Home > Archive > Cobol > January 2006 > Re: Making money from Java
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Making money from Java
|
|
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-03, 6:55 pm |
| "SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> You want your kids to be able to pray
> at school then send them to a parochial school. You don't think that
> praying at school is necessary and prefer to teach and practice your
> religion in your own home and church/synagogue/temple/mosque, then
> send them to public school. You want to promote your religious
> beliefs, do it outside of public school and away from government
> supported agencies/buildings.
Huh? I don't know where you got that tirade of nonsense, but it has little
to do with anything I have said. :-)
> "Can a stupid person be a smart-ass?"
You know, I am really, really temped to say that you have definitively shown
the answer to be "Yes!" But I won't. ;-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-12-03, 6:55 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Perhaps so, I'm no expert on Islam. But I have often seen videos on TV of
> thousands of Moslems praying together publicly in Moslem countries.
I'm sure as hell not thrilled about the word 'inclusive' which probably
is used down in the States as much as up here. Inclusiveness ties in
with multi-culturalism. All are welcome, but I deprecate ghettos -
inevitably low wage-earners, newcomers with various shades of brown,
congregate in cheaper areas of a town.
By all means bring their own religious beliefs, but if you land in the
States become a Yank, if you land in Canada become a Canuck - and in
both instances leave behind any political baggage.
Certainly you will see TV shots of Muslims in masses, (in tghe Muslim
world), praying in unison, and that's the way their fanatical mullahs
want to keep it. I don't see the Saudis for instance, changing their
thoughts any time soon, do you ? Same goes for sharia, as practiced in
N. Nigeria I believe.
Well we are lumbered because of multi-culturalism. Dammit always forget
his name - but one of your former Secretaries of State, when interviewed
used to say to the effect, "The British Empire carried the seeds of its
own destruction in its knapsack". Translation - tell the local blacks,
yellows or browns that they were now subjects of HM Queen Victoria and
they would be entitled to the due process of British Law = 'Democracy'.
They took the Brits at their word, were educated by them and turned the
tables. Ghandi did it with his silent revolution in India.
With varying degrees of success, other European countries did the same
thing. The States were latecomers but got involved when you became the
World Policeman.
In each case, where they may have tried to introduce 'colonials' to the
Bible, to the best of my knowledge we never prohibited them from
following their own customs or religious beliefs, openly espoused. Well
there are exceptions - I think we told the Samoans it wasn't really nice
to be eating one another.
So now back on our American and European turf - whites/blacks/browns and
yellows are welcome and can bring in their own customs and religions.
Now we truly get screwed. What used to be the norm, say 100 years ago,
public exhibition of Christianity is no longer 'politically correct'; we
must consider the sensitivities of the newcomers. Again I'm not wild
about the result, but if we truly believe in democracy then we have to
make some accommodation. That means on grounds of sensitivity, (coupled
with your own Constitutional rules in the U.S.), the norm, pubic
profession of Christianity has to be toned down - BUT - not denied.
It would appear not too many Americans are wild about the French. But I
agree with them where the Muslim head shawl is forbidden in schools. One
could claim it is religious-biased. Not in my mind. The French are
objecting to the invasion of their rich and colorful culture by symbols
from other countries. (While there are many catholics in France, don't
forget the Revolutionary Republic turned France into a non-religious state).
Jimmy
| |
| Richard 2005-12-03, 6:55 pm |
| > The E3 has a normal cruising speed of 360mph with an 8-hour flight duration.
> This means its range is about 3,000 miles.
It also has a 14 hour ultimate duration when flight refuelled. Even
with refuelling it can't get there and back let alone stay on patrol.
> They get in-flight refueling some six or eight times per 30-hour mission.
They do so from flight refuelling planes in various places in Europe.
There are no airfields between Ascention and Falklands. Flight
refuellers in 1982 did not have the range to refuell an E-3 on station
in the Falklands.
In fact the Brits did send the occasional Nimrod on patrol, mainly to
scare off Argentinian patrols by 707s and Hercules.
| |
| Richard 2005-12-03, 6:55 pm |
| > The French are objecting to the invasion of their rich and colorful culture
> by symbols from other countries.
It's just what they (the Francs) did to the Gauls (the previous
occupiers of Gaul/France).
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-03, 6:55 pm |
| "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> It might also be a good idea to point out that the Bible misquotes
> itself (KJV Luke 4:17-19, Jesus reading from the book of Isaiah 61:1-2):
> similar but not identical.
