truefusion

Disregarding the other unsupported statements you have made, i will nevertheless respond to the following: The Bible is a collection of authoritative books, songs, letters, et cetera; it cannot, therefore, lack other writings. Seeing that you mention the Davinci Code shortly after, it may be safe to assume that this false belief of yours has been inspired by it. The author of the book, Dan Brown, whether in his book or publicly, has stated that the research his work is based on is true. Fictional or not, to make such a statement makes your writing appear true to some extent, though it really isn't. Anyone who has read these other works, such as myself, know that they are merely Gnostic texts and can never represent the truth concerning Christianity. God would never say that, given the Biblical definition of "God's child" and other things. Do you have anything to say other than a straw man for this? I really don't see how women not being allowed to speak in church means hating women. That is a bit far-fetched. But that is some intense words you have been using. Actually, it is not a direct command from God. Rather, it is a tradition that is being passed down from the culture. If you must read Corinthians entirely to know this, then go ahead. I won't, and nothing you have brought up i haven't already heard elsewhere.

Use Opera's Blocked Content feature (Tools > Advanced > Blocked Content). The script is loaded from bumpin.com, just type in a simple regular expression for that site.

I don't bother placing those buttons on my site, even if my site validates 100%. I have run into sites that had them but when validating their site, they failed the test which their site claimed to have passed. Validation isn't a problem for me, and i can have my pages validate very quickly, especially with my CMS. I have my CMS handle the tedious validation work (like declaring the doc-type, et cetera). The only thing i have to worry about then are the rest of the pages.Some web design positions request for those who conform to web standards. Having the buttons doesn't prove that you know how to design for standards. I would rather have my work prove that i am capable. I'm not really sure why i follow standards, but i guess i follow them just to follow them and have another thing to master.

PHP can be ran without using Apache, as PHP isn't limited to just web development. Hearing that Apache crashed due to a PHP script sounds odd to me, though. I cannot think of any better way in achieving what you are trying to do, but you can try running your script through the console (not really sure what operating system you are using). I've had PHP parse several text files that were several megabytes all at once and compress them using PHP's zlib extension and it has never failed to complete the task. flush(), as the manual says, is to send data that hasn't already been sent. It is mostly used in combination with echo and print but not limited to them. flush() would, for example, send data to the browser though the script is still trying to finish its job. This is useful when you want to be informed of some changes before the script ends. However, flush() may not always work as expected.

While i'm not really looking to enter this debate, i mostly will clarify my argument. My argument didn't assume that the sun didn't exist (truthfully, i am still trying to figure out if it pre-existed with the earth or came into existence after, from Genesis 1—scientifically, either case is plausible and allowable, as i really doubt that even science can tell me the exact age of our sun; for predicting the age of the universe does not give away the age of the sun and many other things). My argument is that the sun and moon wasn't issued as a measurement of time until the fourth day of creation. After the fourth day, the length of the "days" mentioned in Genesis 1 is arguable: it can be either 24-hour days or undefined as the first four days. But for the 5th and 6th day i would argue that they are undefined, as the text doesn't provide much, if any, reason to start assuming 24-hour days, as humans didn't even exist until the sixth day. Just 'cause humans are now reading the text doesn't mean we should be assuming 24-hour days for something very far in the past. Regardless, rather than calling others "idiots"—which doesn't help anyone—, just present your reason alone.

Hmm, it would probably be less intrusive if it were on the (bottom) left, i guess, but it is really odd for it existing anyway. In Opera i browse with plug-ins disabled, so that explains why clicking on it just causes the tab to move near the center of the page (and nothing else). If it weren't for the fact that the shoutbox on top and the words "Bob Dylan Ticket" are visible, i would have assumed a new shoutbox was installed. Either way, i have disabled it in Opera.

Topic is resolved.Please PM any moderator to continue this discussion. Until then, this topic is closed.

