|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:33 am
*is back from dinner*
Since we're on the subject of OSs I must say I don't usaully notice the difference. I'm not someone that knows huge amuonts about the inner workings of a computer, but I like that VISTA seems to do alot of things which I like. Like how it dowloads drivers automatically and such. I once put in this webcam of mine and I didn't even have to install it. VISTA found the right stuff for the webcam so I could work it straight away with MSN and stuff wothout needed to instill its software which is full of stuff I dont need nor want. But I have noticed that it is rather power hungry, I mean I was given VISTA (had XP MCE before) when I upgraded my RAM to 2GB fomr 512MB and certain things such as video playback suffered a little. I had to turn off alot of the things that make vista look all shiny like the transparency menus and stuff.
And also since getting VISTA my DVD drive hasn't been working properlyl and acting all glitchy (my friend also reformetted omcputer at the time) he says its because VISTA has all these protocols and stuff for the drive and thats why it acts retarded. He intends to fix it sometime soon. but yeah, other than looking shinier and and instant driver getting to me it outways the bad, but I dont use my compy for much other than internet. I haven't working out how to use adobe premier yet so I haven't done any decent video editing yet on it.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:42 am
Alack, sir, brainwashing of this nature has a hard time affecting people who choose to continue questioning, or people who merely think. *purrs*
Vista has its problems, but I've never had too many problems with my DVD drive. I can understand video performance though, but it's better to just turn off transparency than to fully turn off Aero; the computer will actually run faster using Aero than Classic because the drawing of the screen is moved from the processor to the graphics card. Much of Vista's problems, I believe, is a hardware driver one.
I guess thankfully for me 64-bit Vista requires that drivers be verified by Microsoft, meaning that the drivers are MS guaranteed to work with their OS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:43 am
Sentama Lin Alack, sir, brainwashing of this nature has a hard time affecting people who choose to continue questioning, or people who merely think. *purrs* *raises eyebrow* That is all, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:47 am
The computer does want I want it to do most of the time, and yeah basically all I did was turn of Transparency and a couple of the *slide action* animations which you dont really notice anyway.
And Linny waht have you been up to? Did you ahve a think about the PM I sent you? Have you decided to do the Master Cleanse anyway? Either way, how are things going?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:50 am
Paul, surely you agree that "blind faith" alone isn't enough to understand G_d. Even the Catholic Church regards unquestioning belief of the Church on Earth to be heresy. After all, we're human, ergo the human church has it's imperfections by design. However, the true church of G_d is perfect. That said, my comment was lacking a bit of tact.
I had to postpone doing it, Lazzie. With me back home and having to walk around to do errands and take care of my sisters, I can't live off the sedentary calories provided by the diet alone (approximately 1,200 Calories/Kilocalories). So, I'll do it when I get my stuff done here and get back to the city.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:56 am
Fair enough. Seems like the best thing to do 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:01 am
Blind faith is better than a lack of faith entirely, Linny since it is a place to start. It's when people become obstinate and refuse to reflect upon the truth that it becomes a problem. I'd like some Omni-esque backing on that second statement, although I believe at the core you're correct. And I should like to correct you on one thing - humans in the Church may err, but the Church does not, because it is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Lastly, you seem to be missing a few "O"s. cool
Sigh. We need better catechesis. sweatdrop I do not mean for you but for the Church in general. People who don't know their faith lose it. Which in essence, I suppose, it why blind faith is really so harmful. Even if people say they have faith but follow blindly they have already lost the most important thing they have in faith and really have no faith at all. It's probably why there can be Christians who really do not act very Christian. sweatdrop
Ai. Sorry for the theologizing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:03 am
...Dipping my toe in the controversial... While I still consider myself spiritual, Paul, I'm not currently affiliated with a church because I got tired of "love one another, UNLESS...". But, alas, I must to bed, as work is finding me in the morning.
On a side note, while the sabbath is to be kept holy, isn't it somewhat ironic that holy men usually find that the day of most work. smile
G'night! biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:05 am
Goodnight, aretoo! I'd love to take you up on that line someday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:09 am
Ohoho... You are correct. The Church as a whole is infallible, yes. But the humans in the Church can be infallible. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding of terms. The Church of G_d, I suppose, is better described as the Eternal Church. I usually say the Church on Earth as the group run by humans. But even then, it's not a very good term. Linguistics and Logistics aside, though, I don't feel that our thoughts differ at all about the infallibility of G_d.
As for faith, I feel that's a different discussion, as, in personal experience. Faith is hard, even for me, to pinpoint. I have faith in G_d. My atheist friends do not believe in G_d. However, my friends and I have the same ethical and moral viewpoint. But perhaps I'm missing the argument completely, and misunderstood what you said as "a lack of faith implies a lack of morals and ethics." Then again, I'm of the opinion that, even if one chooses to not believe in G_d's existence, G_d can still work and use that person.
And, Pauly, I love theological discussions as long as the entire party is okay with it, and as long as it stays civil. Besides, I'm a heretic anyways (depending on interpretation). Unfortunately, I'm also in aretoo's group too. Christian I am, yes. But I don't like a formal affiliation with a kind of church...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:27 am
Goodnight aretoo ^.^
Hmm... Religion. Touchy subject. I myself just can't believe in God. I reckon it's just cause I can't see it as very likely. I mean, it could be possible. I jsut find it highly unlikely. I believe in what most churches do in the sense of bringing people together and how they ahve charities and help people in need I think that's great, and I have complete respect for people who belive in God. I sometimes wish I could believe in him but I just can't.