What part of "Since Jesus, as God, inspired Isaiah to write what he did, He
was also free to paraphrase what Isaiah wrote." don't you understand. ;-)
> Also; the only independent mention of Jesus
> is in jesephus, in an entry which is now almost universally agreed to be
> a later interpolation.
I'll have to save that particular comment as the most uninformed statement I
have seen in quite a while. :-) Peter, it has been said that if every
single copy of the Bible were destroyed, it would be possible to reconstruct
the entire Bible simply from references in other ancient texts. :-) If you
simply have an agenda to refute the Bible truth or no, then nothing I can
say will make any difference. But if you have honest doubts and are open to
evidence in support of Biblical authenticity, that evidence is available,
and it's overwhelming. If you are open to actual evidence, then I suggest
the two sources below:
If you have any exposure to a legal education, you know that Simon Greenleaf
(1783-1853) did, in fact, write 'The Book' on evidence ("Law of Evidence")
which probably every student of law in the western world has been exposed
to. He was one of the founders of Harvard University School of Law, and
taught there as Dane professor of Law from 1833-1848. In one of his classes
a student asked him what he thought the result would be if the Gospel
account of Jesus was tested in an unbiased court of law. This piqued
Greenleaf's curiosity, and he spend several months studying the issue. The
result is a small (128pg) book by Greenleaf called "The Testimony of the
Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in
Courts of Justice." In the book Greenleaf closely examines the evidence and
makes a determination regarding its validity. I will let Greenleaf speak for
himself, but he was quite certain of the outcome. :-) You can obtain a copy
from Amazon.com for a few dollars.
If you are willing to do some real study to find the truth, and want to know
where the evidence is, then I recommend the book "Evidence That Demands a
Verdict" by Josh McDowell. The book is literally crammed with thousands of
quotes and references. I cannot imagine anyone with an open mind researching
the evidence presented by McDowell and then believing the Bible is not
authentic. McDowell wrote an additional book "More Evidence That Demands a
Verdict" but if you aren't convinced by the first book, you aren't open
minded. :-) Both books are widely available in paperback.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-03, 6:55 pm |
| "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> stress can bring on an illness. He had recently a 15-year old boy whose
> mother had died - immediately it brought on severe diabetes for the
> youngster.
Jimmy, your comment reminded me of something one of my kids told me a few
days ago. They said Ray Charles' blindness was psychosomatic (real, but
emotionally caused, not physically caused), and that seeing his father
killed when he was young had brought it on. Perhaps I am the only person on
the planet who didn't know this. I was dumbfounded that I hadn't heard
before. Was this common knowledge?
How much more don't I know? There really is a Santa Clause, right? ;-)
Actually, learning there wasn't a Santa Clause was very traumatic for me.
Not because of Santa (I didn't care who brought the presents!), but because
I had been systematically deceived by society, my teachers, even my own
parents. I began to worry about what else I didn't know, and wondered "If I
can't depend on my own parents to be honest with me, how do I know when I'm
being lied to?" My parents were honest people, they just didn't see the
Santa deal as a "real lie", but I did. With my kids, I was very low key and
noncommittal about the Santa character, and as soon as they were old enough
to ask, I told them the truth. I *never* told my kids Santa was real, or
lied to them about anything else. They always woke up to presents under the
tree on Christmas morning until their mid teens, but they knew who put them
there. They liked that and are doing the same with their kids.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Peter Lacey 2005-12-03, 6:55 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>
>
> What part of "Since Jesus, as God, inspired Isaiah to write what he did, He
> was also free to paraphrase what Isaiah wrote." don't you understand. ;-)
Well, you tell me: the verb involved is "read". You might also tell me
what the purpose would be of Jesus/God "paraphrasing" his own words.
You might also tell me why you say he's paraphrasing.
>
>
> I'll have to save that particular comment as the most uninformed statement I
> have seen in quite a while. :-)
Possibly; I don't know what you have seen in quite a while.
> Peter, it has been said that if every
> single copy of the Bible were destroyed, it would be possible to reconstruct
> the entire Bible simply from references in other ancient texts. :-)
That may also be so, although I'd be dubious about the New Testament.
Still, you haven't answered what I wrote: that there is no INDEPENDENT
mention of Jesus except in Josephus. Julius Caesar is mentioned in
sources other than his own writings.
