discounteggroll
May 5, 09:33 AM
why not attempt over-the-WiFi updates? friendly relationship between apple & ATT would remain
noservice2001
Aug 2, 09:17 PM
its capable of xp.... are we suprised it has flaws?
v66jack
Mar 21, 01:33 PM
Good to know some Apple execs have a sense of humor. Nice story.
ianogden
Aug 4, 06:10 AM
I wish I lived closer to Apple, to be able to get sneak previews like this, and to be able to report on Apple News. One day I will prevail!
BTW, I cant wait for monday! Does anyone know what time the Keynote will be in Grenwich Mean Time (London). Just so I can log on and keep up with all the action.
Thanks.
BTW, I cant wait for monday! Does anyone know what time the Keynote will be in Grenwich Mean Time (London). Just so I can log on and keep up with all the action.
Thanks.
wordoflife
Apr 1, 11:55 PM
Cool I want a better camera. Should be a nice upgrade from 3mp
Tones2
Mar 21, 01:35 PM
Don't be too thrilled. His wife now might made him sell it for the $1000+ dollars he can get on ebay. :)
Tony
Tony
ironjaw
Oct 15, 08:04 PM
You found $10 on the way back home alone?
Sadly there are no dollars here in the UK. :p
Sadly there are no dollars here in the UK. :p
tigress666
Apr 15, 01:23 AM
Their sells are not on that less but its in those computers wink wink.
Can you rephrase that sentence? I have no clue what you just said (I suspect you meant sales rather than sells... sells = verb, sales = plural noun).
And for some reason it is bugging me and I want to know what you meant, but I really can't parse your grammar there.
Should the first part be "Their sales are not on that much"? and what is in those computers and what has that got to do with their sales not being on that much?
As I said, I'm really completely confused by that sentence.
Can you rephrase that sentence? I have no clue what you just said (I suspect you meant sales rather than sells... sells = verb, sales = plural noun).
And for some reason it is bugging me and I want to know what you meant, but I really can't parse your grammar there.
Should the first part be "Their sales are not on that much"? and what is in those computers and what has that got to do with their sales not being on that much?
As I said, I'm really completely confused by that sentence.
ilovethisgame
Mar 28, 08:07 PM
Retail stores are free to do what they want as long as they don't advertise under the Apple MSRP. Don't like it? Don't buy....
Apple also doesn't have to sell their products in every store. I am sure Apple could say that they couldn't do that if they want to continue selling the iPad 2. I'd be very surprised if Apple knew about this and allowed it.
My guess is that since managers are pressuring the sales staff to sell the add-ons so hard, that they are just saying its required.
Apple also doesn't have to sell their products in every store. I am sure Apple could say that they couldn't do that if they want to continue selling the iPad 2. I'd be very surprised if Apple knew about this and allowed it.
My guess is that since managers are pressuring the sales staff to sell the add-ons so hard, that they are just saying its required.
skunk
Apr 27, 04:53 PM
They are, and we have relatively little gun crime.
pc-proud
Apr 3, 11:38 AM
jeez, 8 whole mega pixels??? Wow fruit, welcome to you sure are being generous here. My android phone has 8mp and it came a full year ago... The pictures it takes are pretty sweet compared to my friends i(paidtomuch)phone4. I'm not trying to bash anyone but I see a lot of fruit boys on here saying they are OK with whatever fruity says. Ya'll really need to revolt or something because that's not right. I guess once the specs are finalized, we will see a 10+ mega pixel camera on either android or windows phone? I have no idea..
I will suggest that perhaps a physical side camera button like the Windows phone has for taking pictures would great because with a touchscreen it is hard to tell if you took a picture in a noisy environment when you can hear the click.
That is all.
PCP
I will suggest that perhaps a physical side camera button like the Windows phone has for taking pictures would great because with a touchscreen it is hard to tell if you took a picture in a noisy environment when you can hear the click.
That is all.
