Indigo

Actually that doesn't mean that we can't understand anything about God. It means that we can never have an utterly complete conception of God. If we could fully understand God then God would only be equal to ourselves, in which case he wouldn't be God at all. Consider the verse "Now we see but a poor reflection [of God] as in a mirror; then [in heaven] we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:3 To understand the metaphor of the mirror, bear in mind that at the time of writing, mirrors were mostly made of bronze, and hence their reflection was lacking. What is significant is that now we can "know in part", through the things God has given us that point to him and hence give us wisdom (such as the Bible [which is the inspired Word of God], and creation). Ultimately though, we cannot know fully.

Jesus is seen as 100% human and 100% God. You also have to frame those words in the light of the Trinity, which is another paradox in itself. In taking all of the sins of the world on his shoulders, Jesus was in a sense detached from God, since that is the consequence of sin. Atonement is a very hard teaching to explain, and theologians have written volumes of work about it - I'd suggest you look into it more. 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. I hope I cleared some things up for you. I'd encourage you just to keep asking questions and get stuck into the biographies of Jesus (the gospels), preferably in an accessible translation like New Living Translation or NIV. I think ultimately though, it comes down to a choice. Read the Gospels (John would be a good starting point) and think about the claims Jesus makes. He doesn't just claim to be a moral teacher - he claims to be "The Way, the Truth and the Life" (John 14:6), he claims to be the source of forgiveness, and he accepted worship and the words "Lord, my God". All those things seem incredibly arrogant things - unless it's true. There are only three options - either Jesus was a mad-man, or a liar, or he was who he said he was. If you take one of the first two options, then his moral teaching is discounted. How can it be trusted if he is a madman or a liar? It can't - it can only be trusted if you believe Jesus' claims, in which case his teaching has authority on account of who he is.

One thing that irritates me about this whole debate is how people such as yourself portray yourselves as the voice of 'reason' and 'common sense', while anyone who casts doubt upon atheism is looked down upon as intellectually inferior. It's arrogant, it's patronising, and it is itself based on an irrational hatred of religion. Really, much of this debate isn't about the science of God. What underlies the attack of Dawkins and others on religion is an attempt to put forward their own Darwinistic* worldviews, under the guise of science. Darwinism taken to its logical conclusion leads to sheer relativism - everything is permissible and nothing is meaningful. Dawkins talks on one hand of the 'selfish gene' - that we are 'robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes' - yet on the other hand, in a concession to the reality of our own personal experience of the world, he attempts to suggest that the notion of morality (a notion which we experience and intuitively accept) is somehow compatible with this. As the agnostic philosopher Anthony O'Hear says of Dawkins, 'this particular Darwinian is quite unable to explain why we have an obligation to act against our 'selfish' genes.' By attempting to frame the debate as 'scientific', Darwinists disguise that this is in fact a deeply philosophical debate - one in which, if we accept the dogma of Dawkins and like, we surrender ourselves to their bitter, nihilistic worldview of which theories such as eugenics are the natural by-product. * By Darwinism I mean the philosophical doctrine that developed from the theory of evolution - I do not mean simply the mere science of natural selection. (Anyway, it's time I got back to writing my politics essay. This thread is too much a distraction! Apologies that I can't go into more depth.)

Exactly. Damn, that film just leaves you so speechless. It's a real fine piece of cinema, unlike most of the stuff that's been listed. "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

Nice. My mum will be pleased, she never missed an episode.

I felt United probably deserved to win that game. As far as tactics went, Ferguson clearly outwitted Wenger, with Evra particularly used to great effect. United made better substitutions - Saha was crucial in the second goal, while Walcott struggled to contain that left flank. Arsenal seemed to me to lack penetration, though that is probably more testament to the strength of United's defence than any attacking deficiency on Arsenal's part. Was a good game of football anyway, though now quite the "work of art" that it was hyped up to be.