> Greenleaf's curiosity, and he spend several months studying the issue. The
> result is a small (128pg) book by Greenleaf called "The Testimony of the
> Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in
> Courts of Justice." In the book Greenleaf closely examines the evidence and
> makes a determination regarding its validity. I will let Greenleaf speak for
> himself, but he was quite certain of the outcome. :-)
It must be a remarkable little book. From Biblical evidence alone, you
can't tell me Jesus' birth year or month; you can't give a consistent
list of the twelve disciples; you can't tell me why one family would
have two living daughters named Mary; and you can't tell me whether the
last supper was on Passover or the day before. Nor can you tell me the
name of the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.
Old testament: why does poor old Pharoah have such a bad reputation;
after all, for the last four of the plagues, he was ready to let the
Israelites go, but God hardened his heart then punished him again.
What's the point of that? Did you, when you got married, take a year
off to cheer up your wife (Deut.24:5)?
(If anybody want to know the source of these statements, contact me
off-group).
> If you are willing to do some real study to find the truth, and want to know
> where the evidence is, then I recommend the book "Evidence That Demands a
> Verdict" by Josh McDowell.
As it happens, I have it. I found it very difficult to read because of
his idea of argument.
Never mind. I'm an agnostic by decision, because there isn't enough
information available to the mortal man. The Bible is insufficient in
and of itself simply because it condemns everybody not fortunate enough
to hear (or have heard before the time of Jesus) of it. Further, there
are impossible difficulties with the "eternity" required by Christian
theology. I don't dispute that there was a man named Jesus. He may
even have done all the things that the Bible says he does. But since I
wasn't there at the time (and you weren't either) we have to subject the
Bible as history to the same sort of open-minded skepticism that we
would to any other document of equal antiquity.
(You haven't commented on my concept of how the holy words of God would
be written, I notice).
The Bible and the Koran are both the words of God, according to their
followers. I have to throw the towel in at that point because - again -
there isn't enough available information to make a rational choice.
I've had experience with discussions like this before. My brother is of
your school of thought, although he's had to mellow a bit with age. I
find that he never quite answers the question and is adept at shifting
the subject. Nor will he answer questions about what things in Gr
actually say: for instance: KJV: Genesis 7:20 - "fifteen cubits upwards
did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered". What EXACTLY
is the translation of the original Gr? (A cubit is usually taken to
be 18"; so it wasn't all that much of a flood. Either that or the
mountains were pretty puny then. You can get out if it by assuming that
the verse means that the waters were 15 cubits higher than the mountains
- but since the Bible doesn't actually say so you can't claim it as
Truth. Nor does the Bible state where that much water came from - Mount
Ararat is over 17,000 feet high - or where it went). In any case,
what's been accepted by faith is never admitted to be open to question -
thence the unsatisfactory discussions.
Answer if you like, Judson; further questioning or commentary on my part
would be pointless. Our standards of proof are utterly incompatible. I
think you're wrong but that's your privelege.
PL
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-12-03, 9:55 pm |
|
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:zNlkf.20349$ki.9642@pd7tw2no...
> Rick Smith wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> No surprisingly, I have no idea what Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is,
> and very likely many others don't as well. But I wish you good luck and
> hope a cure can be found for your condition.
[snip]
>
> Good luck Rick.
Well, thank you.
Also, I have been diagnosed with diabetes and am not
able to afford treatment. About two ws ago--talking
to a neighbor--I was ask if I was a veteren. Yes, I replied,
and she told me to go to the VA Hospital (35 miles away).
Instead, I went to < www.va.gov >, found a program and
application for benefits, and located a recently opened
VA clinic only 5 miles away. Still, I have not submitted the
application because I had to consider whether the program
was consistent with "to support this Constitution". I have
my principles to protect!
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-12-03, 9:55 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Jimmy, your comment reminded me of something one of my kids told me a few
> days ago. They said Ray Charles' blindness was psychosomatic (real, but
> emotionally caused, not physically caused), and that seeing his father
> killed when he was young had brought it on. Perhaps I am the only person on
> the planet who didn't know this. I was dumbfounded that I hadn't heard
> before. Was this common knowledge?
As to your comments on Santa. Ha Humbug you Scrooge :-) No wonder you
took a swipe years ago when I wrote about Peter Pan on stage and
Tinkerbell who had apparently disappeared. Says one character to the
little ones in the theatre audience, "If you believe in fairies. Clap".
The tiny tots clapped like mad ! Scrooge McClendon said, in the kindest
way of course, that I should grow up :-)
I would still like to play make-believe - beats economic woes and
anticipating the next disaster to occur in the Middle East.
