Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Matthias Dailey
Lover of nature, truth, and perfection. A critical thinker, Christian, skeptic and Creationist.
Lover of nature, truth, and perfection. A critical thinker, Christian, skeptic and Creationist.
About
Posts

Post has attachment
https://youtu.be/-iE6YX9O5tE?t=1h28m19s

1:28:19 "who were the Twelve [if Judas Iscariot was out]?"
Is he really so dull that he can't figure out the answer to this? Doesn't he know what's written in the scriptures? He's ignorant, yet he acts like a teacher.

Let's read the passage and draw our own conclusions. Bart Ehrman says you should do this, but he relies on the fact that most people don't.

1 Corinthians 15 verse 5: "... he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve."

Bart Ehrman wants you to think that Matthias wasn't with them when Jesus appeared to them. We know that Judas left and reduced their number to 11, and later Matthias was added as one of "the twelve". But look: it says Matthias was with them the whole time.

Acts 1 verses 15-23: "Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled ... concerning Judas. ... He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.” (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he [died]. ... “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms: “ ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, “ ‘May another take his office.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” So they nominated two men: Joseph ... and Matthias. ... they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles."

So let's look at where "Jesus appeared to the Twelve". This is referring to the event recorded in Luke 24 :36 and John 20 :19:

Luke 24: "And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, and said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon [Cephas]!” Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!”"

You see, it says some people were with "the eleven" when Jesus appeared to them. And we can only assume that Matthias was with them (if he wasn't there, then why would they appoint him as a witness if he missed this important event?).

So to answer Bart Ehrman's question, the twelfth was Matthias. He would know that if he wasn't ignorant of what the New Testament says.

Reminds me of what Jesus said: "You're wrong; you don't know the Scriptures or the power of God."
Add a comment...

I love that charming GPS voice "You are on the fastest route and your route is clear. You should reach your destination in one hour." It's so pleasant. I want to marry it.

What if I want to marry it? What if I want to sign a certificate of legal marriage to it, to proclaim my love to all the world. Let's think about that.

Don't they do that kind of stuff in Japan or Korea, where men marry robots and other stuff? What a weird phenomenon. But what can we say about it; is it good / is it bad? I know that obsession is a relevant topic, but let's set that aside. Let's talk about marriage.

Who cares if I marry a piece of software? If marriage isn't anything real -- if marriage was invented by men in ages past, then who cares if it's reinvented, expanded, rebranded, or even torn down completely? It's all about what works. 

If you are in that thought camp, then you probably wouldn't mind if I married the GPS voice. Perhaps though, if you were very perceptive, you might feel slightly threatened that my worthless marriage might undermine the legitimacy of your own marriage, which you naturally know has intrinsic value and meaning. But alas, you shrug off those fears, since your worldview cannot intellectually justify them.

Let's look at the other thought camp -- those who think that marriage is a certain thing. That is, marriage was not created by man, marriage was handed to man. We discovered what it was; it is a thing already defined, and we could not change it if we wanted to. 

It is similar to how no amount of willpower could change the geometrical definition of a triangle. Any shape of three connecting lines is a triangle. Anything that has more than three lines is not a triangle. If the lines do not connect, it is not a triangle. If the lines are curved, it is not a triangle. A triangle is a certain thing; nothing could redefine what a triangle is. And marriage is a certain thing as well. This is what the other thought camp believes.

They would say, no matter what you do, you could never marry the GPS voice. Because that's not what marriage is. But we might suggest, "let's change what marriage is then!" But they would say, "it is useless, marriage is a certain thing; we did not invent it, and we cannot change it. Should we suggest to the creator that he should have designed the world differently?"

Now we have reached the inescapable, almost tasteless thing -- mentioning the creator ("God"). There's no avoiding it, or else there is no basis for thinking that marriage was given to us, instead of invented by us.

But I could also uncover the other camp's uncomfortable secret -- that their worldview logically and inescapably dictates, "nothing is holy". Nothing is holy except when you invent a principle in your mind. But then you can just as well change your mind if you so please, and decide to undo the principle. No one is right. No one can prove that it's better to do good to other people instead of being wholly self-serving. No one can prove that dignity exists, or that pain is bad.

There, I have exposed their worldview in all of its shameful nakedness. Logic was the light, and it is plain. What nonsense, or if it is true, what hopelessness. (But go ahead and invent some principle of hope to keep your spirits up!)