I think near enough everyone is racist to an extent. Even liberals who praise multi-culturalism often harbour deep racist attitudes towards Americans, for example. The difference is that the media and the public don't often look on anti-American prejudice as racism - but plainly it is, and so in that sense there are certainly double-standards inherent in the application of the term.

I'm glad this thread has been resurrected. Let's try keep it active. This year I don't seem to have written much poetry. However I think that's more to do with being out of the habit of expressing myself through the form. Instead I've been writing melodies and then moulding previous poetry I had written into a lyrical form to make songs. Now I am at uni though, and while I do have my guitar with me, I'm in a large halls of residence with many people on my corridor and paper thin walls, so I've been hindered by self-conciousness whenever I pick up my guitar and want to express myself. It's probably quite irrational, considering I've performed songs in front of many people; but the creative process is quite something else - it is something very personal and solitary, and so something feels lacking when I do not feel alone. For that reason I see myself getting back into writing some poetry. No apologies necessary. You have some fine work there. Very cryptic, but great flow. I'm liking the experimental structure of "Just Start Speaking Before You Cannot Speak Any More". Here's something I wrote last year which I'm quite fond of. It's better in its song-form, so some of the rhythm might seem a little clumsy depending how you read it. Let me know what you think anyhow. ---------------------------------------------- They sunk me in the ocean Tied a cannon ball round my leg, and pushed me off the edge At first I panicked. Everyone panics, but it's no use struggling So I thought I'd sit back, enjoy the blurred sights of the sea But I tell you now, it's not what you'd think. There's no happy lobsters playing shellfish xylophones. And God help me, there wasn't a topless mermaid in sight, Only darkness All-consuming, encompassing darkness And the deeper you sink, the darker it gets Until it's so dark you have to check you've not closed your eyes And that's only half-way down, when you finally hit rock bottom, you know it - there's that stillness, that feeling That there ain't even one little fishie in sight, to hear you scream No there ain't even one little fishie in sight, to hear you scream. And that's where they found me My body dead and useless, but my heart still beating like the day that I was born You see, they can take my money, they can take my body and they can even take my pride But the heart? They'll never touch this

Risk is actually a very balanced game, despite what some board game aficionados might tell you. Diplomacy ain't bad, but it's more slow-tempo and not as accessible. Sure if you want a pure strategy game it's probably the way to go, but personally I like an element of fortune in my games.

I drank a little wine with my uni mates while playing a game of Risk. Then afterward we ended up having a long Smash Bros Melee session until 4. Good times.

The above article is merely testament to how far forward-play and defence have come in the past decade. If you want to see rugby devoid of those elements then League is obviously more your game. Personally I found the forward-play in this world cup from the likes of Andrew Sheridan to be as enthralling and inspiring as any great piece of attacking play. New Zealand and Australia would love to see forward-play neutered to cover up for their own inadequacy in those areas, but in doing so part of the very fabric and essence of Union would be destroyed. It is undoubtedly significant that the author of the article above is Irish. There seems to be general consensus that this world cup has been the best ever - but considering how dismal Ireland performed this inevitably would not be the view of many an Irishman. It is also plain stupid to point to the final as a precedent for the entire tournament. Finals of competitions in all sports are usually fairly restrained, conservative affairs. Take football world cup finals for examples - they're rarely ever thrilling, or a reflection on the entertainment value of the rest of the tournament. The article is nothing more than the alarmist rant of a bitter Irishman.

I find that the concept of a nice, relaxing bath is often better than the reality of the experience itself. Like sometimes I'll think it would be a nice idea to sit in a warm bath and have a read, but then once I'm in the bath I always seem to feel compelled to put my hands in the water - a temptation which makes reading seem like such effort. Even so, a warm bath on a cold winter evening after a hard day's work can still be something very satisfying. For practicality though (ie. in mornings), it has to be a shower.