I believe in waht I like to call the powers that be. I jsut believe there is some kind of force out there. Not an actualy sentient entity such as god. Something more like mother nature or something as simple as the wind is a force but on a much grander scale.
I believe it is quite possible a man called Jesus did exist 2000 years ago but I don't believe he would have been the son of god. What I say next might offend some people but my theory is that maybe Jesus was something of a magician. In todays society there are many people who can do thinks we weren't thaught possible. Take a look at Chris Angel for example. We know what he is doing is all and Illusion but say someone like that existed 2000 years ago. I think I'd be willing to believe he was the son of god also. (*slaps self for realising he just comapred Jesus to Chris Angel* >.<).
So yeah. Thats a gist of my thoughts on the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:35 am
Ah, if you are to be plain, then I shall as well. The Roman Catholic Church is infallible in it's teachings about faith an morals because it will be protected by the Holy Spirit from error. As the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is infallible. Also the Pope in conjunction with the Bishops in a general council. And it's got some pretty strict restrictions on what is infallible as given by the Pope, since the very core truth of the Church must not (and cannot, by the working of the Holy Spirit) fall into error. Other churches are not infallible, because they have thrown away some core truth of the Catholic faith.
Faith is simple. It is believing what God has revealed through His One True Church and through His Holy Bible - those things which cannot be measured by a natural science. It is believing what we are told is the truth although there is no quantifiable or easily quantifiable data as to it's truth. 1+1=2, because it is mathematically sound. An elephant weighs so much, it can be put on a scale. These things are easily quantifiable. The truth of God and Salvation through Jesus Christ His Onlybegotten Son are rather difficult to quantify, if it is even possible at all.
"Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (CCC 2089). To be clear. The only thing one needs to be a Christian needs is a deep and abiding love and faith in Jesus Christ, True God and True Man. The rest will flow from there.
@Laz: Christ Jesus preached nothing for himself. He died an excruciating death in the most humiliating manner possible. Secondly, what religion, completely centered around one single person has outlasted that person? Even the Roman Empire didn't last 2000 years. The Church which Jesus founded did.
Although, I suppose the Church won't outlast Jesus. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:42 am
Heh... I guess I'm a bad person then according to that. Even I can't imagine the Pope and higher clergy to be free from the imperfections that come from being man. I always do my best to search for the true truth, hence why, whenever I can, I do my best to question even the mother church. I guess I am bad, but sometimes I wonder if that feeling of negativity should even matter.
As for faith, yes. I believe in your definition. I guess that was another place my wires crossed; I assumed you meant a general kind of faith -- that is belief in something (not necessarily G_d) that cannot be proven; without proof, still accept it as truth in one's own life.
Paulywaulydoodle, I doubt the church of man will totally outlast the eternal church of G_d. After all, eventually, in the Christian thought, all souls will someday celebrate in the eternal church (the place, not the thought, for people can argue that the ones who are faithful and do their best to do as G_d wants them to, guided by the holy spirit, are already following the precepts of the eternal church).
Edit: Alack, I must sleep. Good night, all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:11 am
We believe what we want to believe. There are so many religions and they can't all if any be correct. Some go to say that all religions are the same just with a different name and customs. ie all have the same god and its just interpruted differently. I myself just find it too unblievable.
EDIT: Goodnihgt Linny ^.^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:16 am
The Pope and Bishops are only free from error when speaking about faith and morals for the entire Roman Catholic Church. "Ex cathedra" means "from the chair" or thereabouts (as I'm sure you could read. :3) in reference to the Chair of Peter, the first Pope. They are not themselves free from error or the punisments due to sin - not 'impeccable', something reserved for God (and thus Christ) and Mary, the Mother of God alone. Also, this is not to say that everything to Pope says is infallible. Only that which is by him declared to be infallible, and meeting the conditions of infallibility is infallible.
Also, faith is a gift given by God alone. We cannot have faith of our purely human faculties. The same with hope and charity, i.e. divine love.
Time will end, and so will the Church Militant. The Church Triumphant will live forever with God in heaven. Also to this, "On May 7, 2001, Pope John Paul II told 2,000 youth gathered at the Greek-Melkite Cathedral of Damascus that 'you cannot be a Christian if you reject the Church founded on Jesus Christ.'"
"Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews." (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]), St. Clement of Alexandria
"If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death" (Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]), Origen
"The apostle Paul said, ‘As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics" (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]), St. Augustine
"[J]ust as baptism is of no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in deeds, so it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or schism; but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to receive profit from that which before was not profitable, but was yet already in him" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:4[6] [A.D. 400]), St. Augustine
"Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (ibid., 141:5), St. Augustine
@Laz: If there is only one truth, to have differing view would mean something it untruthful. Only the Catholic Church has the Truth in Jesus Christ. I would say there is some truth in all religions and a pious man is still a pious man. Yet, what of the fearmonger and the warmonger, as told to do so by their religion? Or the one who would throw virginal maidens into a pit of fire to sate some unknown idol? These latter are certainly not the same as Jesus Christ who was kind and compassionate to all, even in scolding the wicked.
EDIT: And this is too long to end with. Goodnight, Lin, I'll be following you shortly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
