i had an opportunity to see skyfall in the theater yesterday.
it's almost as good as casino royale, with some parts of it being even better.
the opening sequence was a real thrill, one of the best.
Liked: Chases, fights,Music,Scenes,Emotion
Disliked: Too little back story to bad guy, Tube station, Silly use of hacking (not possible.), Idea that Bond is behind times (surely he is trained in modern tech), Lack of forward planning RE Skyfall (no modern kit - really?)/3 month awol/Field Agent ending.
Overall - excellent , worth seeing, no silly gimmicks, good introduction to new characters. Not a patch on Bourne but heading in the right direction.
i'm playing on this site at the moment - it is pretty good at explaining how we construct perception.
link didn't work on my ipad - did work on my pc.. enjoy!.
http://jvsc.jst.go.jp/find/mindlab/english/base.html.
I'm playing on this site at the moment - it is pretty good at explaining how we construct perception. Link didn't work on my ipad - did work on my pc.
Enjoy!
peace to you!
i wanted to get some thoughts out there on this subject, because there are so many people who look to the bible as the image of god.
to the point that they do not look to christ at all, but rather they look to the law or to moses or to the ot as the image of god... over... christ.
I was spot on about about what your opinions consist of, yes, I know.
do tell
peace to you!
i wanted to get some thoughts out there on this subject, because there are so many people who look to the bible as the image of god.
to the point that they do not look to christ at all, but rather they look to the law or to moses or to the ot as the image of god... over... christ.
..in fact - as a partial nod to the OP , the image of Christ as represented by the believers (those supposedly as one with Christ) is that of a fairground hall of mirrors, distorted, farcical, always different from each angle but all a representation of the original person not some third party.
peace to you!
i wanted to get some thoughts out there on this subject, because there are so many people who look to the bible as the image of god.
to the point that they do not look to christ at all, but rather they look to the law or to moses or to the ot as the image of god... over... christ.
No matter what a believer says or does not say, does or does not do, the conclusion will always be the same.
Spot on.
Until a being called Christ puts in an appearance then he is as likely as Gandalf. The disunity amongst believers is obvious and the small subsets of agreement - raisins amongst the pudding mix - are conspicuous by their specific statements (we believe x - all in favour say aye.) This mini grouping amongst a larger generalised grouping is standard behaviour in all made up organisations, that you don't call your particular band a church is neither here nor there, the JWs don't like the term church either.
Now if all xians believed exactly the same thing then you might have a more compelling argument but for now it is clear that Christ isn't guiding anything OR is a pretty disinterested onlooker and kinda likes a confused mess.
peace to you!
i wanted to get some thoughts out there on this subject, because there are so many people who look to the bible as the image of god.
to the point that they do not look to christ at all, but rather they look to the law or to moses or to the ot as the image of god... over... christ.
EE - I know Thor is a tough god , he has survived many things, I suspect he is happy enough being used as a foil for the weakling Christ. If he is unhappy then may he strike me with a thunderbolt. Otherwise I'll assume he's too drunk partying in Valhalla to notice or finds me amusing enough to keep alive for another day.
:D
peace to you!
i wanted to get some thoughts out there on this subject, because there are so many people who look to the bible as the image of god.
to the point that they do not look to christ at all, but rather they look to the law or to moses or to the ot as the image of god... over... christ.
tec- So you accede that Christ/God's love is conditional - it will carry a record of wrongs unless you repent.
I am pleased to have pinned one concept of God/Christ down - they are not all knowing. This opens up a theological hole you can drive a universe through but that can be a discussion for another day.
I am mildly fascinated how you will spin a flood/mass deaths at armageddon etc as loving but try me.
I'm fairly certain God was in charge of a situation in Eden where he made one sole individual responsible for all death and pain that would follow - this is disgusting (do you really not see why?) and in fact made a situation such that it was impossible for Adam to do anything but partake of the forbidden fruit (I'll explain if you want) . Plus Eden is a made up story - if you are going to reject any of the bible as untrue this really should be exhibit 1. God is utterly responsible for death being introduced by generating the conditions relevant for such a choice to occur. Also the pain and death were applied by God afterwards (i.e. the supposed fruit eating neither killed nor introduced pain , God did that as a curse.)
Tec - claiming you would be different without Christ is not provable any more than someone claiming that Thor has heavily influenced their inner being. I suspect you would , without Christ, simply accept some other faith based meme because you dont like to take responsibility for yourself and you feel a need to be part of a story that revolves around you and doesn't involve you being a conscious cosmic irrelevance. Your claim that love from christ exceeds your natural capabilities is farcical and easily disproven - atheists love (so love is not unique to a supposed Christ) and former believers love equally (and without strings) to their former selves. If your Christ is the fount of love were true then I , as a former believer, would have been able to see a marked and measurable decrease in love. Didn't happen. Myth busted.
peace to you!
i wanted to get some thoughts out there on this subject, because there are so many people who look to the bible as the image of god.
to the point that they do not look to christ at all, but rather they look to the law or to moses or to the ot as the image of god... over... christ.
So Paul made up a definition for Christ, you misapplied it to the word 'love' and now you find yourself stating nonesense?
God definitely carries a record of wrongs (judgement day) , he is definitely jealous (I won't bother with quoting example and scripture for you but have a quick peruse of the ten Cs), I'm more than happy for you to suggest that God/Christ doesn't know all things (and therefore can hope just as humanely as we do), I think Eden/Flood/Sodom/Armageddon show that God is not calm and is quite capable of heineous acts of psychopathic murder when things don't go to plan (I'll gladly take your potential disagreement in the reality of all of the above biblical events), I see no evidence that he protects life (he failed miserably in Eden to protect it and allowed/caused death, his record of healings is miserable, he is responsible for sitting by during all famines, wars, plagues and murders) - so I utterly find his protection of life bad for life, ditto - no evidence of any efforts or effects of Christ or anyone supposedly supernatural anywhere in anything in the world, in fact his 'persevereance' looks exactly the same as Thor's perseverance, Quezocoatl's and Vishnu's.
So I still see no evidence of divine love, I see a bad definition of love (you stretch a 2000 year old Paulian yarn too far to fit your modern day concepts of love) and still I see nothing specific. Without Christ or God's so called love this world would look exactly as it does now.
It is somewhat lacking no?
peace to you!
i wanted to get some thoughts out there on this subject, because there are so many people who look to the bible as the image of god.
to the point that they do not look to christ at all, but rather they look to the law or to moses or to the ot as the image of god... over... christ.
So God is not 'Love' but love is a quality of God - yes? What leads you to specifically assign God the qualities of:
1 - Patience
2 - Non-envy
3 - Non-boasting.
4 - Non-pride.
5 - Selfessness.
6 - Calm temper.
7 - No records of wrongs.
What does he protect, how does he trust, how can an all knowing being hope, in what way does he persevere and what would it look like if he failed?
Why doesn't the dictionary attribute these as qualities of love?
peace to you!
i wanted to get some thoughts out there on this subject, because there are so many people who look to the bible as the image of god.
to the point that they do not look to christ at all, but rather they look to the law or to moses or to the ot as the image of god... over... christ.
God is love
OK - please explain what this actually means. The sentence is absolute drivel.
Try putting 'God is..' in front of these definitions of love:
