0
What else can I help you with?
When was Newin Chidchob born?
Newin Chidchob was born in 1958.
Explain how you would send an email?
Create an account on any website... hotmail.com(what i use) yahoo.comclick newin the To section type in other friends email addressand in the large section type your message and at last at top it says send message or send just simply click...:D
Is there any program that can run c but not in c plus plus?
== Yes. It may be funny. You cannot use keywords like newin c++ for variable declaration. But in C it is possible.== The following definition is valid in C, invalid in C++: char str [3] = "ABC";
Where can one download themes for Windows XP?
First thing you need to do is Disable your UAC. Type 'msconfig' into your 'start search' bar. Open up the 'Tools' tab and scroll down to 'Disable UAC'. Highlight it and then click 'Launch'. (requires reboot)This will now allow you to change anything on your Vista Operating system without OS informing you don't have Admin privileges.Secondly, you need to patch your system. You can either use Tune Up Utilities or patch it manually. I found that VistaGlazz has not been updated to work for SP1 yet. Below are the links for patching.For SP1 - http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?/topic/16977-patched-uxtheme-files-for-windows-vista-sp1/For SP2 - http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?/topic/24589-patched-uxtheme-files-for-windows-vista-sp2/Make sure you know which Service Package you are running on.If you don't know, Control Panel -> System and Maintenance -> System.Your Service Package version should be at the top.The information for patching your files is on the above links so I'll leave you to that.Now, almost all theme folders you can download are different and require you to replace different folders, so the one I will be using to demonstrate is called 'The Emerald Forest by Dynacord'.If you want the link for it to follow along with the steps I take to install it then here it is. (Note, it IS a pretty awesome theme.)http://dynacord.deviantart.com/art/The-Emerald-Forest-85736500Note: You will need WinRAR to download and extract this.Link for WinRAR - http://www.rarlab.com/download.htmAlrighty, we'll do this step-by-step. The first folder you will notice is 'browseui instructions'.Now this guy is truly amazing and remembers what it was like when he didn't know how to install themes so he's given you little 'read me' instructions.Now, he explains it brilliantly and it should be very easy to understand, but if your installing a different theme I'll recite it for you anyways.NOTE- BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL HERE. If you do not follow the instructions EXACTLY your computer may become unusable and will require a System Recovery.Take ownership of C:/Windows/System32/Browseui.dllRight Click Browseui.dllGo into properties...Tab into security...Click AdvancedTab into OwnerClick EditHighlight your account and apply, click yes when prompted...Exit out of properties altogetherRight Click Browseui.dll againGo into properties...Tab into security...Click editHighlight your account, Click allow full control and apply, click yes when prompted...Now you have to replace old with newIn order to do this,You must rename the old Browseui.dll as Browseui.old.dll and drag the new Browseui.dll in c/Windows/System32.Presto! Enjoy!Alrighty, we've done the first file, two more to go. Just copy the same instructions above with the other two files.Once you've finished that, only one thing left for us to do.Open up C:\Windows\Resources\Themes and drag the 'The Emerald Forest' folder into it.I recommend a restart at this point.Once back on, right-click on your desktop, select Personalize, then Theme and apply The Emerald Forest.Wallah!Theme installed.Very much hope that I helped. If you have any inquires or questions don't hesitate to ask. Just leave me a note on my message board or chuck me an email at Intervention_@live.comPeace,Zhho.
Are religious beliefs caused by unresolved childhood fantasies that adults often fail to recognize as delusional?