What is more palatable, the mention of a deity, or the mention of nihilism?

By logic, all nihilism is utter nihilism. But some people might say "nihilism isn't that hard to live by". But the only thing that makes nihilism sane and bearable is the lingering effects of non-nihilism. People have been raised up in the right way, and they don't realize why they are who they are. They have been taught absolute morals, and absolute truth, and absolute hope and justice. And they intrinsically act as if it is true. 

The only bearable aspect of a nihilist worldview is that people naturally act and live contrary to it. Because we naturally have the image of God -- we know absolute truth, or otherwise, we can recognize it when we hear it. A simple statement from one man to another -- "don't do that" -- bears an immense weight of authority that only willful senselessness can ignore. Because we do recognize truth as objectively right, when we hear it.

So when I say "marriage was given to us", you may point out my blind assertion. But don't be surprised if I try to point out your blind assertions about how "moral common sense" is right, and how you baselessly believe that pain is wrong and goodness is right.
Add a comment...

I wish Search was faster. 

There are a lot of great things about Google Music. But if I were to gripe about just one thing, it would be this.

I know it's possible to speed it up. As a web developer myself, I know that certain optimizations could be made.

For example, if I type "Taylor", it takes about 2 seconds to get a result. Then, if I continue typing (" Swift"), it takes the same exact time, ignoring the fact that the result had already been shown in first place. An optimization could be made here; instead of discarding results when the search term changes, it should intelligently filter them.

Also, if I have an artist or album or song in my library, it should appear quickly in the search results. There is no need to make an XHR request. The indexed lists of possible search results could be supplied with the page, or generated after the page loads, in the second or two before I interact with the search box, and perhaps cached in local storage.

If the search box is a major feature of the app, then it should be optimized for speed in these ways. As a general rule, no one likes slowness.

Also, as a general rule, Google Music is awesome, thanks for the great work!

Self-worth is important. People should know their dignity and worth.

One of the first pieces of advice God gave to a person was to Cain, who messed something up and felt defeated. God said "if you do well, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do well, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it." (Genesis 4:7)

And consider these phrases:

Positive / having self-worth:
"I'm better than that"
"No, I don't do that"
"What kind of girl do you think I am?"

Negative / lacking self-worth:
"I might as well"
"I've done it before, so why not do it again?"
"I can't help myself"
"This is just who I am"

So here is a principle that I think is true:
People are more prone to "sin" or "compromise" if they feel bad about themselves. But if someone has self-respect, then it encourages them to keep making right choices.

Personal anecdotes:

I see over and over again instances where men or women are abused, and then go on to lead an immoral lifestyle. The correlation is very strong. Why does this happen? Because they have a low (tarnished) view of themselves. It tricks them to thinking they are no good, so there is no reason to avoid more tarnishing.

For another example, in my life, I hold honesty and truthfulness in high regard. I try to never lie. I think it is important, and I could not stomach it if I started lying again. If some great pressure made me tell a lie, I would be depressed and frustrated, and it would make it easier for me to lie after that (unless I regained my self-worth).

Hiding information, however, is a similar thing. Avoiding telling information is not quite lying, but that doesn't mean it's a good or acceptable behavior. I had a mentor lump lying and hiding as one thing, saying "hiding is lying too". This was not wise, because I could have lost my self-worth regarding both things. I could have thought, "I've been lying all along! I'm hopeless, etc.," and I would succumb easier to temptation. It would be better for me to at least retain my dignity regarding one of those things.

God gives people self-worth and dignity. He "calls things into existence that don't exist" (Romans 4:17). He makes us saints and sons though we do not deserve it. He views us as clothed in righteousness, though it is the righteousness of Christ, and not our own (we wear a white robe over our nakedness). God places value and dignity on people.

A person cannot do good unless they know they are good. Granted, some people attempt it, and either burn out, or attain a twisted form of cold-hearted judgemental self-righteousness. Because once someone attempts to be perfect, that's when their flaws start becoming visible. This can result in guilt, shame, hopelessness, hostility/competition/judging, and many other quirks.

