Cobol - OT - "lie" vs "error"

Author

OT - "lie" vs "error"

Jeff York

2005-05-03, 3:55 am

LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>... It is preoccupied with sex - everything is sexualized, from attractive older
>ladies (now known as MILFs), to twenty-somethings, to the slut-wear that ..
>...
>People's desires are little above the animals, as far as sex goes - in
>fact, most animals don't do recreational sex ...
>...
>... Enter easier divorce and "the pill", which allowed women to "get away"
> with more sex without being "caught" by having a baby. Combined with
> a hedonistic "me first" attitude, the free-love 60's changed the culture for
> *much* the worse.

I'm sorry to say this... But how on earth do you manage to find room
to live in a mind *that* narrow?

--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James, (1843 - 1916).

Jeff York

2005-05-03, 3:55 am

Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>James J. Gavan wrote:
>
>I cannot understand the disapproval at all, particularly in light of
>modern birth control/knowledge. The only way it makes any sense at all
>is from a political standpoint ... control over marriage is control of
>the tribe.
>
>I'd also suggest that "it's prime purpose is procreation" is a lot more
>theology than reality.

If many anthroplogists are to be believed, "recreational sex" in
evolutionary terms is a major part of the reinforcement of the
pair-bond - necessary because of the long time that the human (and
higher primate, who also indulge in recreational sex) infant is
reliant upon its parents. That's why human and primate females are
sexually receptive at all stages of their cycle and don't just "come
into season" as do most animals.

--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James, (1843 - 1916).

LX-i

2005-05-03, 3:55 pm

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 27-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> However there is a big difference between "Not a Good Thing", and "Homicide".
> There are lots of "not good things" that should *not* proscribed by law.
>
> A majority of USAmericans believe abortion is "Not a Good Thing". Minorities
> believe it is homicide or believe it to be "a good thing". Those who believe
> it to be acceptable in the case of rape or incest obviously don't believe it to
> be homicide. If not, then IMHO, the state should not be making it illegal.

Which illustrates my point, that it is a double-standard that only
serves to weaken any legislation that passes. If it's wrong, it's wrong
- and if it's not wrong, why make a law against it?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chuck Stevens

2005-05-03, 3:55 pm

"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
news:117dfdhsis7lhb3@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
> news:d55jo7$1gj0$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
does[color=darkred]
not[color=darkred]
Era.[color=darkred]
> titles.
>
> Let me acknowledge that I should have used 'or'
> instead of 'and'. I used 'seem' to suggest the
> appearance of error by the conventions of today,
> as I understand them to be, rather than a claim of
> error in absolute terms.
>
> I found your use of 'this', to refer to the 18th-century,
> to be interesting, since 'this' conventionally refers to
> the near and 'that' to the remote, and the 18th-century
> seems, to me, to be the remote.

Point taken. I was using "this" to refer to "the era under discussion"
(namely, the late 18th century); the "topic at hand", if you will.

> of
>
> I agree, though it did not cross my mind to give any
> weight to capitalization; instead I relied on context.
> Given the context, "... [Men] ... their Creator ...", I
> believe this to be equivalent to "... [each man] ... his
> creator ..." and, therefore, 'creator' is an abstraction
> (the act of considering something as a general quality
> or characteristic apart from any concrete realities,
> specific object, or actual instance) or, perhaps, a
> metaphor (the application of a word or phase to an
> object or concept it does not literally denote, in order
> to suggest comparison with another object or concept),
> and should not be capitalized by today's conventions.
> Had it been written "the Creator" or "our Creator", the
> capitalization would be proper by today's conventions,
> since any equivalence would be denied.

The question I have is whether the average writer of formal 18th century
English would have differentiated between "their creator" and "their
Creator", or for that matter even "our creator" and "our Creator"; it seemed
to me that was at least part of the underlying presumption.

In the same sentence in which "their Creator" appears in the Declaration of
Independence, so also do "Rights", "Life", "Liberty", "Happiness", and in
the next sentence "Governments", "Men", and so forth. Point being,
"Creator" mid-sentence in *modern* written English would ordinarily be taken
synonymous with "God" on the grounds of the conventional capitalization of
names for the Deity. That presumption, if it was appropriate at all in that
dialect of English, would be quite a bit less likely.

-Chuck Stevens

William M. Klein

2005-05-03, 8:55 pm

So is discussing "COBOL" vs "Cobol" considered on-topic or off? <G>

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:K1_ce.34727$5f.11651@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:joe_zitzelberger-E80D96.22090030042005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
>
> In the spirit of all things anally retentive and in deference to the user
> community of clc. You should probably write:
>
> "The most effective type of birth control is learning Cobol [sic] " -DT
>
> JCE
>

James J. Gavan

2005-05-04, 3:55 am

Clark F. Morris, Jr. wrote:
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
> While I tend to agree with you on allowing 15 year olds to marry, I read
> that Robert E. Lee's wife was 15 years old when they married (Readers
> Digest as I recall). From the same source I believe I read that Ariel
> Durant was 13 or 14 when she married Will Durant then age 26.
> Speculation about the age of Helen of Troy has her around 13 - 15 at age
> of marriage. I suspect that marriage not far from the age of puberty
> (at least for women) has been common throughout history and the delay
> now is primarily an artifact of the past 2 - 3 centuries. I was told in
> high school that Pennsylvania had the minimum age of marriage as 12
> years old. I don't recall if it was supposed to be still true then
> (1956- 1957) let alone whether that would be currently accurate.

I think there's an historical background to this. I'll go from memory
but I have one of those coffee table books with beautiful pictures of UK
accompanied by a 'potted history'.

In the UK - certainly from the Norman Conquest on, (1066) the villeins
attending their three strips of land, used in a tri-cycle of
cultivation, had a life expectancy - females up to about 25 and male, if
lucky, made it to 35. That coupled with a lousy basic diet of grains,
(still remembered today in the traditional Scottish porridge - simmered
oat flakes in water), and no veggies. Hygiene was appalling and a very
large mortality rate at births both infants and their mothers, coupled
with the possibility of infants not living living beyond the baby years.
So as a necessity, from very ancient times, it made sense for girls to
enter into marriage as soon as they reached puberty.

Meanwhile to accommodate any Malthus predictions - the Plague and the
Black Death.

Same book puts numbers on the Roman Invasion, not Caesar, but his
successor Claudius. They fielded 20,000 legionnaires - that's one hell
of a number. My guess Britain (England, Wales and Scotland), possibly no
more than 200,000 inhabitants - so using 20,000 soldiers was cheesecake.
As of the Elizabethan Age there were only some 4 million inhabitants.
Not much growth if you take it from the Dawn of Time up to 1601.

Compare that to Cowtown Calgary - about 30,000 in 1940 and just starting
to nudge 1 million to-day.

Jimmy

Jimmy, Calgary

Pete Dashwood

2005-05-04, 8:55 am

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1114990625.570575.79950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Shiva.
>

Is that one of the Space Pixies :-) I seem to recall from travels in India
that Shiva is the Destroyer... Certainly not to be messed with. (Bit like
the Hebrew God of the Old Testament...)

Might pay to hedge bets a bit here, Richard... :-)

Pete.

Rick Smith

2005-05-04, 8:55 am

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:d5896q$2mj$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
> news:117dfdhsis7lhb3@corp.supernews.com...
[snip][color=darkred]
>
of[color=darkred]
Version[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
[snip][color=darkred]
>
> The question I have is whether the average writer of formal 18th century
> English would have differentiated between "their creator" and "their
> Creator", or for that matter even "our creator" and "our Creator"; it
seemed
> to me that was at least part of the underlying presumption.
>
> In the same sentence in which "their Creator" appears in the Declaration
of
> Independence, so also do "Rights", "Life", "Liberty", "Happiness", and in
> the next sentence "Governments", "Men", and so forth. Point being,
> "Creator" mid-sentence in *modern* written English would ordinarily be
taken
> synonymous with "God" on the grounds of the conventional capitalization of
> names for the Deity. That presumption, if it was appropriate at all in
that
> dialect of English, would be quite a bit less likely.

