Jonny_NZ

Well, yep, as long as we want to be able to buy lots of really cheap things, we'll have to buy Chinese made. On the other hand, my parents - both in their mid-sixties - still have quality cutlery, pots and pans that were wedding presents 40 years ago. But things used to be a lot more expensive, and let's face it, quality still is. A good German kitchen knife costs a lot, as do good pots. Quality shoes cost (though some in Asia are making good ones now too, often under license). I've recently seen technology factories here in the Philippines closing down as the companies - including Intel - moved their manufacturing to China to cut costs. This outsourcing thing affects people everywhere. Chinese manufacturers will likely raise their standards, as did Japan, Taiwan, and Korea before them, but this will also affect the cost at which we can buy things - they'll get more expensive as the Chinese get richer and have to pay their peasants more. I buy things made in my own country when I can, and also when I can afford to. I do this not because I don't like other countries, but because I worry about the economic future of my own. We continually run a trade deficit - more money is leaving our country than is coming into it. However, the fact is that economic prosperity really lies in innovation, as it always has. It's encouraging for the USA that despite outsourcing a lot of manufacturing you have a huge amount of people and money involved in R&D - IBM is closely linked with its university, places like Intellectual Ventures generate hundreds of ideas, and economists like Paul Romer have been preaching for years the need for innovation to drive growth. It's worrying that my own country is not as strong in such areas - we still rely on agriculture and tourism.

Here's a pretty cool lecture given by Anglican Bishop NT Wright, called 'How can the Bible be authoritative?' http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm I really enjoy his writing and the depth of thought and research he puts into it.

But it's certainly a big industry offering guesses at the time and nature of events.

Sure you're not possibly getting things around the wrong way there by accident? God gives us the ability to create music, something that is really beautiful. However, he didn't limit this gift solely to Christians - hence secular music will share musical characteristics with Christian music just as much as the other way round. Again, I'm particularly curious regarding your comment in that area - "Again, it's not just about the lyrics." Is it the musical style - like the resemblance between sacred Baroque and Vivaldi's secular works?

I don't know why anyone would use as a reason for viewing Christian metal negatively the fact that it bears musically stylistic resemblance to non-Christian metal. After all, that has been the case with Christian vs Secular music for centuries. If anything, I think we should be seeking Christian excellence in the arts just as churches in the past fostered musical - not to mention educational - excellence. Just as I'll listen to a CD of Academy of St Martin in the Fields orchestra and choir, I'll also happily listen to Christian rock or metal (though it's not so much part of my tastes in recent times). We shouldn't forget that Christians have been musically excellent through the last few centuries. We'd be without Handel's Messiah oratorio if we insisted our music should have nothing in common with secular music. Just as an aside, Bachelor of Music here, btw. Hence my references to the history of music...

I was raised by parents who met in theological college, and my siblings and I were steeped in the Bible from a young age. I personally find deep study of the Bible and Biblical history to be quite exciting. But one thing I am seeing is that we concentrate a lot on speaking a message, while sometimes not spending enough time representing Christ to others. The problem is, many in the world see us as the first to yell but the last to help, the last to care. Hence why some like to quote the (unconfirmed on my part) Ghandi statement, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians". On the other hand, both Jesus Christ and the Apostles give us great examples of people reaching out in love first, with words often being the second part of the action. The love enacted gives the context for the message. Wasn't it in Acts where Paul talks about going to Jerusalem to meet the Apostles...when they discussed his preaching, he said "The only thing they asked was that I remember the poor, the very thing I am eager to do". We've had years of Church becoming almost a self-help place, where you can find your way to a happier life and Heaven in the next life...but we have all these problems too. On the other hand, I love the fact that many of the first on the scene to lend a hand to Katrina victims came from Churches in La and other places nearby! What better context to be Christ to the world than for those who are in the most dire straits? And what better place to find Jesus than in the poor, visiting those in prison, etc..."Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me," Jesus said. I have heard from too many people who associate Christians with loud messages, hypocrisy, and a lack of compassion. This is not a just indictment on all Christians, but perhaps it can drive us to be ones who embody Christ to the world, and have that context for our spoken message...

I find that to be a very offensive and judgemental remark. You and I obviously have a very different idea of what is involved with dating. There's actually NO chance I am going to catch an STD from either visiting a dating site or even dating someone I meet there. The only time there would be any possibility of that for me would be in a marriage and if I was marrying someone, however or wherever I had met them, I would have spent considerable time dating/courting to be as certain as one can ever be of the authenticity of the person I was marrying. You ever heard of rape? Not really. ----------------------------------------- Let me say something here. I'm not against dating......I'm not even against dating services. But christian dating services.....I see nothing christian about it. They're no different then regular dating services. Anyone who thinks that the only people who visit these sites are christians is very naive. ....because? These sort of statements work best when followed up with reasoned rationale. (Apart from the last statement, I think everyone knows that there's a chance of non-Christians being there...quite like a lot of Christian youth groups really.)

To be honest, this was what I meant in saying that these things are no longer the sole domain of losers and habitual raincoat workers. The people I've known who have used dating sites are not lacking in social skills at all. Some are extroverted hard-working professionals, using the site to save time in meeting sincere people, outside the typical scenes.

Get your parents to arrange it?

Well...it's not like humans are a part of nature now are they? Personally, I don't see the idea catching on. Give them a few years and they'll be throwing paint at fur wearers instead.

I probably wouldn't mention this to them too early on in the getting to know process But generally, no, they don't have a problem looking me in the eye. Some of them even take the time to tell me I have nice eyes. I have long eye-lashes, longer than most girls, and sometimes they get a little remark of envy. Sorry if I'm not contributing in the way you'd find most helpful hehe ...

