Monday, August 27, 2007

There is Only *One* Post-death Processing Facility

Why is there only one true religion? Because everyone dies. And no matter how one dies, there is only one post-death processing facility. What happens is going to happen to people of all faiths and [non]beliefs. Knowing how that post-death processing facility works is important, because one's behavior and belief set, chosen on earth, is fixed at the time of death. There is no way that one can change one's destination after buying the ticket. It's also not likely that living people will be able to affect one's destination after death, either.

Choose wisely.

If you have a belief set, you must be ready to defend it.

If you believe that political correctness is a "good thing", you are wrong. Completely. And there is no way you can convince me otherwise. It doesn't matter to me if you feel that there are "so many different positions in this world. How can one position be correct and another be wrong?"

Political correctness is an answer to nullify the asking of the question. If you have a belief set, you had better be willing to stand up for your belief set, or else you should simply just stand aside. Your opinion doesn't matter if you don't think it's worth defending. It's not enough to simply hold an opinion and say, "If you disagree with me, fine. That's OK, too."

Intolerance, rudeness, not being very nice -- these are excuses to avoid the question, and not engage in the discussion. Political correctness has no place in truth or logic. Two opposing positions cannot simultaneously be true. If it hurts someone's feelings, that's just too bad.

What's interesting to me is that certain media can get a pass at being an affront to certain groups and get canned for being an affront to other groups. Why, for instance, is being an anti-Semite (or, for that matter, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Muslim) more egregious than being anti-Christian? Nobody gets fired for saying anything negative against Christians.

It is time to take a stand, whatever your belief. All positions are NOT valid. Some people's views absolutely must be wrong. "How can there only be one correct belief in so many different belief sets?" The answer is simply the same as in science: Water is 2 parts Hydrogen, one part Oxygen. It is always thus, and has always been thus. Some people add sugar, others salt, but that doesn't change the fact that Water is H2O. While humanity, 'tolerance', mindsets, and belief sets change, there is no changing the essence of who God is.

Not believing in God because of God's unchanging nature is an exercise in silliness. God's intolerance to evil behaviors is unchanging, unwavering. If one believes in this, one must learn the evil behaviors that God abhors, and be willing to stand up for that belief set, and stand against those evil behaviors.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Paying for Internet access? At a hotel?

I spent some time at a hotel in Orlando which a) didn't have wireless internet access in the room and b) charged for wired access.

The thing is, this wasn't exactly a budget hotel. In fact, it seems that the budget hotels seem to provide more things -- free breakfast, free wireless internet access in the rooms -- than some of the pricier hotels.

Meh. If I'm going to a hotel anymore, I want free wireless Internet. And also a clean room. That is a post for another time.

Monday, August 13, 2007 - Lifehouse 'Everything' - Skit - Lifehouse 'Everything' - Skit

Hrm. Now I am divided in my thought process. Which, then, is harder? To be a Christian in a dark and tasteless society or to be a nonbeliever who doesn't have the ability to lean on the crutch of Christ?

To be sure, a nonbeliever doesn't necessarily have to believe in God to get through tough circumstances. Neither a Christian. In my opinion, though, it is better to be comforted in the thought of a perfect love that values my life than to be a person whose only support is internal.

One might think that one might be able to go it alone. Maybe one might be able to make it among peers. The reality is that it's tough. Why not start based upon the idea of love and truth and the realization that indeed, it's better if one doesn't go it alone.

Maybe it's better, still, to strive to believe in the essence of what God is. Even if one doesn't believe in *God*, focusing on the principles that Christianity is intended to be -- love one another, love your neighbor as yourself, pray for your enemies, pay your debts, etc. -- can be a path to a better world on earth, if not in your own, individual life.

It's good that you think you can go it alone. Wouldn't it be better to have someone join you and guide you in your journey?

inumbr: Auto expiring. FREE anonymous phone numbers for online safety.

inumbr:: Auto expiring. FREE anonymous phone numbers for online safety.

Just ... OK. You want to give a number, but not exactly *your* number? Maybe that guy you met you would maybe like to see again, but maybe not. Give a numbr. It forwards to your phone, and you can screen it and actually get logs.

For privacy, a disposable inumbr seems very cool. I'm sure someone's going to tell me why it's not, but until then...

Updated 9/17/2009. Someone actually clicked here, and numbr is now inumbr, so I updated.

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Religious Morality ... or just Common Sense?

I think the idea that morality can exist outside of Religion or belief in a God is an interesting concept. I think it gets more interesting to see how democratic morality -- I'm talking about voting for what is moral, not about political parties -- can echo the sentiment of established truths that have existed before man codified laws.

It's not as if certain truths are "all of a sudden" thought up by the will of the majority. The reader thinks that her morality is based upon how she feels about things. How she alone can determine right from wrong. How right from wrong changes based upon point of view.

