Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum

20000_Posts

Distinguished Member
  • Content Count

    22,850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Posts posted by 20000_Posts


  1. I just installed the update today. Took under an hour to get the first boot (on an SSD), then I just used it as normal for the next few hours, restarting every once in a while, and everything is pretty good.

     

    Some of the theme changes are kind of annoying, but there's some cool new features. Biggest gripe is that my gestures aren't working 100% right now.

     

    Oh, and Windows finally has multiple desktops.


  2. Thanks everyone for your input. This Friday I'm going to a computer shop that my family goes to, to price what they will charge for a laptop of similar build. But chances are, I will be choosing one of these 2. But as for the prices, what do you guys think of the pricing for the computers, as far as specs goes?

    Yes I would choose the Asus. I've seen some good things about the MSIs but I've never been a fan of the build quality on them and the cooling has never impressed me.

    Just wondering, what's wrong with their cooling?

    It's just a generic laptop cooling. From my experiences, I've never seen them able to properly keep laptops cool over multiple years. They just easily pick up dust if not cleaned out constantly and since they're not as good as cooling to begin with, they can cook your components if you're not careful.

     

    Asus is one of the few companies that has a really good design when it comes to cooling.


  3. The only person I have from Sals on my steam list is redmonke/whatever-his-name-is-now

     

    feel freed to add me too, SN rangerpl1322

    So that's how it's gonna be now huh?


  4. I find depression to be a fairly interesting topic given the (increasing?) prevalence of it today. It's also a bit mysterious to me because I have never been chronically depressed myself, despite the fact that I am at high risk for it being a Philadelphia sports fan. The feeling of chronic depression seems vague to me and given the simple tag of "prolonged sadness."

     

    So I have a few questions:

    1. Is chronic depression simply prolonged sadness or something more?

    2. When you were depressed, did you have a specific reason for being depressed? Did you find reasons to be depressed? Did you have no reason to be depressed at all?

    3. A lot of artistic genius seems to come out of depression. Did you find this to be the case? Any other positives?

    I do not suffer from chronic depression, but have had a brief encounter with depression before in a way that differed from ordinary grief/sadness and I've been pretty close with sufferers of clinical depression. One important point to keep in mind is that depression (in addition to other mental health issues) may not necessarily be increasing in prevalence, as much as they are finally being attributed as we become more familiar with psychological disorders.

     

    1. Chronic depression is a mental health disorder that can exhibit itself in consistent depression or swings. It differs from ordinary sadness, I'd personally say it's a feeling of complete overwhelming and helplessness.

     

    2. For me it was a series of life events, but luckily I don't suffer from clinical depression. For those that do, even if you have all the reasons in the world to NOT be depressed, there's nothing you can do since you can't alter how your brain operates just by willing it.

     

    3. Just my interpretation, but artistic genius may come out of depression and is accepted so widely because we all face sadness and potential depression. Someone who is chronically depressed (and has the artistic ability to describe it either in word or paint or some other way) can be very familiar with these feelings and able to describe it in such a way that the rest of us can relate to. I appreciate a good depressing movie or song because it takes me to a feeling that I am somewhat familiar with but do not experience very often.


  5. Maybe I'm the only one seeing (what I assume is) the intended use of this product, which is that if you already have a mat or are going to an area that has a powermat (found here: http://powermat.com/map/) you can easily charge your phone even if it isn't capable of receiving wireless charging. While they do offer an at-home mat (which is poorly designed), the intent is for use at powermat locations.

     

    Surely this doesn't take an electrical engineering degree to understand.

    If you wanted to use this at one of those areas you'd be taking two pieces of plastic that are kind of massive. And if you wanted to use this at home at this point there's no actual advantage to this over normal chargers except that if you just normally charged your phone you'd be able to pick it up without having to take it off the charger.

     

     

     

    To be honest, I feel like the piece of plastic that holds it off the table is probably the best part. It's like the crappy cherry on top of this badly designed cake :xd:

    You'd just take the ring. The mat and the stand both stay at home. Stupid design on the at-home part, I agree. They should be selling the ring by itself, but why bother when you can get one from China for way cheaper.


  6. Maybe I'm the only one seeing (what I assume is) the intended use of this product, which is that if you already have a mat or are going to an area that has a powermat (found here: http://powermat.com/map/) you can easily charge your phone even if it isn't capable of receiving wireless charging. While they do offer an at-home mat (which is poorly designed), the intent is for use at powermat locations.

     

    Surely this doesn't take an electrical engineering degree to understand.