Ah! This is one of those temporal cohesion things
that gets me into trouble from time to time.

If the significant rules for capitalization, as they apply
today, were developed in the 19th century, then it is
not very likely that writers in the late 18th century
would have taken any notice of those rules (Duh!).

Chuck Stevens

2005-05-04, 3:55 pm

I don't think you yet understand my concern.

You wrote "We don't tell European and Mexican immigrants that they have to
renounce Catholicism, because we're a Protestant nation."

According to my understanding of English grammar (including the use of the
comma), the difference between this statement and "Because we're a
Protestant nation we don't tell European and Mexican immigrants that they
have to renounce Catholicism."

It appears to me the *assertion* is "We are a Protestant nation", and the
*conclusion* to be drawn from that assertion is "We don't tell ...
immigrants ...".

Why is the assertion true? The wording in Article 11 of the Treaty of
Tripoli (1797) would argue *strongly* against it, and as to the assertion
that it was obviously an international ruse it should be pointed out that
the U. S. Senate *unanimously* approved it just eight years after the
ratification of the constitution, and John Adams, arguably a Founding
Father, "proudly" proclaimed it to the nation.

How does that *conclusion* follow from the stated *assertion*, presuming the
assertion has been demonstrated.

The two seem utterly unrelated concepts.

Could you please defend your *assertion* and then demonstrate how your
*conclusion* flows incontrovertibly from it?

-Chuck Stevens

LX-i

2005-05-05, 3:55 am

I know, I said I was done - this is quick (and should be uncontroversial)..

Chuck Stevens wrote:
> I don't think you yet understand my concern.
>
> You wrote "We don't tell European and Mexican immigrants that they have to
> renounce Catholicism, because we're a Protestant nation."
>
> According to my understanding of English grammar (including the use of the
> comma), the difference between this statement and "Because we're a
> Protestant nation we don't tell European and Mexican immigrants that they
> have to renounce Catholicism."
>
> It appears to me the *assertion* is "We are a Protestant nation", and the
> *conclusion* to be drawn from that assertion is "We don't tell ...
> immigrants ...".

I was giving examples of things we *don't* say. Being that we have no
state religion, we're can't really claim to be Protestant, Catholic,
Unitarian, or Chicken-cultists. :)

We're supposed to be a free nation, for all religions. I seem to
remember something about Congress not being allowed to make any
provisions that "prohibit the free exercise" of religion. That part's
not quite as alluring to folks as the first part of the phrase - but
everyone likes the Constitution for their own reasons, I suppose. :)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-05-05, 8:55 am

In article <47b68$42798083$45491c57$1403@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

[snip]

>We're supposed to be a free nation, for all religions.

As long as 'we' agree with the practises thereof... bit of trouble with
the Mormons, as I recall, and nobody that I know of's yet gone to court
for the right to sacrifice their children to Amalek.

>I seem to
>remember something about Congress not being allowed to make any
>provisions that "prohibit the free exercise" of religion.

'Free exercise' is one thing... having my tax dollars pay for it's
another.

DD

Howard Brazee

2005-05-05, 3:55 pm

On 5-May-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> As long as 'we' agree with the practises thereof... bit of trouble with
> the Mormons, as I recall, and nobody that I know of's yet gone to court
> for the right to sacrifice their children to Amalek.

The first big push to make marriage a secular institution was a response to
Mormons.

Joe Zitzelberger

2005-05-05, 3:55 pm

In article <sNbce.10185$BW6.1017762@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> From the sound of this NG, the most effective type of birth control is
> learning Cobol.
>
> Donald

Alright -- I stayed out of it for 278 messages, but that is just too
good to pass up.