I see nothing wrong with dating sites, in general. As Hellbunny pointed out, the same things that Man ascribed to dating sites are not peculiar to dating sites, but rather, to dating in general (and I'd suggest this can be extended to wider male-female interaction - perhaps we should put a stop to all of it). In fact, one could probably say all - definitely most, if not all - those things have transpired inside evangelical Christian church culture, as sad as that is. I know several great Christian couples who met through dating sites. I think we have to allow for elements of cultural shift over time. The fact is, a few years ago, internet connections for relationships were really regarded as the stuff of losers and habitual raincoat-wearers. Nowadays it is much more widely used, especially if you take into account dating connections made through more broadly social sites such as MySpace, Facebook et al. Of course, just as in offline life, there are abusers and freaks. But there are also many genuine people. In the world of snail-mail, I also know a wonderful family, the mother and father of which first got to know each other as international pen-pals. So yeah...in general? Just a new way people network and meet others. Just in this specific case, Christians have been duped by pornographers.

I have close ties to hummus, but that's something much more delicious.

I hate to think what they'll say if Obama isn't elected.

There is certainly a lot of work that's been done in this area. This is an interesting discussion on the topic: http://www.thepaulpage.com/Conversation.html This is quite nice too: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Justifi...lical_Basis.pdf As are more than a few of the pages at www.ntwrightpage.com

I found The Mist to be a terribly sinful movie! Its sin? Boring me to tears Haha...I'm sorry...but that was the main problem for me. I think the what may have worked quite well in the novella - character development - was abysmal in the movie. I felt I'd seen cardboard cutouts with greater depth than the characters in the movie, and it made me feel like I was watching recycled Steven King material from other sources. I was very disappointed. The woman? Yes, I think she was badly stereotyped, though at least the message that she was the town nutter was delivered, if much less clearly than the casting of her as a "fundamentalist" (which I'd guess more than a few Massachusetts / California based viewers took from the movie). But yes, the building of character tension, the accelerating deterioration of relationships and reality inside the store, I didn't think worked well at all. And this is coming from someone who very much enjoyed novellas such as The Long Walk and others (written under the Bachman pseudonym) for their relationship and character writing. Things also felt telegraphed in The Mist, to the extent that I was expecting the ending. Hope I don't sound like a pretentious movie snob, as I really am not. I was simply greatly disappointed, from start to finish.

The resurrection is an integral part of Christianity, and although it has been highly scrutinized and mocked by the intellectual community it remains the foundation, without the resurrection there is no hope, but if you look only at the visible evidence you will have little to build upon, not only was the event close to two thousand years ago, add to that the sacking of Jerusalem. So it is unlikley that any physicial evidence would have survived, and since the resurrection is found woven throughout scripture, and was apart of the early church, as can be found in the gospels and epistles. The epistles were instructions and exhortations to the earliest foundings of the church. There are other historical writings about Jesus, some from the Jews and Romans, among other surrounding regions, and some writtings which were rejected by the early church are the books of the apocrophy, which were not considered inspired by God. Getting back to the question of what did the Jews hope for? The answer to that is they awaited the coming of Messiah, as many of there decendents do today, the early christians believed that Jesus the Messiah had come and died and was ressurreced fulfilling prophetic writtings found in scripture, what did they,(Christians) hope for? Answer: Ressurection, and the return of Christ, as they have up to the present day. An example of Resurection can be found in Matt 22:23-33 the greek word (Phonetic spelling) “anastasis” (strongs ref # 386) from 450 a standing up again, a resurrection from death (individual)... it is interresting that a word with a similar root word appears in the same verse, which refers to raising up children, Matt 22:23 the word for: “shall raise up” is the Greek word “anastesei”, if you use the word “raise up” there are many applications where the meaning is rightly determined by its context, such as he “Raised the Glass” or “Raised the “Dead Girl Up” and said give her some food to eat. Context determines the meaning more than just the defination of the word. 23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. The bible claims to be the inspired word of God, and those who believe this to be true Interpret inspire to mean breathed, just as if God spoke and wrote the bible Himself. This is where faith enters in, if you can't trust the whole bible than how will you know which part to believe? If you believe that God created the universe and all living creatures, why would you have trouble believing that He could raise one from the dead? 2 Timothy 3:16(New King James Version) 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 1. 1.Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Matthew 12:40 (New International Version) 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. John 11 21"Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask." 23Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" 27"Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world." 1.Matthew 22:23 23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24"Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?" Luke 1 29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." John 12:38 (New International Version) 38This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: "Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" This is Prophesy hundreds of years prior to Christs death, but it clearly defines Him as Savour. 1.Isaiah 53:1 1 Who has believed our report?And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant. And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. 3 He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. 9 And they[a] made His grave with the wicked— But with the rich at His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand. 11 He shall see the labor of His soul,and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors. Yes. Hope you don't think I was disagreeing with any of that, nor in fact that any of NT Wright's writing disagrees that resurrection did occur, and will occur. He certainly does not. Where Wright gets particularly interesting is in noting the Judaic and early-Christian view of resurrection (and, as indeed corroborated by Jesus' example) - not being merely an other-worldly spiritual "resurrection", but noting the coming together of physical and spiritual, with Jesus as the first example of our own future. Sometimes we've gotten a little too ethereal and other-worldly in our understanding of resurrection, something that many consider came through the later influence of Greco-Roman philosophy, Plato and the like. We forgot that resurrection, as demonstrated by Jesus, encompasses both the spiritual AND physical, just as Thomas was able to place his hand in Jesus' wound. Jesus was the first fruit of the resurrection of creation, if you like...

I'll do much better by linking readers to these articles than reinterpreting in my own words: Jesus