Answer 1: Wow... the questioner has apparently been reading the secular humanist/atheist literature and/or websites.The answer is "no," but not for the reasons I'll bet the asker presumes.It's "no," in part, simply because religious beliefs, and man's having them, is far more complicated than that; and "no," also, because the question, iteself, posits an answer that's obviously skewed toward a pre-determined belief (not to be confused with religious belief, since the asker clearly has none).The word "delusional," in the question, is especially offensive. Some questions, in life, aren't really questions. Rather, they're just statements with question marks at the end. This question is closer to that than it is a genuine question......and the questioner, me and God all know it. (Ha! That was a joke. Get it?)The need to believe in a diety of some kind may actually be in our DNA... our genes, if you will. The precise kind of religion is likely learned; something cultural. But the need to believe in at least some religion or mysticism may -- and I stress the word "may," because this is new and emerging research -- be something that we humans, by and large, have genetically pre-programmed into us. And I say "by and large," because even that research is finding that different people have different levels of the genetic ingredients necessary for a hightened need for and/or sense of the mystical and spiritual; and those with more of said ingredients are more likely to be religious. Look-up, in Wikipedia, the phrase "god gene" to learn more about the gene VMAT2, and the interesting work regarding it being done by geneticist Dean Hamer.Another good Wikipedia article to read is entitled, "Evolutionary Psychology of Religion." That, too, will help you to begin to understand how religion has manifested itself in man throughout the ages. It's quite something, actually.There are also several other Wikipedia articles that could be useful in gaining a fuller understanding:Altered state of consciousnessCognitive science of religionIssues in Science and ReligionMagical thinkingNeurotheologyPhilosophy of religionPsychology of RelitionCognitive science of religionEvolutionary origin of religionsSocial EvolutionSociology of religionAttachment theory and psychology of religionOf course, the questioner is obviously not open to any of that. The inherent bias of the question is abundantly clear; as is the belief-in-truth-which-others-don't-have glee with which it has been asked. Again, it's not really a question, but, rather, just a statement with the word "are" at its beginnin, and a question mark at its end, to make it have the tortured form of a question. Could anything possibly be more transparent......and disrespectful. But therein lies the problem: Respect... or, more accurately, the lack of it, both here, in this question, posted by an unambiguous atheist or secular humanist (as if there were much of a difference, but they insist there is, so I'm just trying to respect that), for religion; and also -- and this is the most salient thing, here -- on the part of the religious who are also zealots about it, and so who have pushed their beliefs onto others in ways, and to the point that many of said others begin self-identifying as atheists because it starts seeming the only reasonable and self-protective response to such aggressive and refusing to take "no, thanks" for an answer proselytizing, recrimination and pig-headedness of the faithful.We see such zealotry in many religions; and, in fact, its presence among Muslims is what was behind 9/11, and all manner of other terrorist acts the world has witnessed both before and since. But Islam has no exclusive claim to zealotry. Christianity -- which I'll bet is what has specifically offended the questioner, here, in life -- has more than its share of zealots who, in the name of the "Great Commission," have foisted their faith on others, calling it "the Good News," in most obnoxious and objectionable ways. Mostly evangelicals, fundamentalists, dominionists and others of extreme both socio-political and theological conservatism and Right-winged ideology, they read and interpret the Bible literally, and believe in Biblical inerrancy and infallibility; and their brand of Christianity -- actually, a bit of an oxymoron in their case -- is usually retributive and dowright weaponized.I am a Christian of deep and abiding faith; but I'm a liberal/progressive one, who abhors how those on the far-right have co-opted and appropriated -- nay, absconded with -- the words "Christian" and "Christianity;" and, by so doing, have given it a bad name, helping to create, by their abuse, a fast-becoming-huge population in the US of persons who delight in posing derisively loaded and prima facie religion-hating questions like that to which I'm now responding.It's called "spiritual abuse," and it's the single biggest reason why people who have been its victims become what is today being called "the nones," or "spiritual, but not religious" (SPNR); or, further, agnostic or even atheistic subscribers to the tenets of secular humanism. And who can blame them. When a far-right, Bible-thumping bunch of allegedly (but not actually) "Christians" chastises, castigates, bullies and shames people into believing -- actually, more accurately, into formulaic, rigid and purely functional adherence -- it can send them running straight into the arms of something less judgemental and retributive (and by its lack of those things, then, more inherently comforting)... like agnosticism, atheism and secular humanism.At that point, though, said fleers, in their both new group mentality, and collective woundedness, often resort to the very kind of abuse of which the religious zealots who so harmed them are guilty. The loadedness of the question, here, is an example.People, in my observation, who are at both ends of the religious belief spectrum suffer from a similar (but, of course, oppositely-motivated) need to know, then belief in their knowing; resulting in their gleeful clobbering over the head of those who don't share their particular absolute