I'm the kind of person who doesn't like going around asking others for help; i prefer to be independent in this area, doing my own research and study. Seeking help is practically a last resort for me. So, yeah, it may be the case that since i haven't pretended to be an unbeliever to test the competence of another believer, that i have not run into a believer who has responded bluntly. Nevertheless, from what i have observed, whenever i see a believer acting in a way that unbelievers would without hesitation confront them for it, it was because what they were addressing was a statement from an unbeliever that included mockery, sarcasm and other things that could insult anyone. Could you blame us for reacting a bit harsh to unbelievers when we are so used to receiving mockery and other forms of insults from those who are against our faith who have said some of the same things you have said? And don't forget the impression they give off that obviously shows that they believe we are fools. Some unbelievers are so emotional that in attempting to hold back their emotions, that the longer they speak, the harder it is for them to hold their patience. You can hear it in their voice and see it in their face how hard they are trying. It is good that they are trying, though, even if it was for that one instance. But you say "in response to stuff like this." That just makes me wonder about the conversation that went on. But i don't think it is the case that you are worried about others losing faith. For to ask the question "why didn't God care for me when i needed Him the most?" or to bring up other concerns that has lead to your disbelief can have the same effect on others. But don't worry so much about people having their faith tested, especially with me. Believe it or not, i am one seeks out these kind of things; helps me keep "up to date"—though some may call this dangerous. But if people didn't have their faith tested, how could they tell how strong their faith is? Saying "i don't see God in my life" is different than "God doesn't exist," for the former acknowledges God's existence while the other denies it completely. And the verse you are referring to is in the Psalms (Psalm 14:1). Yeah, i can see why that verse would be found to be insulting; however, that is one of the verses i found interest in and tried to figure out why it says such. But i took a different path in my study by disregarding the context temporarily. I have concluded that it is because there is enough evidence out there for His existence, and this fits the context of the verse. This, of course, made me wonder what is their evidence. Reading Paul claim that unbelievers are without excuse since the evidence is within creation itself made me realize what and how i should formulate my arguments for God's existence. So as it stands, God's existence is proven through His works, be it in our own lives, through the lives of others, or the universe itself. I don't say it is God's plan, because i cannot prove it to be so. And unless God told you Himself, then there may be no reason to say so. But a lot of people tend to label things as "evil" when they really aren't. If it hurts, then they may call it evil, but pain itself isn't enough to call something wrong. All i know is that being protected from evil or harm isn't necessarily a promise declared by God. Sure, Proverbs and other Biblical books may mention that you may sleep well at night and have little to nothing to fear, but i feel these verses are misunderstood, for they are not stated as a promise. Rely on what Scripture says, not what people tell you—this is why i prefer to do my own research. A lot of people wonder why there is a lot of evil in the world. But how obvious does it have to be for someone to realize the answer to such a question? It is because people tend to seek evil more than they do good. And when evil is committed, it is always apparent enough to where practically all good is forgotten. And the news doesn't help either; there is not a day that goes by where some evil act isn't broadcasted. People wonder why God doesn't put an end to all evil. As if it were impossible to obtain such an answer from Scripture. I don't believe God cares about how everyone thinks of Him. You can't please everyone, and i wouldn't say that pleasing everyone is of top priority—especially since a lot of people wish for things that they shouldn't be wishing for. Nevertheless, it pleases God to provide for His creation, so long as it is within His will. We know that God gives everyone a chance to repent, but God also doesn't punish someone without them first committing an act worthy of punishment. You don't have to like this method of doing things, but whether or not we like it is irrelevant to His existence. I do not know if the incident about all your children dying happened for real or if it is an example, but i will say this: While you (or whoever) might find this as insulting or something said out of ignorance or whatever, if you believed in God and knew that He existed, then there shouldn't be much to worry about. Yeah, if i lost a loved one it would hurt due to selfish reasons, but even i would be reminded that God exists. There are many reasons why God loves us, but consider the following verse: John 16:27. Not saying that is the only reason why He loves us, but more of that the answer can most certainly be found in the Bible. You didn't lose your faith at the end of those 5 years, you started losing faith at the beginning. It may be the case that it is hard to convince someone out of the faith completely, maybe even more so if they were believers for a long time, but it also depends on why they came to believe in the first place. But i am interested in knowing the exact verses you relied on that told you what exactly was required of you, though i can take a guess concerning the one about "ask, and you will receive." Of course, God isn't just going to fulfill just any prayer. I do not know exactly what you prayed for, but i stating that God has the last say in things doesn't mean that He responded with a "no." When i first became a believer i had prayed for wisdom. Obviously, i wouldn't expect to have obtained wisdom over night, but i did hope that it would come pretty quick. However, i didn't receive something that i would call wisdom until after at least two years from asking. I don't remember asking more than once at that time, but i still ask for more today, though it may be the case that with more wisdom comes more grief. I have asked for other things, too. I cannot say i have received them, let alone deserve to receive them, or that i should receive them. But for many of them, though i didn't request for evil things, i am glad that i have yet to receive many things that i have prayed for. And if i don't ever receive them, it doesn't matter in the end. Just like Paul has managed to be content in everything, i can manage too, for all we have to do is realize what really matters in this life. God comes first, everything else will fall into place.