PCP
Mac'nCheese
Mar 28, 09:35 PM
how are they in business? who ever shops radio shack?
I stopped in one during the summer for a car power plug for the iphone as i was traveling. they had only 1 generic one for almost $40! I walked to kmart next door and chose out of 3 kinds and bought a car and home plug charger for $20.
I do. Bought a sd card two weeks ago and headphones this past Sunday. Only one in the store both times so...
I stopped in one during the summer for a car power plug for the iphone as i was traveling. they had only 1 generic one for almost $40! I walked to kmart next door and chose out of 3 kinds and bought a car and home plug charger for $20.
I do. Bought a sd card two weeks ago and headphones this past Sunday. Only one in the store both times so...
MacinDoc
Sep 5, 12:04 AM
The thing that's frustrated me with Apple is the long wait for even minor product updates. The Merom update across the line should be a no brainer especially since the chip is more efficient and is easy to implement. Almost every other manufacturer announced Merom laptops already. Knowing Apple though, they'll just drag it out without mercy and only do the Merom updates in January for Macworld. In the meantime, we'll all be wondering if perhaps next week would be the right time to buy a new notebook because of some hot new rumor. Very frustrating. Now that Apple has switched to Intel, why not do chip updates without the fanfare that accompanied the minor PowerPC updates? :rolleyes:
What long wait? Merom was just introduced last week, and nobody is shipping computers with Merom yet. Apple is moving away from just doing product refreshes at MWSF. In order to maximize media exposure, Apple has recently been upgrading a few products at a time (usually 2-3), but avoids introducing something on the same day as another manufacturer.
Apple will introduce Merom-based products this month, you can count on it.
After all, when was the last time AppleInsider and ThinkSecret agreed on anything? ;)
What long wait? Merom was just introduced last week, and nobody is shipping computers with Merom yet. Apple is moving away from just doing product refreshes at MWSF. In order to maximize media exposure, Apple has recently been upgrading a few products at a time (usually 2-3), but avoids introducing something on the same day as another manufacturer.
Apple will introduce Merom-based products this month, you can count on it.
After all, when was the last time AppleInsider and ThinkSecret agreed on anything? ;)
Secruoser
Mar 30, 01:18 AM
Hopefully when the day arrives that Jobs moves on, integrity, ethics and truth will be allowed back into the organization.
Integrity, ethics and truth will never happen in a competitive social system that is based on money and profit unless the company wants to go bankrupt. That's what PR is for: telling lies in the most acceptable way to the public. Still lies.
Integrity, ethics and truth will never happen in a competitive social system that is based on money and profit unless the company wants to go bankrupt. That's what PR is for: telling lies in the most acceptable way to the public. Still lies.
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. :)
susannahyork
Sep 12, 02:24 PM
I too think that the colors are ugly... there should always be a white ipod at every level.
Mike Tyson to visit UK in
Mike Tyson
losing it to Mike Tyson.
Reacent Post
cootersgarage6
Mar 18, 09:06 PM
You guys are missing a huge point. A couple actually. There not going to take away the high storage and only leave people with a 64GB option, because people would buy the 120GB Zune. Have you ever though that they are going to release a huge 10 year anaversery or something? Also, so what? It's been 2 years since an upgrade. Why freak out? It's a classic, it doesn't need to do anything more. Also, the Zune HD and other Zunes haven't been updated in over 3 years,,, many products just don't need them right now.
jimN
Nov 8, 07:49 AM
You got that right. lol
However, due to the almost lack of changes in the MBP, why would the MB get any serious changes other than processor and memory bumps?
I'm not complaining. Truth be told I'd be happy with the GMA but then i'm not in the market for a new comkputer at the minute (as much as i'd love to buy one).
Looks like a slight price drop in the UK - black macbook for under 1000. Bet they shift a lot of units.
However, due to the almost lack of changes in the MBP, why would the MB get any serious changes other than processor and memory bumps?
I'm not complaining. Truth be told I'd be happy with the GMA but then i'm not in the market for a new comkputer at the minute (as much as i'd love to buy one).