knowledge. It is, for both those on the atheistic and secular humanist end of the spectrum, and also for those at the opposite, deeply-believing acceptors-of-Jesus-as-their-personal-savior end of the spectrum, to appreciate the spiritual uncertainties... the mystery. They both absolutely know what they absolutely know, and in said "knowing" is little room for the world's spiritual ineffables, of which there are many, indeed.The atheists/humanists know there is no God, and can't understand why and/or how anyone could possibly -- and stupidly -- think otherwise. The far-right "Christians" know there is a God, and can't understand why and/or how anyone could possibly -- and stupidly -- think otherwise. And it is the derision borned of the "stupidly" part, in which those on both ends of the religious belief spectrum routeinly engage, that both of them (and we, more in the middle, too) find so off-putting about the other. The atheists, though, get at least one point for not promising, as do the far-right "Christians," eternal damnation for those who don't agree with them.Curiously -- nay, interestingly -- it is each end's need for absolutes, and the documentation that those at each end cite in support of them (literal, inerrant and infalible science, cited by the atheists/humanists; and the literal, inerrant, infallible Bible, cited by the far-right "Christians"), which so robs them of the wonder of pondering the ineffables... the mysteries. And so, they both miss faith's entire point... though, obviously, differently.The religious Right "Christians" tout a Bible study series, often offered over the course of several weeks by neighborhood churches, called "The Alpha Course." It promotes a theologically (and, therefore, inescapably socio-politically) right-leaning, Biblically literalist, inerrant and infallible form of Christianity that knows what it, with absolutely certainty, knows because the Bible told it so. The more reasonable, liberal/progressive and left-leaning Christians offer an alternative to "The Alpha Course" called "Living the Questions," which celebrates the mysteries and ineffables of true Christianity.Atheists/humanists, and "Christian" zealots, alike, find absolute answers in their respective documentation; and are comforted by it. True Christians, who better, I posit, understand Christ's message, are comforted by the mysteries. And by that, I don't mean that they'd rather have to guess what things mean, and wouldn't like a few absolutes, too. Oh, no. By that, I mean that in the mysteries, themselves, is where, if the Christian will just shut-up and listen, God may be found; where the presence of the Holy Spirit may be felt; where Christ walked and prayed and died.I could expound, for considerably longer, on exactly what I mean; but I am impressed by the words of a former Roman Catholic priest who seems to fully both comprehend and explain what I mean in a poem.Were I GodMusings of an ancient, woundedhealer after a lifetime of listeningby Paschal BauteWere I God I would diveinto the darkest shadowsof being human,into profound pain,outrageous loss,unbearable suffering,embracing all the tears and the joy I could find,and I would swim towards Light taking with meas much of the brokenness everywhere and of all timeas I could gather.Were I God I would live in despair and in hope.I would be the inspiration of a poem,the rainbow, the dew on the grass,the color of fall, the gentle breeze,the kind word, the tender touch,the laughter of children.I would abide in every flower,every seed, every cry and sigh,I would be the possibility of each new moment.I would be weakness finding strength,never lording it over others,but in every humble service,pitching my tent among the poor,preferring the outsiders.I would nestle in vulnerability:risking and giving Self.Were I God I would hideso subtly within all creationthat I could never be caught.I would be so unutterableas to resist being talked about,and hate the name "God"remembering the oppressiondone in my name.I would exist beyond any wordany symbol, any possible expression,but I would dwell in every human groan.I would avoid expected places:some pulpits, rituals, churches.I would never be snaredby theology, religion or even prayer.No sacred book, system or creed could captureor contain Me... my incomprehensible awful immensities.I would exist solely to be given away,with heart not mind,never to be comprehended orheld by safe orthodoxy:far more verb than noun.I would be yearning for freedom,passion for justice, thirsting for peace,searching for truth, craving for affirmation,ardor for sharing, the making of love,and the ecstasy of surrender.I would be in every form of hurtingand its transcendence.I would be gleamed in lowly favors, generosity,courage, simplicity, compassionbut especially in forgiveness.I would be aborning ever newin the bruised and lonely heart.I would be found more in doubt than in certaintymore in questioning than in righteousness.I would need to be intimately concealedbecause the human ego is so ready to use Meto elevate itself by judging others.I would despise the use of presumed truths aboutMe to divide the human race, for every sectarian purpose.Were I God I would enjoy leaving clues, riddlesand traces everywhere, being tracked onlyby valiant searchers.I would glory in the incompleteness of my creaturesand all of my creation, knowing that the human spiritI sustain could triumph over any human messand bring love and equity even as I do,out of chaos.I would love transforming futility.I would let myself be glimpsed in sunrises and sunsetsin the wonders of nature planet earth...ship and voyager...cosmic immensitiesgalaxies and darkness,in human loving,yearning and striving,in quiet stillness andbecoming littlein EVERY human story.Perhaps if more so-called Christians subscribed to such Godliness, and more of other religious traditions were equally open to the ineffables and that spiritual which may be found in them, then there would be fewer spritually abused and wounded who would ask such loaded questions which are actually derisive statements, as has this asker/derider.