Yeah it is possible, even if it means looping through the same data twice. I don't practice much things with MySQL, so i can't provide any example source code, but i'm sure you have worked with other languages before, so you should be able to know what i mean by "looping through things twice."

It should show up in the GRUB menu since GRUB searches through each partition looking for specific operating system information. But keep in mind that OpenSuSE or whatever distro you install will overwrite the MBR. I haven't had more than one Linux distro installed on the same system (except through a virtual machine), so i do not know of the conflicts that may come from removing the distro that installed files into the MBR.

I don't get offended, or at least i don't feel any emotion that i would label as being offended. But you should also take note that it could be how these questions were asked. From my experience when listening to and debating with unbelievers, they generally don't ask questions; rather, they assume from the beginning that we are stupid and make statements that show their assumption clearly. Whether it is because of actual Christians or because of atheistic rhetoric from unbelievers is beyond me, but have you ever seen these unbelievers discuss Christianity with Christians who could properly address their concerns? Do you think we would see unbelievers talking down Christians if they sought those who were more qualified? Being reminded of your topic, the one that claims that religious people are unfair, i would request that until your count of how many instances you have come across incompetent Christians surpasses how many fingers you have, to leave out making statements from hasty generalization. For you are again placing every Christian on a level of incompetence. But i should mention that even if we properly address a matter, it does not mean that an unbeliever would accept it and move on. I don't remember how many times i've addressed the same issues that unbelievers have brought up. Sure, a new person to the faith of disbelief, a new instance of the same issue that needs to be addressed, but there seriously cannot be so little sources that have not properly addressed the issue. This is merely an example of what can follow the questions you say unbelievers ask. It is one thing to ask a question, but it is another to follow with statements that any other person would find insulting. If you are going to request for evidence from us, then i request that you do not back down when we request evidence for your statements. Calling things selfish, a dictatorship, et cetera, does not make things easy for anyone, and you should not be surprised by Christians if they react in a way that you find insulting. Don't you find it odd to make statements that can potentially insult someone and after them confronting you for it telling them, "What happened to loving your neighbor?"? Indeed, what happened to it? As for explaining why God loves us, there are many things that don't need explaining, for these things are either obvious or the source of the explanation is obvious. Why does God love us? For someone who claims they used to be a Christian, you are quick at forgetting basic Biblical knowledge. But it is not surprising that you would forget. I have seen the same from other unbelievers, for example from Dan Barker, who claim to have been devout Christians, yet today act like they have forgotten what they knew, or should have known, as a Christian. And if you ever did forget why God loves us, do you really need to go any further than Scripture itself? Why are you asking us when the answer is clear? Why is it no longer clear for you? Have you ever ask yourself this? A lot of questions could be answered by unbelievers themselves, but a lot of them choose to just ask the question and forget that they even asked in the first place. I hope this is not the case with you, and i would have considered it improper for unbelievers to rely on us so much to answer their questions. While many times i have seen them improperly form a conclusion, i am sure they are capable of doing their own research and formulating an objective conclusion. A lot of people do not understand the parable of the mustard seed or what is meant by faith that can move mountains. I will not say that i fully understand it, but there are a few things i understand about it. Why a mustard seed? Have you seen a mustard seed, how small those things are? Do you think people won't be insulted to hear that their faith is no bigger than a mustard seed? You who was quick to lose faith at a time of distress, do you really think your faith was bigger than a mustard seed, something that can move mountains? Do you really believe that your faith was unshakable? Why was it then shaken? You should, however, note that God isn't controlled by your faith; it is He who makes the final decision. But i don't really see how at a time of distress one can claim to have more faith when their faith is shaking. You say "when God is supposed to step in," if He were imaginary, then it could be argued that He can be controlled by our desires and wishes. But to claim that God doesn't exist because He "failed" to do something you wanted Him to do is an appeal to consequences. I do not know why God chooses not to do things (obviously i'm not Him), but i have come to realize that making excuses for God is absurd. And i always find it ironic at how quick people are at forgetting just how blessed they really are. It is unfortunate that it takes harsh times to remind us of it. But i guess it is hard to avoid being spoiled. We are never content with what we have, always wanting more than what we have, and when we don't reach a higher position, we often complain about it. But stop one day, forget about what you are doing and take a look at all that you have. Sure it would be nice to have more, but what is the point of having more sometimes? More often than not we chase after things that need not be chased after and take things for granted. How can one claim that they have it bad when it is obviously not the case for them? But even if some calamity came your way, consider what Job said to his wife, for it should provide you with a lot of insight. I do not understand the "lol" at the end, but i will disregard it so i can continue to assume that you are taking this seriously. As mentioned before, it is foolish to make an excuse for God, and unless you ask God yourself you won't find an acceptable answer. However, why would an unbeliever ask God something if they don't believe in Him? But i would not be surprised if you had come across your answer once before but have forgotten about it. For even one who reads their Bible daily can forget what is written in it. As mentioned before, it is understandable why God would not answer someone if He has already done so in Scripture. Asking need not be limited to prayer. I hope that you are not all talk here but will return to this topic and respond back, and i cannot say that you will have your eyes opened. But i don't refrain from discussing just because i feel i will not open anyone's mind. But how can you receive mercy if you have never done anything bad? To say that you want to see His mercy is the same as admitting that you are a sinner. Therefore it is illogical to complain about being labeled a sinner. But a Christian isn't a Christian because they thought they were a good person.