We are told that "Peace is the answer", "War is wrong." OK. But how? I mean, is war wrong just for the side that is fighting for your ability to continue to be able to protest? The screams are heard on both sides. In today's age, there isn't a voice, a flag, a country of the opposition. The opposition is an ideaset that expands and has many heads and no central body to say, "Enough is enough." The rule of law must need to exist. It needs to be consistent and it needs to be recognized. On both sides.

But I digress. The point is that, sooner or later, the people will end up having too many laws legislating morality and what you can or cannot say or behave one to another and serious consequences will result. Truth be told, the way to behave has already been shown to all. Adherence to that could save people a lot of trouble. It's just that rejecting religious morality because of its "origins" and not necessarily because of its "truth" means that we'll just have to wait until common sense/democratic morality legislates the same things into existence. This legislation has to wait until people forget that the morality being legislated is actually the same or similar to that of the Bible. Because if it's too similar, someone's head is going to roll. It's better that it seems to come from humanity, isn't it?

Christians Should Not Mettle in the Affairs of Mortals ... and Vice Versa

John 3:16, remember?

The point of separation of church and state is simply that one should not rule the other. Christians shouldn't be censoring mortals, and mortals shouldn't be censoring Christians.

Animosity toward Christianity

I just keep thinking that the people who complain about the hypocrisy of Christians have it really easy. It must be so much fun to live an amoral life. Of course, not saying that non-Christians are IMmoral. No, I could never be able to say that. But still, having no assumed visible standard to live by means that one is accountable only to self, and perhaps to society, but why should that actually be the case?

It occurs to me that it would be a bonus to have someone who claims that Christians are hypocritical to actually become a Christian. I mean, looking from one side of a fence at Christians is one thing. Being a Christian, one would guess that THAT would be a bit harder. Not only do you have to continue to live among non-believers, you have invited yourself as a target to all the people who assume that because you are now a Christian, that somehow makes you "perfect".

I'm not perfect. I'm just forgiven. My job is to run the race set before me until I reach the finish line. In the end, it comes down to setting your eyes on the prize. The prize: simply, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

The stupidity of ignoring a gift.

Flat Rock quoted via reference Robert Green Ingersoll, the quote being:
"I do not consider it a very important question whether Christ was the son of god or not. After all, what difference does it make? If he never existed, we are under the same obligation to do what we believe is right; and believing that he was the son of god or disbelieving it, is of no earthly importance. If we are ever judged at all it will be by our actions, and not by our beliefs. If Christ was good enough to die for me, he certainly will not be bad enough to damn me for honestly failing to believe in his divinity." - Robert Green Ingersoll, (via Cynical-C where Ingersoll is a daily feature)

I wonder if I had a billion dollars, and died, placing that money, and whatever would be gained from insurance, into a trust. The trust had one function. Anyone who realized that they were poor, and could not be able to come up with (pick an arbitrarily large figure of money) would be able to receive it for the asking. The key is, they'd have to ask for it. Everybody who wants it, can get it. There are ideasets attached to the money. Stuff that may or may not be palatable to you because of your choice of actions. So, you can say that you don't believe I exist. Except the offer has been made. You can say that I lived a bad life, or incomprehensible. But the offer still stands. You could say that it's bloody awful that the money had to be available after I died.

After all this, I think I'd be stupid not to take the offer. I mean, anyone who offers a gift, and you would say, "nah, I don't need it/want it" has nobody but himself to blame for not taking the gift. It's not that Christ is bad to damn people to hell. It's just the same thing as people staying poor because they didn't ask for help (and it was offered to them). If you don't accept the gift, you get ... nothing.

Specific to this quote, though... If Christ never existed, you really aren't under any obligation to do what you believe is right. And you don't necessarily have a foundation to know what is right. If morality becomes relative to individuality, then why be moral?

Friday, August 3, 2007

VersaMail Exchange ActiveSync

Here's the deal I had the ubiquitous error for Exchange Server 2003 Exchange ActiveSync for Versamail.

I have two domains set up and I know one works. The other one just didn't work.

The difference?

Well, after all the working of the ONLY Microsoft article that mentions anything, it comes down to this:

1) I have an Exchange Server running Outlook Web Access behind a firewall that is NOT ISA
2) I am ONLY passing SSL to my Exchange Server
3) I have only one Exchange server (no front/back issues)
4) I had a problem with Sharepoint installed on the same box (doesn't appear to be the total issue).
5) I applied all the fun stuff on

What I found to fix: It seems that the internal network was trying to resolve my domain name to the IP address outside the firewall, which made no sense. I set my internal/LAN DNS server to resolve the name that was on my SSL cert to the LAN IP address of my Exchange server. This seemed to fix the communication errors of the request and added another benefit: I could now use the OWA (outlook web access) on my LAN with the same SSL cert, external registered domain name and no errors.

Blog Archive