Looks like a slight price drop in the UK - black macbook for under 1000. Bet they shift a lot of units.
Treq
Nov 3, 02:54 PM
...while Firefox and Camino stay at less than 49%.
On a full sized computer? That's horrible. Adobe has to get their act together and make flash more efficient before they can be allowed on the iphone. :rolleyes:
On a full sized computer? That's horrible. Adobe has to get their act together and make flash more efficient before they can be allowed on the iphone. :rolleyes:
Juggler9000
Jan 11, 05:05 PM
"2008. There's something in the air."
It's fun wondering about what it might be. Hope the secret is something we all find delightful.
That's the most wishful thinking sentence I'm read on MacRumors in a long time. There's always someone who didn't get what they wanted, whether it is too expensive, too big, too small, too underpowered, too aluminum, or too much not like the PowerBook G5. Within 5 minutes of every announcement, the excitement and happiness is drowned out by the disappointed whines...
It's fun wondering about what it might be. Hope the secret is something we all find delightful.
That's the most wishful thinking sentence I'm read on MacRumors in a long time. There's always someone who didn't get what they wanted, whether it is too expensive, too big, too small, too underpowered, too aluminum, or too much not like the PowerBook G5. Within 5 minutes of every announcement, the excitement and happiness is drowned out by the disappointed whines...
mscriv
Apr 7, 04:21 PM
Where does this guidance come from? Who says the Bible must be interpreted in that way? It seems in a book as complex as the Bible there must be 100s of ways to view it.
I'm not suggesting the Bible is bad, nor am I suggesting it is good. I'm saying that the Bible is neutral- it can be interpreted in a way that leads to kindness and charity or in a way that leads to hatred and intolerance.
I don't know statistics on this, but I'm very confident that the majority of Christians are "good" people. However, there are some "bad" ones as well. The Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind! Whilst the WBC holds a despicable view, who is to say their interpretation is less well founded?
iStudentUK, I understand what you are saying and agree with some of it. People do tend to develop their own worldview and then pick and choose external sources (religion, social groups, philosophies, etc.) to support the view they have already decided upon.
However, I can't agree that the Bible is "neutral" or relative in that it can correctly be interpreted in any way someone chooses. The Bible is clear in it's express purpose as God's revelation of himself to mankind. The Bible is judged and interpreted against itself using the literary and textual tools of interpretation that we have available to us.
Like all communication it can only be correctly interpreted in light of the intended meaning of it's original author. This is where faith comes into the process. Followers of Christ hold to the belief that it is God's inspired and inerrant word. The living God is it's author and he inspired men to write within their own historical and literary context to specific audiences at a specific time. All of these contexts become clues that help guide us to His intended meaning.
Is it complex and hard to understand, sure, but it's theme is consistent and without contradiction. That's why I can easily say that Westboro Baptist's Church's interpretation and resulting actions are not biblicaly grounded. God's word calls us to "love one another" and to be servant leaders in bearing one another's burdens. Westboro seeks to judge, spread hate, and cause dissension. Sure they quote scripture and hide behind an illusion of faith, but they take verses out of context and aren't living out God's commands. They remind me of the Pharisees in scripture towards whom Jesus was extremely harsh because of their duplicitous nature.
I know this is hard to grasp. One way I try to simplify it for people is to say that any given portion of scripture has one correct interpretation, but various forms of application. This is why you hear people of faith say it is God's living word. I can read a portion of scripture today and it will impact me in one way. When I reread that section later next month, next year, etc. it might impact me in an entirely different way based on how I apply it to my life at the time. The underlying truth and the intended meaning have not changed, but how I've applied it to my present circumstances has.
As I said before, it's nothing personal, and I didn't think that you believed the Bible was evil. But, the misconceptions you present are common to many and the thought that Scripture is neutral or relative is not only incorrect, but more dangerous as it opens the door wide to allow for further incorrect interpretation and prooftexting.