I was going to make a tutorial (wiki) on how to do that, but i have been caught up on my other projects. I'm not entirely sure how to go about it (since we should start off assuming that the shoutbox is viewed through an iframe), but i was thinking mostly of making a hidden input field that stores the page you are currently viewing. How it is obtained could be through JavaScript, but i am wondering if $_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER'] will also help—if so, JavaScript would not be required for obtaining the current page. Anyway, you would store the URL along side the shout and you just modify the script even further to display shouts based on these URLs. If you do not know how to code in PHP, then i'll think about adding a similar feature built-in for version 4.

Technically, it is always up to us. However, once we allow the media or whatever to modify our standards, things start to change. Whether it is for the better is up to the motivator. But some people may not notice that they have allowed to have their standards changed. Have they lost their ability to control their standards? No, for they can still change them. Realizing that there is more to a person than looks is key. But this touches on the person's personality as well. I'm a person who places intelligence over beauty, or, rather, intelligence in a woman increases their beauty. But there are others who would place physical beauty over the other features. These differences in personalities can be a judging factor as to how easily their standards change. The younger folk are easier to manipulate than the older folk, unless perhaps the older folk have the mind of a child or teenager. What one learns when they are young, they might take it with them as they get older. There is also self-esteem that comes into play. The observer need not be the opposite sex—a third-party—here. If a girl tries out make-up and becomes convinced that she looks better in it, then she will continue putting on make-up unless convinced out of it. Low self-esteem can be easily manipulated through advertisements and friends who also wear make-up (who may have also been manipulated). Yeah, i can only wonder how it was like back in eras like Biblical times. There were such things as perfumes and stuff, though these things involved naturals spices and liquids, but that doesn't concern physical appearance. The physical appearance wasn't necessarily manipulated by things like make-up. The body was more sacred back then; only certain pagans traditions were known to defile the body. When you don't have looks to judge by, you have to judge by other things. Some eastern countries still practice things declared in Scripture. Some people think that covering all of your skin with clothes, or not being able to shave your beards off, is limiting and controlling—a bad thing. However, these things were and are in place to keep temptation and lust in control. With these things in control there is less coveting and it keeps things personal between the spouses. Is it a wonder that more people today are obsessed over looks? When it comes to it, it is all about standards. The goal is to keep the standards high and not let them be easily manipulated, especially from those who will place the dollar before you.