I've added it to my email sigs file.

psychedelic-harry@mindless.com

The most effective type of birth control is learning Cobol. -DT

Joe Zitzelberger

2005-05-05, 3:55 pm

Wow.

I'm back after a few w

s of caring for a sick kitty with herpes on his
eyes (let that be a lesson for those prone to 'immoral behavior') to
find no less than 300 messages on clc.

Ya'll are quite prolific. So prolific in fact that you have collectivly
convinced me to stay on topic in newsgroups. Call it a May Day
resolution.

But before I start, I wanted to hand out some kudos for the most
laughter generating posts.

Second runner up was the offering of the overturning of 'Separate but
Equal' by the Supreme Court of the US (SCoTUS) as evidence of its
nobility and righteousness -- while ignoring the fact that SCoTUS
created the S&E in the first place. This resulted in minutes of
laughter.

First runner up was the idea that the 14th amendment excludes fetuses
(fetusii?) civil rights because the text of the 14th says "born or
naturalized" -- but then, I did a double take -- these were the same
people who have insisting on the absolute criminality of NOT providing
civil rights, under the 14th, to Al-Queda or other terrorists who also
failed the "born or naturalized" test. I rolled on the floor for half
an hour.

But neither of these was quite good enough, no, the best statement made
(and I haven't read all of them quite yet), the number one laughter
generator, by Donald Tees, now and forever more to be an email tagline:

"The most effective type of birth control is learning Cobol."

Way to go Donald, I honor you with my signature line.

psychedelic-harry@mindless.com

The most effective type of birth control is learning Cobol. -DT

jce

2005-05-05, 3:55 pm

"Jeff York" <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:59u671h6kvoo9nmg9gpgj30dh4uvkgadks@
4ax.com...
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry to say this... But how on earth do you manage to find room
> to live in a mind *that* narrow?
>
> --
> Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.

You think that's narrow? Some people in this group only code in COBOL!

JCE

jce

2005-05-05, 3:55 pm

"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-E80D96.22090030042005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> In article <sNbce.10185$BW6.1017762@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Alright -- I stayed out of it for 278 messages, but that is just too
> good to pass up.
>
> I've added it to my email sigs file.
>
>
> psychedelic-harry@mindless.com
>
> The most effective type of birth control is learning Cobol. -DT

In the spirit of all things anally retentive and in deference to the user
community of clc. You should probably write:

"The most effective type of birth control is learning Cobol [sic] " -DT

JCE

William M. Klein

2005-05-05, 8:55 pm

Howard Brazee

2005-05-06, 3:55 am

On 29-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> I said that we "don't" tell people that. We're supposed to be a melting
> pot - but these days, folks are trying to make it into a salad bowl.

Would you rather melt - merging some of your identity into becoming an average
USAmerican?

When everything melts together, the result is not going to be the same as if
everybody decided to be like you.

Howard Brazee

2005-05-06, 3:55 am

On 30-Apr-2005, Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:

> If many anthroplogists are to be believed, "recreational sex" in
> evolutionary terms is a major part of the reinforcement of the
> pair-bond - necessary because of the long time that the human (and
> higher primate, who also indulge in recreational sex) infant is
> reliant upon its parents. That's why human and primate females are
> sexually receptive at all stages of their cycle and don't just "come
> into season" as do most animals.

And actually, the papacy has recognized this. The Catholic Church recognizes
marriage between people who are unable to conceive, and has stated that sexual
relationships are part of the loving relationship of marriage.

Howard Brazee

2005-05-06, 3:55 am

On 29-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>
> I asked my wife about it, and she had never heard of it either. Guess
> it's not as common as I thought.
>
> Did you think I meant that they literally broke into pro-lifers houses
> and relieved themselves in the breakfast cereal?

I took it as you intended - just because an expression is new to me doesn't mean
its meaning isn't apparent.

Chuck Stevens

2005-05-06, 3:55 am

Chuck Stevens

2005-05-06, 8:55 am

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message news:...

Missed something in editing (again).