I'd also have to disagree with the notion that people are inherently good, but we can save that discussion for another time.
I'm not suggesting the Bible is bad, nor am I suggesting it is good. I'm saying that the Bible is neutral- it can be interpreted in a way that leads to kindness and charity or in a way that leads to hatred and intolerance.
I don't know statistics on this, but I'm very confident that the majority of Christians are "good" people. However, there are some "bad" ones as well. The Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind! Whilst the WBC holds a despicable view, who is to say their interpretation is less well founded?
iStudentUK, I understand what you are saying and agree with some of it. People do tend to develop their own worldview and then pick and choose external sources (religion, social groups, philosophies, etc.) to support the view they have already decided upon.
However, I can't agree that the Bible is "neutral" or relative in that it can correctly be interpreted in any way someone chooses. The Bible is clear in it's express purpose as God's revelation of himself to mankind. The Bible is judged and interpreted against itself using the literary and textual tools of interpretation that we have available to us.
Like all communication it can only be correctly interpreted in light of the intended meaning of it's original author. This is where faith comes into the process. Followers of Christ hold to the belief that it is God's inspired and inerrant word. The living God is it's author and he inspired men to write within their own historical and literary context to specific audiences at a specific time. All of these contexts become clues that help guide us to His intended meaning.
Is it complex and hard to understand, sure, but it's theme is consistent and without contradiction. That's why I can easily say that Westboro Baptist's Church's interpretation and resulting actions are not biblicaly grounded. God's word calls us to "love one another" and to be servant leaders in bearing one another's burdens. Westboro seeks to judge, spread hate, and cause dissension. Sure they quote scripture and hide behind an illusion of faith, but they take verses out of context and aren't living out God's commands. They remind me of the Pharisees in scripture towards whom Jesus was extremely harsh because of their duplicitous nature.
I know this is hard to grasp. One way I try to simplify it for people is to say that any given portion of scripture has one correct interpretation, but various forms of application. This is why you hear people of faith say it is God's living word. I can read a portion of scripture today and it will impact me in one way. When I reread that section later next month, next year, etc. it might impact me in an entirely different way based on how I apply it to my life at the time. The underlying truth and the intended meaning have not changed, but how I've applied it to my present circumstances has.
As I said before, it's nothing personal, and I didn't think that you believed the Bible was evil. But, the misconceptions you present are common to many and the thought that Scripture is neutral or relative is not only incorrect, but more dangerous as it opens the door wide to allow for further incorrect interpretation and prooftexting.
I'd also have to disagree with the notion that people are inherently good, but we can save that discussion for another time.
jdylan
Mar 13, 09:12 AM
Is this an external drive in an enclosure..?
Yes, here's the link.
http://www.wdc.com/en/PRODUCTS/Products.asp?DriveID=781
Yes, here's the link.
http://www.wdc.com/en/PRODUCTS/Products.asp?DriveID=781
epitaphic
Sep 12, 04:37 PM
... it's right there on the bottom right
lol! I searched forever for it!
*walks away embarrassed as hell* :o
lol! I searched forever for it!
*walks away embarrassed as hell* :o
likemyorbs
Mar 29, 07:00 AM
Haven't heard much from Obama about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS lately ...
I think Jobs is having some health issues right now. But seriously, would you like him to pull them out of his ass? Isn't job creation something that's supposed to happen naturally in the private sector? I really don't see what the president can do to change it. As for Libya, Obama is not out of line, anyone would have done the same thing. At first he was criticized for dragging his feet on it, then he was criticized for doing it. he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. This guy can never catch a break.
I think Jobs is having some health issues right now. But seriously, would you like him to pull them out of his ass? Isn't job creation something that's supposed to happen naturally in the private sector? I really don't see what the president can do to change it. As for Libya, Obama is not out of line, anyone would have done the same thing. At first he was criticized for dragging his feet on it, then he was criticized for doing it. he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. This guy can never catch a break.
0 comments:
Post a Comment