  7. This whole line of debate is moot though, because either God is a tyrant or He is not, and either you believe He is one, or you don't. The first can't be proven either way and for the second we'd need to start throwing scripture around and I don't think anybody benefits from that :P

    If god were to exist, he would be a tyrant.

     

    This hypothesis is not moot, as it can be judged by the descriptions of god which are conveniently found in scripture.

    The fact that you can be convicted of thought crime, must love and fear the ruler, and that you would not know right from wrong if it weren't for dear leader are all strikingly similar to what we would describe as a tyrant.

     

    Satan apparently made a good call questioning the dictatorship.

    You call it a tyrant because you ignore the love and the reasoning behind the way he judges. I won't disagree that God is an absolute ruler, but what you call a tyrant I call a fair and just ruler. That's why the hypothesis is moot.

    Sorry, this quote was getting ridiculous, I shortened the part that wasn't relevant.

     

    I agree with reep. I think it's really how you look at it.

     

    Yeah, God is the main power, no disagreeing with him, he makes all the rules.

     

    But classifying him under the definition of tyrant puts him in a category that is riddled with negativity. The definition of tyranny itself has extreme negative connotations. Those going to heaven are those who believe in the greatness and glory of their Lord, so while they have rules imposed on them, these are arguably rules that they desire.

    You're telling me you can't see people in North Korea saying the exact same thing about their Great and Loving Leader?

     

    And when the only other option is burning forever they aren't rules they desire, literally anything will be better. Seems to be setting some low standards.

    The DPRK is a small, sheltered nation, and I don't think comparing their population to the billions who believe in Christ is fair.

     

    The thing I've liked about this debate is the different ideas being thrown around. I was raised Christian, but at the moment I'd consider myself more agnostic, perhaps even atheist (suffice to say, I'm confused about my religious identity). As such, I've been trying to argue through my limited knowledge of the Christian faith

     

    Comparing what happens in the mind of a Christian compared to an atheist after death, I think your comment is completely backwards. Setting a low standard? No way! They are setting an (impossibly) high standard that there even IS a life after death! And not only is this unfathomable life eternal, but it aligns perfectly with what they liked back on earth!

     

    In my opinion, Christians see going to heaven as a positive thing. They like the rules imposed, because it's rules they would have followed anyway. I don't think they are expecting a low standard by saying there is eternal happiness after death, I think that standard is mind-numbingly insanly high compared to an atheist view that you just rot in the ground.

    Scale doesn't affect totalitarianism. You are correct that on the scale of billions it is a bit more Orwellian, though. ;)

     

    I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. If we make the assumption that there is a God and a Heaven and a Hell, then there are two options: follow the rules (which are said to be right) or burn forever. You have a group of people that will follow the rules faithfully and nothing will stop them. You have another group that wants nothing to do with the rules and will be tortured forever. But there is a third group that reluctantly follows the rules if only because not doing so will be a far worse fate.

     

    So by standard, I am saying that it only has to be better than the absolute worst outcome to be viable for 2 out of 3 of the groups. There will be eternal happiness for the first group, but the final group may not find it as perfect as they would wish. And there's nothing they can do about it because saying anything against the Ruler will have you cast into fire and brimstone.

     

    Is this not the exact same of every other totalitarian regime? Does Iran not have faithful supporters, people that want nothing but the government to fall, yet also those that follow along just so they don't face punishment?

     

    I reemphasize: a celestial dictatorship.

     

     

    Edit: I also do appreciate that you're actually putting forth thoughtful replies on both sides of the argument. ;)


  8. This whole line of debate is moot though, because either God is a tyrant or He is not, and either you believe He is one, or you don't. The first can't be proven either way and for the second we'd need to start throwing scripture around and I don't think anybody benefits from that :P

    If god were to exist, he would be a tyrant.

     

    This hypothesis is not moot, as it can be judged by the descriptions of god which are conveniently found in scripture.

    The fact that you can be convicted of thought crime, must love and fear the ruler, and that you would not know right from wrong if it weren't for dear leader are all strikingly similar to what we would describe as a tyrant.

     

    Satan apparently made a good call questioning the dictatorship.

    You call it a tyrant because you ignore the love and the reasoning behind the way he judges. I won't disagree that God is an absolute ruler, but what you call a tyrant I call a fair and just ruler. That's why the hypothesis is moot.

    Sorry, this quote was getting ridiculous, I shortened the part that wasn't relevant.

     

    I agree with reep. I think it's really how you look at it.

     

    Yeah, God is the main power, no disagreeing with him, he makes all the rules.

     

    But classifying him under the definition of tyrant puts him in a category that is riddled with negativity. The definition of tyranny itself has extreme negative connotations. Those going to heaven are those who believe in the greatness and glory of their Lord, so while they have rules imposed on them, these are arguably rules that they desire.

    You're telling me you can't see people in North Korea saying the exact same thing about their Great and Loving Leader?

     

    And when the only other option is burning forever they aren't rules they desire, literally anything will be better. Seems to be setting some low standards.


  9. I always thought everyone did have equal rights in heaven, as it should be on earth. I have a problem with you calling heaven a tyranny too - that just doesn't make sense from a Christian standpoint.

     

    Tyranny means for unjust or abusive/oppressive power. The Christian sentiments of heaven explain it as a place with equality and fairness. Are you calling it tyranny because only one being (God) is in charge? If so, that is bringing in a man-made system of governance into a higher power's realm. You can't compare politics in heaven with politics on earth - it doesn't work that way.

     

    Since the Christian idea is that God, in the first place, made everything, why would we then define his rule as a tyranny? Do you understand how that makes no sense?

     

    I am told by theists that once in heaven, evil thoughts are not allowed. That is mind control and that is tyranny. Paul also spoke of only two options for us. Slaved to sin or slaved to God.

     

    As to not being able to compare earth to heaven. you forgotten that God is to bring his government to earth at the end times?

     

    When he does because of what his bible says, women and gays will never have equality nor will we ever be able to criticize anything God decrees.

     

    That is scary as he would have us stone our own unruly children as well as many more.

     

    Do you want his tyranny here on earth?

     

    Regards

    DL

     

    We must have different ideas then. I've never heard that evil thoughts are disallowed, but I've heard that there is no reason for evil thinking in heaven. Even if you're right (which you're not, because it's completely open to interpretation) that doesn't mean it's tyranny.

     

    Paul's quotation is a different problem to tackle. You're taking his words too literally - in one thread previously you argued that people use the words of the Bible to construe their own opinions. Who is to say Paul means that we would literally become slaves of God? In all the sermons I've been a part of, the term "slave of God" isn't meant in a derogatory sense. I have much doubt that God, in all his magnificence, has need for slaves, so let's not look at it so literally, right? It simply means that we are preachers of his word, prophets of his greatness. He's not whipping us with a stick if we choose to disobey - wait, didn't you already say that your mind is controlled in heaven? Doesn't that mean we, by His design, cannot disobey?

     

    Moving on..

     

    I still believe it's unfair to compare earth to heaven, but perhaps I should have worded it clearer in the first post. Politics on earth shouldn't influence politics in heaven. BUT, politics in heaven should and definitely impact politics on earth. (Be that moral politics, government politics, etc). When God is said to bring his governance to earth in the end times, he's doing so for the sake of everyone. He's literally saving everyone. That's hardly something to be disagreeable with.

     

    As for your final point, I still stand by my belief that his rule isn't a tyranny. Look up the definition for that term, it doesn't apply to the Christian faith in my mind.

    It's a tyranny in the sense that the ruler of a celestial dictatorship is a tyrant.

     

    I don't agree with not having a say in how I will be governed/ruled somehow I'll be for an eternity.

    Eh, we're arguing about conjecture here, but theoretically shouldn't those who go to heaven be those of a faith who wouldn't mind the rules imposed on them, and wouldn't see them as such? When does a law stop being a law if everyone is willingly following it? Doesn't that just make it just a "moral" again, no law needed since breaking that moral won't happen?

     

    Maybe I'm too tired, I'll revisit this later.

    Well the options are follow a tyrant or go to hell. I'm sure there's plenty of people that would follow something if only because the view the alternative to be worse (see the Paschal's Wager thread). Morals and laws are independent, almost any law can be broken and morally justified. Additionally, morality is a very gray area and requires questioning and discussion as is found in Western philosophies. Living in a world where everything is already morally decided strips you of all freedom and ability.

     

     

    I always thought everyone did have equal rights in heaven, as it should be on earth. I have a problem with you calling heaven a tyranny too - that just doesn't make sense from a Christian standpoint.

     

    Tyranny means for unjust or abusive/oppressive power. The Christian sentiments of heaven explain it as a place with equality and fairness. Are you calling it tyranny because only one being (God) is in charge? If so, that is bringing in a man-made system of governance into a higher power's realm. You can't compare politics in heaven with politics on earth - it doesn't work that way.

     

    Since the Christian idea is that God, in the first place, made everything, why would we then define his rule as a tyranny? Do you understand how that makes no sense?