For

> According to my understanding of English grammar (including the use of the
> comma), the difference between this statement and "Because we're a
> Protestant nation we don't tell European and Mexican immigrants that they
> have to renounce Catholicism."

please read

> According to my understanding of English grammar (including the use of the
> comma), the difference between this statement and "Because we're a
> Protestant nation we don't tell European and Mexican immigrants that they
> have to renounce Catholicism." is vanishingly small.

One might also argue that what was meant was "Just because ... that doesn't
mean we tell ...", but I'm not sure that changes the questions as to the
validity of the assertion or its connection to the conclusion in any
material way.

-Chuck Stevens

Howard Brazee

2005-05-06, 8:55 am

On 28-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> The disapproval, as I understand it, came from the premise that every single
> ovum and every single spermatozoon has the potential to bring life, and
> *any* deliberate act that prevents that from happening, interferes with that
> union, or "aims" either in a direction away from procreative possibility is
> a mortal sin, period.

In that case monasteries and nunneries are guilty. Any vow of celibacy does
this.

Howard Brazee

2005-05-06, 8:55 am

On 28-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> So why was it fine for 200 years? Technology advances aside, I'd take
> the culture of our country 100 years ago over today's culture.

That culture included Jim Crow, the KKK, politicians more crooked than now,
people who were taught to spit when they passed the wrong churches, lynching of
Irish Americans, starvation, people being punished for being left handed or
speaking Crow instead of English, kids knowing that they would be beat up daily
by their peers after school, child labor...

Have you studied history?

> This entire cultural shift began during the 1960's

These shifts have always been around. Think of the shock that people had when
the flappers came out with short skirts and bobbed hair.

But these shifts go the other way as well. Not many Iranian women wear short
skirts. You don't have to go back 100 years to experience the values you
espouse - just move to Iran.

> When you're
> working on a program, you'll make a change then check to see if it made
> things better or worse. If it made it worse, you wouldn't keep the
> changes - you'd go back and try something else.

We don't judge if our design is better or worse - our customers do. If our
customers want a GUI culture and we prefer a text based culture - our
competitors will win out.

Howard Brazee

2005-05-06, 8:55 am

On 28-Apr-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> It's part of the culture in this country, and those that don't like it
> should...
>
> a) Ignore it
> b) Fight to make the rest of us conform to their narrow view
> c) Get the heck out

I infer that you are choosing option b).

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-05-06, 8:55 am

In article <d4tper$2rdg$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
Chuck Stevens <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:d4t92t$9ch$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
>
>... Let's carry the *reductio ad absurdum* a bit further.

Eh? How's that again? Sorry, you need to speak up... hard to hear you
over all that 'wubba wubba wubba' going on...

.... no, actually, with the exception of the green robes... and the jumping
up and down... and the... oh, with the exception of just about everything
I was referring to a Miserable Internet Joke someone sent me, long ago,
purporting to be a letter from a fellow who was pushing for more religion
in his children's public school...

.... until the child came home one day and spoke at the dinner-table about
the fine religious lessons they'd learned one day from Mr Cohen
(Judaism)... and the next from Ms Nakamura (Buddhism)... and the next from
Mr Brahmaguptra (Hare Krishna)... and Ms Esposito (Catholicism)... and Mr
Kenyatta (Miscellaneous Animism)... and Ms Habeeb (Islam)... and Mr Dutois
(Voudon)...

.... and how the 'author' concluded that maybe it was best to keep such
things with the family, where they belonged.

DD

Howard Brazee

2005-05-06, 8:55 am

On 29-Apr-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> ... until the child came home one day and spoke at the dinner-table about
> the fine religious lessons they'd learned one day from Mr Cohen
> (Judaism)... and the next from Ms Nakamura (Buddhism)... and the next from
> Mr Brahmaguptra (Hare Krishna)... and Ms Esposito (Catholicism)... and Mr
> Kenyatta (Miscellaneous Animism)... and Ms Habeeb (Islam)... and Mr Dutois
> (Voudon)...