I don't remember doing anything stupid when i was in love and putting love to use—stupidity came for not making use of love. But most of the examples you provide you label as "stupid" because the person who was in love, or who was displaying love, wasn't being selfish in their act (though the guy who didn't want to go the "turkey baster" way was slightly selfish—that is, not caring about how him having AIDS would effect his lover emotionally, et cetera). Love is many things, most certainly unselfish, and at times hard to describe and some people might even mistake it for something else, but if you were to do the same thing while in their position, then it is pointless to speak against it.

This topic is an excellent example of hasty generalization and the by-products that can follow. If we were to request for the topic starter to count all the people mentioned in this topic using their hands, they would not require more than their index finger. From one person the topic starter is quick to say that "religious people," which encompasses everyone who is part of a religion, to say that they are not fair. However, in what way is the topic starter being fair to everyone by saying that religious people are not fair? By mentioning it was a Christian, is that supposed to limit what kind of groups you are speaking against? And in case anyone is wondering: No, i am not trying to provide an excuse for the believer. However, we should analyze the current topic even further to remove all bias from it. The topic starter states that they told the believer "God doesn't exist." But it should be obvious that this is a simplified and watered down version of the actual discussion that occurred. What we can make out from what was posted is that the topic starter was the one that started the discussion with their friend, at least brought up or changed the subject. I do not know the whole details of the conversation, but the topic starter chooses to mostly point out what they didn't like their friend telling them. By giving the example of the mustard seed analogy and speaking about the testing of faith, it implies that the conversation consisted more than just whether or not God exists. Rather, just like it is being done in the topic starter's post, it sounds like there may have been some striking down of Scripture or the core of Christianity within their conversation. It is not uncommon for others to vent to another things that were mentioned in the conversation that they had with another person. What question did you ask us in your post? But i am certain that any question you ask i would have already heard.

What are we questioning here exactly? Whether or not people shave their heads, damage their skin, or tattoo themselves? What you mentioned isn't wholly specific to the Bible. I'd change the topic title, but i am not sure of what the topic is really about. Could you clarify?

It should be fine since they all do their own thing and i wouldn't expect anyone to use multiple frameworks to perform the same task(s). I don't really see how they would come in conflict with each other, unless perhaps they try to access and modify the same data but in their own, specific way.

Your definition for genius can declare literally any one (or thing) as a genius by manipulating your point of comparison. If we are merely assuming that a genius is one that excels higher than another conscious being, then we can easily turn a "normal" person (note, you still have yet to define what a "normal" person is—the implication for it doesn't really show any contrast with a "genius") into a "genius." This process is further simplified by the lack of specifics within the definition. That is, if i pick two "average"-looking people, i can easily declare them both geniuses though they don't excel at the same things.Regardless, i see no difference between your definition of the word and the one you quote from Wikipedia. Therefore i don't think you have achieved the goal of defining things on your own terms. Nevertheless, i wouldn't expect anyone to define a word entirely different than what it is commonly accepted as, for words serve a practical use. This practical use is often assumed during the time of attempting to think of a new definition for it. But due to the fact of how easy it is to manipulate this word, we could probably argue it to be useless anyway.

Leave it to unbelievers to ruin a harmless topic. If you're going to speak against the topic, at least talk about what was mentioned by the topic starter. Likewise have the decency to back up any statements that require evidence (which many were mentioned, though mostly off topic), whether upon request or when writing out your post/response. And as a personal request, when asking rhetorical questions (or simply making general statements), make sure they are at least logically sound.

Element properties, in this case, are controlled by client-side scripting (JavaScript) and not server-side scripting (PHP, Java). I don't necessarily understand what you want, but if i can make it out, if you are using, say, inline frames (iframe), the page in the iframe would just need to use window.parent to access the parent's elements. But if the page is embedded with PHP, then you can access the elements directly without window.parent, with document. You'll need to know a bit of JavaScript to understand what i am saying. I haven't used WooTools, so i can't really help much in that area.

