessor awareness, the Mac slips very fart behind. I still have faith that the G5 will make up for this gap.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:58 AM
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
ALL Catholics are called to chastity. 100% of them. It's too bad you don't know what the word means.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
ALL Catholics are called to chastity. 100% of them. It's too bad you don't know what the word means.
Naimfan
Apr 24, 11:25 AM
Well in that case anything could be classed as Christianity. Frankly I find that absurd. What's the point of identifying as a Christian if any interpretation of Christianity is considered OK? You may as well just call yourself a spiritualist as it would be closer to the truth.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
deannnnn
Oct 7, 06:09 PM
Competition is gooooood.
hobo.hopkins
Apr 15, 09:32 AM
I couldn't agree more with this initiative. I'm so glad that a group of employees would be willing to do this on their own time. Bravo!
No comments:
Post a Comment