I think that if a kid makes it through school without knowing the equivalent of
"A child's picture story book of the Bible" with all of the major religions, he
is illiterate, and unprepared for the world he lives in.

I have to admit that this includes me. I do *not* know any of the tales in the
Koran (well, I might know some pre-Abraham stories).

We need to be familiar with various religions. I want my kids to understand
Mark Twain's references to the Bible. I want my leaders to understand how
different subsets of Islam can disagree about aspects that affect foreign
policy.

We need to be educated - but I agree with the Masons when they want separate
buildings for schools, governments, and churches. Let kids walk across the
street to the church for preaching, but treat religions as a much neglected part
of sociology.

William M. Klein

2005-05-06, 8:55 am

From:
"CHRISTIANS AND CONTRACEPTION:
Convenience or Kingdom Thinking?
by Bart Garrett"

http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/bar_g...traception.html

"Genesis 1:28

This passage is commonly referred to as the "cultural mandate" wherein God calls
Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue
it." Herein arise two of the aforementioned questions. First, is this statement
a command or a blessing? Second, what are God's purposes for sex, and more
broadly for the marriage relationship?

Mary Pride, who has written extensively on home school advocacy and against the
use of contraception,[11] says that Genesis 1:28 is a command, a mandate given
by God calling his people to take part in physical and spiritual procreation."

However, <G> this IS followed by an "However, ..."

but if someone is against contraception (without exception), it is hard for me
to understand how they can be FOR celebacy - but I am quite certain thome "good
Christians" do fit in this category.

NOTE:
This particular (Christian) article concludes with

"It is time for us to be motivated by the desire to see God glorified and his
Kingdom extended, and not by the convenience of our culture. Is birth control
permissible? Yes, I think so. Is it always best? Of course not. Is it right for
you, right here, right now, this way?[36] This is a question that you must
answer for yourself, in the posture of humility before our wise Father and
loving Lord. May God grant you His Spirit of grace as you wrestle with this
issue under the Lordship of Christ."

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:mIuce.1163818$8l.297042@pd7tw1no...
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> Whoa there Howard ! You're coming on like a twisted Jesuit theologian :-)
>
> While there are plenty of 'Thou shalt nots... " and some "Thou shalt do
> this...." in the Jewish Bible, which we pick up with the New Testament, I
> don't recall Christ, his early followers or any of the ancient theologians
> saying "Thou MUST get married".
>
> In Catholic theology, immediately following the Trinity there is 'reverence',
> not 'worship', of Mary as being the next to God, (the doctrine of the
> Immaculate Conception), even before the Twelve. The state of chastity has
> always been acknowledged in the Catholic Church, from way back when the word
> Christian meant solely Rome or the Orthodox.
>
> PS: nunneries, "Get thee to a nunnery".... - the with-it word is 'convent'.
>
> Jimmy

James J. Gavan

2005-05-06, 8:55 am

Howard Brazee

2005-05-06, 8:55 am

On 29-Apr-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> does
>
> That could indeed be argued, but then you'd have to take the position that
> neither the advice offered by Jesus in Matthew 19:12 nor that offered by
> Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:9 was relevant to the point! Don't think that's
> the case ...

Only if I take the argument that it "*any* deliberate act that prevents that
from happening, interferes with that union, or "aims" either in a direction away
from procreative possibility is a mortal sin, period.".

Logically one leads to the other.

James J. Gavan

2005-05-06, 8:55 am

LX-i wrote:

Well I can't exactly find it Daniel, but Chuck picked you up on 'letting
Catholics into the States', somewhere in this thread. And you can take
it for granted that I definitely felt you had pissed in my Wheaties (try
Wetabix).

First off - as I just pointd out to Howard elsewhere. You have to take
this thing in steps. And some have already pointed out your apparent
lack of knowledge on US history.

So to your constitution :-

Step 1 - early colonial history; how the colonies were settled

Step 2 - the real BIGGIE, which Rick latches on to very firmly, some
background, but more importantly what was the written Constitution that
your founding fathers came up with.