Machines are £2 here for about a 45 minute wash - I usually do it at 40. I then pay £1 for a 50 minute tumble dry, which usually does a good job of drying out the creases (meaning I can avoid ironing). I tend to wash my darks every 10 days or so. Whites less often because I have so few and it seems like such a waste of money for only like five items of clothing. As for towels, if it's an old towel then it should be fine to wash with either whites or darks. New towels though are likely to run, so it's a risk. You know you're a student when you sustain a whole conversation about washing.

I just keep work in the relevant subject folder, which I sub-divide into sections for each module, and then divide again for lecture notes/seminar notes. At the moment I'm struggling less with organising things and more with just getting on with work. I sit at my desk and waste time tidying and arranging things. I need to get into a better routine.

Agreed. My respect to South Africa - they've played a solid tournament, with a strong team that have shown flashes of brilliance. Their work in the line-out was top-class tonight, and was definitely what separated the teams. We should though be very proud of the English players. To come this far having been written off from the start is easily one of the greatest achievements that international rugby has ever witnessed. I think the controversial try decision tonight showed what a fine line there is between winning and losing in this game - who knows how things might have panned out if it had been given. Look back to South Africa vs. Fiji as well - three minutes to go, SA up 30-25, Fiji box-kick it from just outside their 22 and if it had just bounced good (and by that I mean not a lucky bounce, just a normal bounce) Fiji would have been through and it'd have been a very different story. As I say, it's a very fine line. Great World Cup anyway. It's a shame the next one is in New Zealand - personally I feel Japan would have been a better option, certainly with regards to expanding the game. Let's just hope England can pick themselves up from this and in these next four years build a stronger team that can go into 2011 as favourites instead of write-offs.

It would have to be an actress not too well-known, with an intelligent and mysterious complexion. She'd have to have beautiful, captivating blue eyes. Blonde hair would also be a given. She'd be a little curvy, but not outrageously curvy. Suggestions such as Hilary Duff are in my opinion completely off, since she just couldn't be believable as an intelligent, calculating and ruthless figure (same goes for Elisha Cuthbert). Samus to me is also a figure of humility and understatement - she doesn't seek credit for her work and her sacrifice; self-indulgence and self-pity are not part of her vocabulary. She is, I think, a character much too complex for the screen. Any depiction of her would merely be too simplistic. And btw, I know I'm deducing a lot about her character from a few videogames in which her character seems to matter little - but I think with some reflection, all my assumptions can be justified.

Legalise one drug such as cannabis and to me it's a slippery slope towards the legalisation of stronger and more harmful drugs. You could also argue that we are at this point in time quite ignorant of the full possible psychological and physical effects of cannabis smoking - if a particularly dangerous correlation is ever discovered after a legalisation had occurred then there could be no turning back. Legalisation arguments also have to take into account the strain on the NHS (and thus the taxpayer) that all the drug abuse would cause. Just look at the millions the NHS spends on caring for tobacco users.

So you're telling me that considering how few and far between our sporting triumphs are, when we finally do win a bit of glory, the national media isn't allowed to join in with the celebration? Don't be a schmuck. Gripping game tonight anyway. It could have swung either way, but we kept our nerve and gave it all we had, and I think on balance we were just about the better team. After all the despair and underachievement of the last four years, that we've made it to the World Cup final in a bracket that included France, New Zealand and Australia - it's unbelievable.