People are not perfect, and never can be. So it's important to realize that it's okay to have problems. Especially to realize that that's God's opinion. God grants grace which overflows our need of it. God paved the way with Jesus, to give us something we don't deserve — to make us something we aren't. It's important to believe and reaffirm who we are:

I am God’s child ~ John 1:12
I am a friend of Jesus Christ ~ John 15:15
I have been justified and accepted by God ~ Romans 5:1
I am united with the Lord, and I am one with him in spirit ~ 1 Corinthians 6:17
I have been bought with a price, and I belong to God ~ 1 Corinthians 6:19-20
I am complete in Christ ~ Colossians 2:9-10
Full list: http://commonground.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GoingDeeper_IAm_Week2.pdf
These are true even when we sin.

So, in summary, a person's self worth and dignity is important. It is the foundation of living a righteous, upright, and loving life.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
"You have to discard the God of your own understanding, because that God is always smaller than your mind. You can maybe follow him and interact with him, but he's bigger than you."
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
The phrases "gay" and "straight" are relatively new. Homosexuality is nothing new, but the terms "gay" and "lesbian" arose in the late 1960s. Prior to that time, people were not "gay" or "straight" -- they were homosexual or not. That is, they either engaged in homosexual sex, or not (they were normal). 

Sexual immorality is just another improper way of acting. Take lying as an analogy. You call someone who lies a "liar". What do you call someone who doesn't lie? A "truther"? No, you just call them normal, or nothing at all. 

Sexual immorality, lust, uncontrolled desires of the body, passion, sensuality, unchastity -- it comes in various flavors: sex before marriage, adulterous sex outside marriage, lust of the mind. This progresses to sexual experimentation, promiscuity, and homosexuality (which includes bisexuality). Hetero and Homo are both harmful. Lust fights against the soul, turning it into a dry, objectifying, warmth-stripping joyless machine. It messes with unspoken social contracts about dignity and personal worth. It extinguishes love, commitment, loving friendship, and trust.

"Can I trust you if you'd sleep with my girlfriend if you had the chance?"
"Do you really love me if you won't commit yourself to me for marriage for life?"
"When will you end up leaving me for another woman?"
"Can I truly be myself around you?"
"I'm tired of just having sex; I don't know who I am."
"I might as well..."

Sexual immorality is also the most personally destructive mistake a person can make. 

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body." - 1 Corinthians 6:18

Don't let anyone tell you that being "gay" or "lesbian" is okay. This isn't about pure love or friendship or commitment. It's about sexual immorality. We should have squelched it in the 60s, but now it has gone too far. We must speak up and reclaim the virtues we have neglected to preserve.
Add a comment...

I was getting background static noise from my Lenovo T420 laptop, sounding like faint CPU processes in my headphones. But it turned out to be the dock's fault, only present when my jack was plugged into the back of the dock. 
ThinkPad Mini Dock Series 3, type 4337.
Add a comment...

That's the thing about the internet. Everyone has an equal voice -- even blabbering fools.

In real life, a fool might think twice before opening his mouth in the presence of upright and respectable people. But on the internet, nothing is holy.

In real-life gatherings, a disruptive person can be silenced or escorted out, but here, we only have downvotes. There is no way for the community to remove trash comments.

So I'm encouraging everyone to use your downvotes liberally. No one wants to read nonsense, just like no one wants to smell the stench of a dumpster.

Do your part and downvote.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
For those of you interested in Angular stuff, here is a great example of how to write a form control directive: http://embed.plnkr.co/FQ2Frr/preview 
It’s a Likert Scale – one of those “scale of 1-5” things.

But what it shows is most important – how to “properly” write a form control that integrates with AngularJS’ native directives like ngForm, ngModel, ngRequired, ngDisabled, and others. 

As some of you may know, Angular contains “core” code, as well as a set of basic “included” directives. For example, there is an “input” directive that binds a model value to the input / checkbox / select box element. (Source: https://github.com/angular/angular.js/blob/master/src/ng/directive/input.js#L913). This is the same two-way binding that you'd have to set up in order to write a custom form element:
• When the model value changes, the HTML “view” element must update.
• When the HTML element is changed, the model value must also be updated.
• Validation must be done in a way that is compatible with other directives like ngRequired. And it must communicate to the parent form, keeping the form’s $valid state in sync.

So check out the Likert directive. I expect to go back to it myself as a reference. Of course, there are other examples of custom directives such as AngularUI Bootstrap. But I can’t vouch that the directives are written the “Angular Way” 

Enjoy.
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded