


Wallpaper Other by sgtfats 4 comments

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 8 comments

KDE 3.0-3.4 Themes by ThEOnE 25 comments

KDE 3.5 Themes by thomas12777 1262 comments

KDE 3.5 Themes by thomas12777 1262 comments

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 90 comments
Now, as Tim asks below, there is the question of what is KDE artwork. This question has been asked here on KDE-Look so many times it just ain't funny. The majority of users have made it clear they don't want a site that only has artwork that has the KDE gear slapped on it (for that matter, this often leads to artwork that looks like it had a gear added to it just to be "KDEish").
This site has had anti-US wallpaper, anti-Microsoft wallpaper, etc. and no one complains. Someone below mentions that Tim doesn't give credit (which apparently is allowed by NASA, etc.). On the other hand, I don't see lots of people complaining when Apple's copyrighted icons and such get posted in huge collections. Where's the outrage? Where's the "get rid of this off KDE-Look" attitude then?
-Tim - Oct 30 2003

Wallpaper Other by uninet 26 comments
So we are just slaves?? And our only purpose is to serve god?! Does that make any sense??
No, that's one of 5 Purposes according to the Purpose Driven Life (Week 2 of the 40 Days journey). But yes, it does make sense.
If and just if everything that happens around us is planned what's the meaning of life? If I can't decide what to do whay should I live?
Because you might not know what the plan for you is, but you do have an important meaning for your life.
Another very relevant question. What has all the starving people in for example Africa done wrong to deserve that fate? Cause everything that happens is gods will and he/she has this pre-made plan, right?
No. Man has the choice to disobey God. And we do. Our disobedience (sin) leads to the situations like we face in Africa. We deserve what they are suffering. This was the whole point of the Book of Job -- even the worst we could possibly experience is less than what we deserve. But God doesn't do all of that to us -- he gives us an opportunity to accept Him.
Darwin was a wise man. And by the way the earth is not a pancake!
If you are trying to imply that the Bible says the earth is flat, you would be mistaken. Some of the language in the Bible actually suggests a round earth (and the rest can be interpreted as neutral on the subject). - Oct 21 2003

Wallpaper Other by uninet 26 comments

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 130 comments
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
3. A living, self-conscious being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent; a human being; a man, woman, or child.
The emphasis is mine.
It continues later on:
6. (Theol.) Among Trinitarians, one of the three subdivisions of the Godhead (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost); an hypostasis. ``Three persons and one God.'' --Bk. of Com. Prayer.
Again, emphasis is mine.
The God of the Bible is a personal God, that is, He is not just a cosmic force. If something is personal, it is "Of or pertaining to a particular person" (Webster's).
-Tim - Oct 16 2003

Wallpapers KDE Plasma by uninet 4 comments
Considering that KDE on GNU/Linux is used a lot, it is nice to have a quick phrase that you can use to identify your desktop as such. - Oct 16 2003

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 130 comments
Well, look at it this way. The physical universe is governed by a set of laws. These laws make up what we consider reality. Ex nihilo creation, like the Big Bang, is impossible within our reality.
So, if it is impossible within the context of the physical universe for something to come out of nothingness, we must move away from the "scientific" no matter whether we attempt to come up with a "scientific sounding" answer of a theological answer.
At least the theological answer can come up with a rational concept: that God is not part of His creation, so he is outside the contrants of what we consider reality (that is the space/time continuum that we live in). God created space and time and so He is not governed by its laws.
Since we can only understand that which happens within the context of our reality, God's eternal existence is hard to get our minds around. However, at least it makes sense -- a supernatural being shouldn't necessarily be limited by what we understand.
On the other hand, matter should always be in the realm of scientific logic, and so how can matter do something supernatural like come out of nowhere without supernatural "help"?
The other option is to decide that existance is absurd and sit around until you can convince yourself that you don't exist... but that is not an easy job! :-) - Oct 16 2003

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 130 comments
Actually God can be a person and a spiritual being. People often misunderstand the term "person." Person != human being. Person is someone with a will, an ego.
I could say "God is an ego," but then you would think I was saying God is egotistical, which I'm not. The problem is most of these words have both a scholarly and common usage meaning, but in this case we need to use the scholarly meaning.
-Tim B. - Oct 16 2003

Wallpaper Other by uninet 26 comments
Thanks for the comment! - Oct 13 2003

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 13 comments

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 46 comments
Sure, they can coexist, but that's different than agreeing that they are all correct. The problem is they can't be all true.
Take Theravada Buddhism and Christianity. A Buddhist of that school of thought (probably closest to Buddha's teachings) believes in no God or gods, but only the Void (which is itself not God but a simply ultimate reality). Buddhists are trying, though the ways that Buddha prescribed, to -- in essence -- cease to exist (at least in the traditional sense).
On the other hand, Christians believe there is a God. We believe that this God is a personal (that is, not just a impersonal force) being and loves us. Our goal is not to cease to exist but to eventually end up with God.
Now, I won't use this space to debate the two views, but simply to note these two views are basically irreconcilable. If anyone is truly sincere in belief to either one of these, they cannot say "yeah, but the other one is true too."
Koran (like the Bible, but for Muslims), you'll realise that the story is nearly the same, only that god is called Allah. And if
It isn't that simple. Muslim belief is that you must do certain things and good works and you are never sure of your salvation. Christian belief is that Jesus died for you, you can be sure of salvation and that no amount of good works can save you (afterall, our very best is but filthy rags to the perfection of God).
you read the Tora (Like the Bible, but for Jews) again you'll realise that the story is similar.
Sure, because the Bible contains the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Scripture in the Old Testament (this is what Jesus often refers to as the "Law and the Prophets"). Christianity is, at least from a Christian viewpoint, the fulfillment of prophecy from the Jewish prophets and the new covenant with God (replacing the covenant of Moses).
There's a big difference: Judaism and Christianity have many similarities, but also many differences. Christianity is again different in its insistence of salvation purely by faith.
So I believe that Jesus, as you should know he invented Christianity, just took the story out of the Tora, changed it round a bit and called it the Bible. Then the
Yes and no. Jesus actually didn't change the Torah. I have the Jewish Publishing Society's English Torah translation. There are very few differences with the Christian Pentateuch, because they are both the same -- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
Mohamed, or what his name was took the Bible or the Tora and did the same in Arabic. Maybe not, but thats how it seems to me.
Mohammad claimed that the Qu'ran was the non-corrupted scripture. He claimed that the Old and New Testaments were corrupted scripture (i.e. they had truth but they had major problems, whereas the Qu'ran did not). The Qu'ran contains many of those people that appear in the Old and New Testament because of this (including Jesus!). However, the Qu'ran's view of Jesus is very different than the New Testament's.
It's sort of like if I say the sky is blue and you say the sky is green. We may both be talking about the sky, but that doesn't mean were talking about the same thing. You seem to be talking about the sky right before a tornado hits. ;-)
-Tim
- Sep 17 2003

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 46 comments
-Tim - Sep 17 2003

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 46 comments
The maze is intriguing too though...
-Tim - Sep 16 2003

Wallpaper Other by timbrown527 46 comments
Also about your "quote" of Jesus. I couldn't find it on the web, but it somewhat resembles the viewpoint of the "Gospel of Thomas"... I suspect its Gnostic in origin. Without getting into a theological debate, I'd note that even analytical (read: secular viewpoint) scholars would note that such "quotes" are a lot less likely to be from Jesus than those in the New Testament. So from a historical viewpoint the said quote doesn't really hold water. - Sep 16 2003

KDE 3.x Window Decorations by WhitePanther5000 23 comments
-Tim - Feb 23 2003

Wallpaper Other by bongo 34 comments
Bush is NOT a fundamentalist in many issues. He's a rather moderate socially, many of his positions have appeased the moderate liberals as well as the moderate conservatives. Those further on either end of the spectrum don't like it though.
Fundamentalist, simply, just means someone who sticks to the fundamentals. That is, in the context of Christianity, one that follows the traditional tenets of Christianity. Billy Graham is a fundamentalist, for example. President Bush isn't, because he is somewhat on the moderately liberal side of the Christian church. Make sense?
He is rather conservative on some issues (i.e. he doesn't support 'killing'/euthanizing the unborn, as you point out), but he also is liberal on others (he supports some embryonic stem cell research).
All that said, fundamentalism and conservative foreign policy are two different things. No where odes it say in the Bible "Thou shalt have preemptive strikes." The point being, whether or not some fundamentalists agree with the Iraq situation, calling anyone who does a Christian fundamentalist is truly like calling all Muslims terrorists. On the other hand, there are many Christians and NON-Christians that support action in Iraq but in a measured way. Whatever the case, it just isn't a black and white world.
Just because there are more Christians than Muslims doesn't make it any better or less hurtful to generalize that the group is one of "hatred" and/or "warmongering."
-Tim - Feb 12 2003

Wallpaper Other by bongo 34 comments
Instead of inflamatory symbols, particularly the swastica, how about something more civil. While I'm not totally for attacking Iraq, I think there is a MAJOR difference between attacking a country in violation of international resolutions and an aggressive, racist philosophy (i.e. Nazism).
This is very offensive, IMO.
- Feb 12 2003

Icon Sub-Sets by Mohasr 8 comments
-Tim - Dec 07 2002

Various Stuff by renoken 57 comments
Best,
Tim - Jul 07 2002

Icon Sub-Sets by xtronic 26 comments

KDE Plasma Screenshots by uninet 2 comments
-Tim - Apr 08 2002

KDE Plasma Screenshots by the-apprentice 3 comments
Thanks,
Tim - Mar 21 2002
Okay, now here is you chance to reply and say "Send a patch." ;-) - Mar 02 2002