Step 3 - now move forward with arguments, discussion, having got those
two really wrapped up.

But back to Step 1 - only very vague school memories of 'the colonies',
although naturally at a Catholic school we were told about the 'Catholic
colony'. To save you the trouble, the following from a Maryland site :-

http://www.stmaryscity.org/History.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lord Baltimore was a Catholic and his plan was for Maryland to be a
place where people of different religions could live together
peacefully. In England, Catholics could not worship in public or hold
public office. Catholic priests were supposedly banned from England,
although a few were able to live as members of private households and
conduct mass in Catholic homes. In Maryland, Lord Baltimore proposed
that Catholics would worship openly and, when otherwise qualified,
participate in political life.

Initially, Lord Baltimore's investors and leaders, the people who paid
the way of the other colonists, were Catholic. People of other religions
were encouraged to come with a promise that their beliefs would be
tolerated. This practice, in place at the beginning of settlement in
1634, was made into law in 1649 with An Act concerning Religion. The law
was limited-providing toleration only for Christians, but it was the
first statement of religious toleration in America. Ultimately, the
great majority of people coming to Maryland were Protestants-mostly poor
indentured servants who would work in the colony in exchange for their
passage.

Father Andrew White, one of the Jesuit priests who came on the first
expedition, wrote a narrative of the voyage and the founding of the
first settlement. With this and a few letters, something is known about
the earliest days of the Maryland colony. The ships that brought the
first colonists, the Ark and the Dove, sailed from London in October
1633, but Lord Baltimore's enemies had the ships stopped, charging that
the passengers had not taken an oath of allegiance to the king. From the
record of the oaths then taken it is known that, at that point, 128
colonists were aboard. The ships went on to the Isle of Wight, where the
Jesuits and probably some or all of the Catholic leaders joined the
others, bringing the total to about 140. In November, the Ark and the
Dove set sail for the New World. Father White describes terrible storms
that separated the ships, but eventually they made it safely to the West
Indies, where they re-supplied with food and then sailed for the
Chesapeake, arriving in late February in Jamestown, Virginia. Early in
March they sailed north to the Potomac and up the river to St. Clement's
Island. Governor Leonard Calvert took the Dove further up the river to a
village of Piscataway Indians and asked permission to settle in the
area. The Indians were somewhat suspicious, but a Virginia fur trader,
Captain Henry Fleet, helped reassure them. The Indians possibly thought
that European allies might be useful against their enemies to the north,
the Susquehannock, who had been attacking the tribes in the area, and
told Governor Calvert he could settle where he wished.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't be sure, but a reasonable guess would be that the above 'crowd'
possibly preceded a group called 'Southern Baptitsts' ? A real big
thanks for letting us Rat-Catchers into the States !

Jimmy

Rick Smith

2005-05-06, 3:55 pm

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:d55jo7$1gj0$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
> news:1176rr9a2gnhc6@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> It was common in formal written English of this era to capitalize nouns,
> just as it is mandatory today in written German. Because this style does
> not match 21st-century conventions does not necessarily mean that it was
> either "incorrect" or "unnecessary" at the time it was written. I do not
> believe it is appropriate to convey any particular Distinction between
> capitalized Words and uncapitalized Words in written English of this Era.
> We preserve some of this convention in our use of capital letters in
titles.

Let me acknowledge that I should have used 'or'
instead of 'and'. I used 'seem' to suggest the
appearance of error by the conventions of today,
as I understand them to be, rather than a claim of
error in absolute terms.

I found your use of 'this', to refer to the 18th-century,
to be interesting, since 'this' conventionally refers to
the near and 'that' to the remote, and the 18th-century
seems, to me, to be the remote.

> To presume that some semantic weight should be given to a distinction
> between capitalized and uncapitalized nouns in formal written English of
> this period is as dangerous to proper interpretation as presuming that
> "thou" and "you" are interchangeable when reading the King James Version
of
> the Bible. The translators thereof were *rigorously* preserving a
> distinction present in the original texts that has, alas, been lost to
> modern English (and reintroduced in a different form in some dialects of
> American Southern English).

I agree, though it did not cross my mind to give any
weight to capitalization; instead I relied on context.
Given the context, "... [Men] ... their Creator ...", I
believe this to be equivalent to "... [each man] ... his
creator ..." and, therefore, 'creator' is an abstraction
(the act of considering something as a general quality
or characteristic apart from any concrete realities,
specific object, or actual instance) or, perhaps, a
metaphor (the application of a word or phase to an
object or concept it does not literally denote, in order
to suggest comparison with another object or concept),
and should not be capitalized by today's conventions.
Had it been written "the Creator" or "our Creator", the
capitalization would be proper by today's conventions,
since any equivalence would be denied.

I did not rely solely on logical analysis. I was aware of
a connection between Rousseau's, "The Social Contract,"
and the founding of the United States, particularly in the
context of separation of church and state.

Rousseau's, "The Social Contract," Book IV, Chapter 8
< http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_04.htm#008 >.

"The subjects then owe the Sovereign an account of
their opinions only to such an extent as they matter to
the community. Now, it matters very much to the
community that each citizen should have a religion.
That will make him love his duty; but the dogmas of
that religion concern the State and its members only so
far as they have reference to morality and to the duties
which he who professes them is bound to do to others.
Each man may have, over and above, what opinions
he pleases, without it being the Sovereign's business to
take cognisance of them; for, as the Sovereign has no
authority in the other world, whatever the lot of its
subjects may be in the life to come, that is not its
business, provided they are good citizens in this life."

All of Rousseau's, "The Social Contract," is available
at < http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm >.

Rick Smith

2005-05-06, 3:55 pm

LX-i

2005-05-06, 3:55 pm

Chuck Stevens

2005-05-09, 3:55 am

Sparky Spartacus

2005-05-26, 3:55 am

Howard Brazee wrote:

> On 23-Mar-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Having life prolonged by well-meaning governments is the substance of horror SF.

Plus uncountable medical horror novels/films (see Robin Cook).

Sparky Spartacus

2005-05-28, 8:55 am

LX-i wrote:

> jce wrote:
>
>
>
> That's been expressly forbidden by the court. No food or water is to be
> given to her by any means. They also won't allow any photography, so
> they can prove all us wackos wrong with what a "peaceful, euphoric
> transition" she's having...
>
> People get mad when I use labels - but, why is it always the same side
> that objects to the light being shown on the truth? If this *isn't* the
> distasteful, painful, inhumane transition that my side claims it is, why
> not tape it and prove us wrong?
>
> Every woman s

ing an abortion should be given an ultrasound, and be
> shown pictures of aborted fetuses, before they make that decision. But
> how *dare* you insinuate that it's anything other than a "choice" - when
> it really looks from here that they're denying "informed consent" for a
> procedure that *arguably* takes a life.

Only if you first show the complete gestation & delivery process to the
guy trying to get into her pants.

Sparky Spartacus

2005-05-28, 8:55 am

LX-i wrote:

<snip>

>
> 100% pregnancy prevention rate, and holding... :)

Only for those who maintain 100% abstinence - what about the failures?

LX-i

2005-05-29, 3:55 am

Since you've already said you're catching up, you've probably hit the
mail where I said I wasn't continuing this discussion. :) Didn't want
you to think I was ignoring you. There is a comment below, though...

Sparky Spartacus wrote:
> LX-i wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Only for those who maintain 100% abstinence - what about the failures?

Then, by definition, they were not abstinent. :)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Howard Brazee

2005-05-31, 3:55 pm

On 28-May-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>
> Then, by definition, they were not abstinent. :)

Some were raped.

Seeing your smiley. How about the person who has a system that picks only
winners at the race track. This works 100% of the time and he would make a lot
of money except for the bets that somehow failed to fit the system.

Sponsored Links