Allow me to show you the fallacy of assuming that aion and aionios always means that something will eventually come to an end. Consider the following verse: Matthew 25:46. Aionios is used for both instances of "eternal." Tell me, therefore, is the life given to us by the sacrifice of Jesus eternal as we understand eternal, or will it eventually come to an end? If the former, then it can be argued that you are appealing to consequences. If the latter, then why the need for the cross, or any form mercy, or any form of salvation?—what difference is there between this life and the second life if they both will come to an end, then? Wouldn't you find it odd that if that life is eternal, that punishment is not, all within the same verse? We all know that having a desire or will does not mean that it'll necessarily be fulfilled. Take the following example: God wishes that all men be saved. Will that happen? Why then does Paul state that certain people will never enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, note the words "do not be deceived"). And why is satan and the fallen angels exempt from receiving temporary punishment? The verse you quote about every knee bowing to Jesus merely concerns a desire; it is not something that will happen, or, rather, it is something that only everyone who accepts Jesus as Lord will do. For what reason would you have to bow your knee to Jesus if it weren't for God exalting him? God's method for giving salvation is not through punishment but through mercy and grace (as emphasized in Romans 11:32). It would be odd to show mercy or grace for corrective punishment, and it would be odd to show mercy or grace after issuing everlasting punishment. But it should be noted that kolasis is not considered as corrective punishment by all lexicons, just like not all lexicons consider the term aion to always mean eternal. Therefore it, again, seems to be the case that context is what picks the proper meaning. Consider the following verse: Matthew 13:42. What does gnashing of teeth and weeping mean? But, more importantly, why weeping and gnashing of teeth and not, say, being reconciled to God? I see gnashing of teeth to have an implication that they'll be cursing God while down there (even more so if they considered themselves a good person in this life), merely securing their place of punishment. Even Revelation shows that harsh punishment will not cause them to repent. It does not end at the end of one's death; rather, it ends at Judgment Day. God will give them what they deserve based on their deeds—you know this, for He will repay everyone according their deeds. Why make the time after their death when He can do similar when they are still alive? The patience you reference concerns the end of times, that God is holding back from issuing Judgment Day, so that people may be saved before Judgment Day. Indeed, why wait for them to repent before Judgment Day when they can just very well repent after Judgment Day? This implies that Judgment Day is a mark where atonement for sins is no longer possible.

Funny you should mention that, as the the real inspiration came from this image: click. If i had a tablet, i could have probably achieved a more realistic ocean, but all the good tablets are expensive, out of my budget. Heh.

I was thinking that too, but considering the only clouds surrounding the sun, in reality the light should be able to penetrate through those clouds anyway. And isn't it interesting that our blue sky makes the sun appear like it is within our atmosphere (i'm speaking about real life here)? The simplest way of doing it is to place down a gradient with the color you want for the ocean and a darker version of that color. Try to make sure the darker color covers most of the "canvas" and that the colors are from top to bottom, dark to light. The rest is merely using the Dodge / Burn tool. For a distance effect, you can use the blur tool. And if the ocean isn't looking smooth enough, you can use the smudge tool to even things out. This is why i said this mostly requires a mind that isn't looking for quick results.

So as i was listening to a certain melody i was drawing this in the GIMP. I was a bit bored and just wanted to make something in the GIMP. Few brushes were used, and since i haven't perfected painting clouds, i used a random cloud image for some of the clouds. This really isn't as difficult to make as one might at first think, you just can't have a mind that seeks quick results. If anyone is interested in the GIMP file, you can download it here.

I have seen this argument before. However, if i am to be convinced that "aion" (and "aionios") should not ever be considered as "everlasting" or something similar, i would require sources (preferably objective) that doesn't, after all it mentions, basically mean, "it depends on context." Likewise, "age-enduring:" am i supposed to assume this means it will come to an end? If it endures the ages, shouldn't it be more logical to assume that it doesn't come to an end? Note that this sonship that we have with God was obtained through Christ (John 1:12). Likewise note in John 1:12 that it is for those who would (did) receive Christ. Receiving here requires a conscious act by the person (as explicitly mentioned by the context): they must willingly accept Christ themselves; it is not something that is given to them regardless of their desires. Yes, Jesus's act can justify all men, but as explicitly mentioned by Romans 5:17 and 5:21, this requires Christ, therefore anyone who does not have Christ will not be justified.