     

    I am told by theists that once in heaven, evil thoughts are not allowed. That is mind control and that is tyranny. Paul also spoke of only two options for us. Slaved to sin or slaved to God.

     

    As to not being able to compare earth to heaven. you forgotten that God is to bring his government to earth at the end times?

     

    When he does because of what his bible says, women and gays will never have equality nor will we ever be able to criticize anything God decrees.

     

    That is scary as he would have us stone our own unruly children as well as many more.

     

    Do you want his tyranny here on earth?

     

    Regards

    DL

     

    We must have different ideas then. I've never heard that evil thoughts are disallowed, but I've heard that there is no reason for evil thinking in heaven. Even if you're right (which you're not, because it's completely open to interpretation) that doesn't mean it's tyranny.

     

    Paul's quotation is a different problem to tackle. You're taking his words too literally - in one thread previously you argued that people use the words of the Bible to construe their own opinions. Who is to say Paul means that we would literally become slaves of God? In all the sermons I've been a part of, the term "slave of God" isn't meant in a derogatory sense. I have much doubt that God, in all his magnificence, has need for slaves, so let's not look at it so literally, right? It simply means that we are preachers of his word, prophets of his greatness. He's not whipping us with a stick if we choose to disobey - wait, didn't you already say that your mind is controlled in heaven? Doesn't that mean we, by His design, cannot disobey?

     

    Moving on..

     

    I still believe it's unfair to compare earth to heaven, but perhaps I should have worded it clearer in the first post. Politics on earth shouldn't influence politics in heaven. BUT, politics in heaven should and definitely impact politics on earth. (Be that moral politics, government politics, etc). When God is said to bring his governance to earth in the end times, he's doing so for the sake of everyone. He's literally saving everyone. That's hardly something to be disagreeable with.

     

    As for your final point, I still stand by my belief that his rule isn't a tyranny. Look up the definition for that term, it doesn't apply to the Christian faith in my mind.

    It's a tyranny in the sense that the ruler of a celestial dictatorship is a tyrant.

     

    I don't agree with not having a say in how I will be governed/ruled somehow I'll be for an eternity.

    This whole line of debate is moot though, because either God is a tyrant or He is not, and either you believe He is one, or you don't. The first can't be proven either way and for the second we'd need to start throwing scripture around and I don't think anybody benefits from that :P

    If god were to exist, he would be a tyrant.

     

    This hypothesis is not moot, as it can be judged by the descriptions of god which are conveniently found in scripture.

    The fact that you can be convicted of thought crime, must love and fear the ruler, and that you would not know right from wrong if it weren't for dear leader are all strikingly similar to what we would describe as a tyrant.

     

    Satan apparently made a good call questioning the dictatorship.


  10. I always thought everyone did have equal rights in heaven, as it should be on earth. I have a problem with you calling heaven a tyranny too - that just doesn't make sense from a Christian standpoint.

     

    Tyranny means for unjust or abusive/oppressive power. The Christian sentiments of heaven explain it as a place with equality and fairness. Are you calling it tyranny because only one being (God) is in charge? If so, that is bringing in a man-made system of governance into a higher power's realm. You can't compare politics in heaven with politics on earth - it doesn't work that way.

     

    Since the Christian idea is that God, in the first place, made everything, why would we then define his rule as a tyranny? Do you understand how that makes no sense?

     

    I am told by theists that once in heaven, evil thoughts are not allowed. That is mind control and that is tyranny. Paul also spoke of only two options for us. Slaved to sin or slaved to God.

     

    As to not being able to compare earth to heaven. you forgotten that God is to bring his government to earth at the end times?

     

    When he does because of what his bible says, women and gays will never have equality nor will we ever be able to criticize anything God decrees.

     

    That is scary as he would have us stone our own unruly children as well as many more.

     

    Do you want his tyranny here on earth?

     

    Regards

    DL

     

    We must have different ideas then. I've never heard that evil thoughts are disallowed, but I've heard that there is no reason for evil thinking in heaven. Even if you're right (which you're not, because it's completely open to interpretation) that doesn't mean it's tyranny.

     

    Paul's quotation is a different problem to tackle. You're taking his words too literally - in one thread previously you argued that people use the words of the Bible to construe their own opinions. Who is to say Paul means that we would literally become slaves of God? In all the sermons I've been a part of, the term "slave of God" isn't meant in a derogatory sense. I have much doubt that God, in all his magnificence, has need for slaves, so let's not look at it so literally, right? It simply means that we are preachers of his word, prophets of his greatness. He's not whipping us with a stick if we choose to disobey - wait, didn't you already say that your mind is controlled in heaven? Doesn't that mean we, by His design, cannot disobey?

