Indigo

The name sounds like a Castlevania game, but hopefully the film itself will live up to the standard set by Royale. 'Twice the action' is a little concerning though. What I loved most about Royale were some of the quieter scenes, particularly the poker and the scenes with Vesper. The latter allowed us to see a different side to Bond - a heart behind the cold ruthlessness of the agent. I'm hoping they'll keep things basic on the gadgetry side of things as well. Bond relying on his intuition and creativity is the way things ought to be.

That school is about ten minutes from where I live. I wasn't a pupil there, but maybe now I wish I would have been. I feel sorry for her, but at the same time you have to wonder what ever possessed her to do the commercial, knowing she had her whole teaching career ahead of her.

Happy birthday, man. Fifteen seems like such a long time ago. It's strange to think how much of my character and of my life has changed since then. All I can say is work hard (but not too hard) and enjoy your time with your friends.

I was having this discussion today with a friend. He gave the whole 'real trees make a mess' argument. Personally the pine needles don't bother me, but even so, it's a small price to pay for the authenticity of a real tree. Not only do they look better, but as has been mentioned, that fresh smell carries such a sense of nostalgia with it.

How about an award for under-apprecation? Or an irregular poster award?

I had a look in CEX in Sheffield today and they're selling a stand-alone Wii console for £290. I couldn't believe it. Trade-in value was like £230-240. DS Lite is also in high-demand. They were selling them for £150, and offering to buy for £108 cash. Made me consider selling mine to make an £8 profit and save it for when they release some colours.

My ideal New Year's Eve would be a night in with my best friends, with a coal fire burning, some poker and a steady supply of fine drinks. We'd drift into the new year as if by accident, celebrating maybe by clinking glasses of champagne. Then again this is 'ideal', right? So let's say I have a mini-bar in there, with a good bartender and some cocktail waitresses. And some professional poker players in the game.

I'm glad someone mentioned it. It's just so timeless. It's a film you truly can watch every year and still feel affected.

Ah, awesome. I've been wanting to try some ever since I passed up the opportunity (in favour of a cocktail) at a Japanese restaurant. How does it taste?

Yeah, the only use it seems to get is with tonic. I think it's 'cos we've never really adopted the traditional cocktails over here (of which gin is a common base). You can hardly go ask for a gin martini down at your pub. But in the States, most bars would oblige you.

It depends on the occasion. With a nice meal, it has to be a good red wine (such as a Rioja). If I'm just out at the pub, then a pint of bitter (preferably a local ale, but otherwise Worthingtons ain't bad). At a jazz club I'll usually go for a gin martini, stirred, with an olive. On my lonesome? A little vermouth straight up (at the moment it's Martini Torino, which has a nice smoky flavour). If I'm just chilling out playing a decent game of poker with my friends I'll go for the vermouth. For non-alcoholic drinks it's all about fruit juices. Or for true refreshment - water. People just don't know how to drink anymore. Alcopops? Obviously drink just ain't your thing if you have to sweeten it up so much to tolerate it. May as well just enjoy a soft drink. There's no soul in drinking merely for the sensation rather than the taste.

I saw The Godfather last night at the student cinema. So much has been spoken and written about the film, that all that needs to be said is that it's a damn fine piece of cinema.

Some recent findings showed that approximately 67% of statistics are fabricated. So I'd take this with a pinch of salt.

Agreed. Most of you guys just got no wit. And stars can't buy that.

I got through! They were out of the Zelda posters, but I managed to snag one of Yamauchi's old love hotels for 2000 stars.

I like to get a fine drink and sit and converse with a couple of good friends. Dancing ain't my thing really, and that's reflected in the kind of places I like. For me it's all about traditional pubs and jazz clubs. At the former I'll drink plenty of local ale; at a jazz club it's got to be a gin martini in my hand.

This is incredible... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/12/wtree112.xml

Well from a Christian perspective, God is himself in community (as the Trinity). The creation of humanity was an overflow/expression of the love within the Trinity between Father, Son and Spirit. God created us out of love.

So the ideology is perfect - except for the huge problem that it completely misunderstands people? (people being afterall what the ideology purports to serve/benefit) I think given the latter fact, 'fatally flawed' would be the only valid description.