Brown instructed his aides to hype up talk of an election - it wasn't mere speculation on the media's part, they were being fed positive signs by No. 10. All responsibility therefore lies with him, as he himself has conceded. He could have halted all the talk weeks ago, but he chose to stir it up further by moving forward the Commons statement on Iraq and the Pre-Budget report to this week (a move that clearly suggested an impending election announcement). Election advertisements were planned, new staff recruited, and it all looked set to go. And then Labour's lead was cut from 11% to zero after a positive Conservative conference, and he bottled it. There is no question about it - he rallied his troops up the hill, only to come running straight back down. The funny thing is that in the aftermath of all this, Brown is trying to claim that the turn in the opinion polls wasn't what swayed him, which is clearly an insult to the intelligence of the British public. This whole episode has merely exposed the true side of Brown's character, with his huge misjudgement painting the picture of an incompetent PM. What we have seen is that beneath all the bravado and posturing as a 'strong' PM there is a cowardly man, lacking the judgement to lead. He cannot now even claim to have Britain's interests at heart, after going all the way to Iraq to announce the "withdrawal" of 1000 British troops, despite the fact it had already been announced long before that 500 of them were coming home, and another 270 or so of this 1000 were in fact already back on home soil. If the man has no qualms with trying to manipulate the armed forces for his political advantage, what claim can he make to have our national interests at heart? I think after 10 years of Labour government, what we witness is a party that has ran out of steam (much like the Conservatives from 1992-97). The government lacks their own vision and solutions, as seen by today's announcement that they plan to steal the Conservative's inheritance tax plans (albeit in a watered down form). They are clinging on, trying to hold onto power merely for power's sake. The sooner we get some change, the better.

I quite like the name Jennifer. There's lots of nice foreign names too, like Amelie, Natalya, Sofia etc.

Good observation, yet all the examples you gave could in fact be disproved by extensive empirical research. Any open-minded person can make a clear distinction between say the possible truth of the Santa Claus myth and the possible existence of a supreme being, in that the latter is in fact in the realms of possibility and does offer explanations. That's a misguided perception. In fact, Christianity is more about the present, and our opportunities to serve God and the people around us right now. Is is with our God-guided actions that we can bring a glimpse of heaven to earth, communicating God's love and peace. You see this in Christian organisations such as The Message. If you overlook the negative media stereotypes, you'd see that true Christianity isn't about condemnation, it's about compassion - compassion that demands action.

I never claimed it did not have flaws. Ultimately the argument does fail, and the intention of my post was never to claim otherwise. I was simply throwing some ideas into the mix. Should an idea be discarded because it cannot be proved? Only if it can be conclusively disproved should it be wholly dismissed. Of course there is no evidence that God exists outside time, neither is there evidence to the contrary. I was musing over it, since I thought the discussion was intended to be philosophical, and not purely scientific. My intention was to create a bit of discussion, not to claim to be some grandiose intellectual authority. "Why can't the universe be a loop; something that expands and contracts over time?" This statement leaves me curious. If it continually expands and contracts in a loop, which did it start with?

Think of the world as a number of causes in a chain. Each cause triggers another in a domino-like effect. Each cause (or action) does not cause itself - they are contingent on the previous actions (think of the domino analogy). The world can thus either be explained as an infinite regress of caused causes (an endless line of dominos), or alternatively there is a first uncaused cause - a necessary being, outside the causal network, that is the cause of causation (triggering the domino effect). An infinite regress doesn't answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing, hence the conclusion of the existence of a first cause (ie. God) is reached. That's a simple cosmological argument for you to mull over. It's by no means flawless, but it's at least thought-provoking, and counters the dilemma that many have brought up of "what created God?", since God is seen as a necessary being, outside the causal network. God is. He doesn't need to be created because he is outside of cause and time, and so the very concept of non-existence cannot apply to him. Btw, I am a theist, but I don't believe that God can ever be proved scientifically or philosophically even. Though neither can God be disproved.

You can get Fire Emblem for £30 delivered from Play. I bought a copy a few weeks ago. Twin Snakes is also in stock at Play for £18. The eBay prices are ridiculous.

What I hate most is how they up the ticket prices at peak times ie. weekend. I went on Sunday night - if I hadn't managed to buy a student ticket (didn't have a card so I was lucky) it would have set me back £8 for a ticket. Two large drinks and a large popcorn was nearly £10. Thankfully for the food and drink I split the cost with my girlfriend. At this rate going to the cinema will soon be the preserve of the rich.