     

    Moving on..

     

    I still believe it's unfair to compare earth to heaven, but perhaps I should have worded it clearer in the first post. Politics on earth shouldn't influence politics in heaven. BUT, politics in heaven should and definitely impact politics on earth. (Be that moral politics, government politics, etc). When God is said to bring his governance to earth in the end times, he's doing so for the sake of everyone. He's literally saving everyone. That's hardly something to be disagreeable with.

     

    As for your final point, I still stand by my belief that his rule isn't a tyranny. Look up the definition for that term, it doesn't apply to the Christian faith in my mind.

    It's a tyranny in the sense that the ruler of a celestial dictatorship is a tyrant.

     

    I don't agree with not having a say in how I will be governed/ruled somehow I'll be for an eternity.


  11. One could argue this even further, and explain that religion has a whole was created to keep mankind in line.

     

    I think the biggest universal fear that is shared among people is the fear of death. As our brains have developed over the millennia, we have had the chance to develop deeper emotions than other creatures. Emotions govern and dictate our social behavior, and in turn create our morals. For example, flash back a few centuries ago to medieval Europe. You're a farmer working in the fields and someone comes and puts a sword to your family and pillages your granaries. You feel anger, you feel grief, you feel upset. These emotions allow you to realize that pillaging, killing, etc are negative things. Political societies use these emotions to then pass a law saying "whoa whoa whoa if you do these things, you will be thrown in jail." Thus, emotions are the basis for our morals.

     

    Getting back to the point now - thousands of years ago I doubt anyone had the ability to link emotions with morals. It was a challenge to make a law and enforce it across vast empires, so I believe this is where the idea of religion could have been created. Religion would be the silent enforcer of the law - if you're good you go to heaven, if you're bad.. well... there they saw a flaw.

     

    By promising everyone to heaven, it meant that evils done on earth would be pardoned upon death. How do you enforce that? Though emotionally and morally you could do wrong on earth, you would still have access to the utopia that is heaven. This, I believe, is why hell was created. By scaring people straight, less evil would be done on earth. Therefore, I believe the idea of hell is a tool used by religion to deter people from immoral activities.

     

    But you can extend that too and say religion as a whole was a manifestation to keep people in line in the first place.

     

    I'd extend it and say that not only is it a tool used by religion to deter people from immoral activities, but a tool used to obtain more followers (while preventing people from leaving).

     

    But for the most part I agree that it's an obvious adaptation, pointing to the fact that God, and religion, were made in Man's image.


  12. It's also relevant to ask whether or not just accepting that God is around is good enough, or whether like I've been thinking, you have to follow the doctrine if you want to get into heaven/hell.

    Those are not the only two possible beliefs though. I (and other fellow Calvinists) believe something different (or at least significantly more nuanced), for example.

    Apologies if I get this wrong, but then for a Calvinist, this whole topic is irrelevant because you're going to heaven or hell regardless. You need not worry about the choice of believing in God. You're already a child of God and get there regardless. The only thing I get confused about there is that you still had to make that choice to become a Calvanist, therefore you chose a religious path. By becoming a Calvanist you're fate is predestined. Was it always predestined that you would follow that path or simply upon becoming a Calvanist.

     

    I think I'm missing something there, as a Calvanist you're predestined for the afterlife, but if you have an afterlife in your religion, no matter which one, doesn't that mean you're pre-destined anyway? I apologise, I haven't exactly read enough there.

     

    I'm quite happy with this from 2013 I just found though, it's good to know:

    The Holy Father is full of surprises, born of true and faithful humility. On Wednesday he declared that all people, not just Catholics, are redeemed through Jesus, even atheists.

    As a Calvinist, I/we believe that we are in fact, unable to choose to believe in God by our own volition due to our sinful nature and that God has chosen those He will save - the predestined. (and in fact, anybody could be predestined and if they are, they will be drawn to the faith by God) So you are predestined to believe, and then you will eventually believe. That doesn't necessarily mean you're a Calvinist, but it does mean that you're probably going to be some form of Christian. This as opposed to those that believe that you come to the faith of your own volition. There may be some element of predestination there but in a less strict sense.

     

    And you have to keep in mind (though you may realise this) that while Jesus death on the cross was enough to save everybody, the pope has not suddenly become a universalist :P

    How is predestination compatible with free will?

    our nature doesn't allow us to do that by our own choice.

    Pretty big claim, any supporting evidence to show that's the case?

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.