Yes that is true, but I meant pre-conception of why hell is, and what it is a consequence of. Obviously there is the classic imagery of hell, and this is a metaphorical representation of the state of ultimate separation from God. So Jesus said we should fear hell? Well I agree - we should fear separation from God, yes. That is why we need out of faith to accept the free gift of forgiveness that Jesus made possible, so that we can be liberated from our sin that has caused us to be detached from God. You quote Matthew 10:28, I suggest you read on: "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of our Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth many more than many sparrows." (29-31). This is a beautiful expression of God's love for us. If we choose to reject this love and hence reject God, how can the consequence of separation from God be unjust? It's as Jesus himself says in verse 32 of the same chapter: "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."

Actually, just to be precise, there are two main peaceful branches of socialism - democratic socialism and social democracy. The former seeks democratic legitimacy with the aim upon election of eradicating capitalism and implementing socialism. The latter also operate in the democratic process, but once in power, their aim is not to dismantle capitalism, but rather to incorporate socialist measures within the current system (eg. welfare, progressive taxation). And then of course there is the supposed 'third way', which is what the New Labour big-wigs talked up in the 1990s. It's questionable whether this was actually a serious ideology though, or just an attempt to give ideological credibility to New Labour's pragmatic agenda. The party dropped the phrase all together by the end of the 90's, so that probably says something.

Thanks. It does take faith, but it's as Jeremiah says, 'And you shall seek me and you shall find me, if you seek for me with all your heart.' I do though think that my faith is rational - as one scholar puts it, "He has given evidence of Himself which is sufficiently clear for those with an open mind and an open heart, but sufficiently vague so as to not to compel those whose hearts are closed." Well from a Christian perspective you yourself are condemning no one to hell. Only God can be the judge. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7). But I'd question what your conception of hell is. Hell is ultimately a state of total separation from God. From a Christian view, since God's goodness sustains all life and creation - hell then is a world devoid of God's goodness. Just as darkness is simply an absence of light, and evil is an absence of good - so it is with hell: it is a complete absence of God. God made us out of love, and he seeks relationship with us, but by worshipping false gods/idols (this could come in the form not only of other belief systems but things like money etc.) we sin and hence detach ourselves from God. This then relates back to my earlier explanation of the gospel message - that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son, and he who is sinless took the weight of the world and all of our sin upon his shoulders, and was nailed to the cross and died in our place as a perfect sacrifice. Then as I said before: "What is key is that Jesus didn't just die, otherwise there would no hope. Instead he overcame death in the resurrection, and in doing so liberated us from our sins. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3:23-24 Through accepting this free gift of grace, we can be liberated from sin (detachment from God), meaning we can live a new life in relationship with God." The key in relation to your question is that we have the free will to reject this free gift of grace and this promise of new life. By doing so, we incur though the cost of our sin (which is detachment from God - hell). God loves us, and wills all to be saved and have relationship with Him. He loves us to the extent that he made us in His image, and hence gave us the freedom to accept Him or not. Hell is the logical end of rejection of God. I think when you approach the issue in this light, casting aside any pre-conceptions or clichéd views of hell, it seems only a logical element of belief in the personal God.

Well from the two you'd describe me as a born again Christian. I basically believe that God seeks a personal relationship with all of us, and that through the radical power and truth of the gospel message we can be liberated and have that relationship. Hope that cleared things up for you. Surely the very persistence of the question of God and its tugging on our consciousness renders the whole batman analogy void.

I do believe it, yes. I'm not trying to convert anyone or anything (as often seem to be the suspicions that surround people who talk about Christianity), I just like to engage in a dialogue about my beliefs with people who are interested. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see people come to a realisation of the truth of the gospel, but that can never be done coercively, because the evidence of God is itself not coercive. As the mathematician Pascal said: "Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition." My background? Well my parents are Christians, if that's what you want to know. I'm aware from this it might be easy to suggest that my faith is merely a hereditary thing, but I think everyone at some point in their life reaches a stage at which they have to make decisions for themselves. That is true not only of faith in God, but with a range of lesser things such as political beliefs. I can understand though that my testimony of my faith might seem ordinary in that sense, but I could easily point to people who have come to God with no prior history of faith or hereditary influence and who have in fact been incredible hostile to Christianity. Just look at Paul in the Bible - he killed and persecuted the early Christians, and yet went on to write half of the New Testament after coming to God and accepting Christ's forgiveness and grace.