Jimmy
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-12-03, 9:55 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:jElkf.49068$6y4.46087@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
>
> I think we're hashing semantics here. I just don't see the judicial action
> of keeping the legislature within Constitutional bounds as "reforming."
> Perhaps if the legislature were "not kept in bounds" for some period of
> time, such that being out of bounds was normal government activity, then I
> suppose you might legitimately call that a "reform", but that would be
> pushing the definition, IMO. :-)
Well, when I wrote "to reform government by
putting an end to its abuses and usurpations",
I was using a definition from The Random House
College Dictionary, Revised Edition, 1975.
reform n. 6. to put an end to (abuses, disorder, etc.)
Yes, I agree that "reform" applies more to that
which occurred over some period of time.
| |
| Jeff York 2005-12-04, 7:55 am |
| "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I beg to differ with regard to the comment where the US forgave it's
>allies debts. Britain was still paying back for the lend lease years
>after the war finished (I'm not sure whether that has stopped now).
IIRC, the balance was repaid in full during Margaret Thatcher's
"reign". A few of our more rabid newspapers announced it as "Maggie
bails the yanks out".. :-)
--
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).
| |
|
| In article <eip5p1tlahq79gb94he8579tvajm8r6o93@4ax.com>,
Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>IIRC, the balance was repaid in full during Margaret Thatcher's
>"reign". A few of our more rabid newspapers announced it as "Maggie
>bails the yanks out".. :-)
I can't recall where I read it but the quote went something like 'British
journalism is a sordid and mean-spirited affair, fed primarily by spite,
envy and strong drink.'
DD
| |
| Jeff York 2005-12-04, 6:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>In article <eip5p1tlahq79gb94he8579tvajm8r6o93@4ax.com>,
>Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>I can't recall where I read it but the quote went something like 'British
>journalism is a sordid and mean-spirited affair, fed primarily by spite,
>envy and strong drink.'
.... an astonishingly perceptive comment, whoever wrote it. :-)
--
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).
| |
| SkippyPB 2005-12-04, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:44:22 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> enlightened us:
>"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Jimmy, your comment reminded me of something one of my kids told me a few
>days ago. They said Ray Charles' blindness was psychosomatic (real, but
>emotionally caused, not physically caused), and that seeing his father
>killed when he was young had brought it on. Perhaps I am the only person on
>the planet who didn't know this. I was dumbfounded that I hadn't heard
>before. Was this common knowledge?
I have followed Ray Charles' career ever since "I've Got A Woman' and
have read everything there is about him. I've never seen anything
written about him witnessing his father's death. He did witness his
younger brother being drowned and tried to save him but his younger
brother was too heavy to pull out of the washtub he drowned in. Ray
was 5 at that time. Two years later he started going blind. It was
an illness that caused it. Some believed he had glaucoma, something
that wasn't widely known about in the 30's when he may have
contracted it. The movie, "Ray", attributed his blindness to
trachoma, an infectious disease found in overcrowded, unsanitary
conditions with limited access to water. Those were certainly the
conditions Ray grew up in.The clinical portrayal in the movie is
accurate for trachoma with the chronic irritated eyes discharging pus.
Glaucoma usually does not cause pain or irritation and certainly no
discharge.
>
>How much more don't I know? There really is a Santa Clause, right? ;-)
>Actually, learning there wasn't a Santa Clause was very traumatic for me.
>Not because of Santa (I didn't care who brought the presents!), but because
>I had been systematically deceived by society, my teachers, even my own
>parents. I began to worry about what else I didn't know, and wondered "If I
>can't depend on my own parents to be honest with me, how do I know when I'm
>being lied to?" My parents were honest people, they just didn't see the
>Santa deal as a "real lie", but I did. With my kids, I was very low key and
>noncommittal about the Santa character, and as soon as they were old enough
>to ask, I told them the truth. I *never* told my kids Santa was real, or
>lied to them about anything else. They always woke up to presents under the
>tree on Christmas morning until their mid teens, but they knew who put them
>there. They liked that and are doing the same with their kids.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Can a stupid person be a smart-ass?"
---George Carlin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| SkippyPB 2005-12-04, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:02:51 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> enlightened us:
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>Huh? I don't know where you got that tirade of nonsense, but it has little
>to do with anything I have said. :-)
>
Really? Then you need to re-read what you posted. You wrote:
"Praying visibly? Why not? What conceivable offense is someone bowing
their head? Praying audibly? Why should a person praying audibly over
their food be any more objectionable than a person having an audible
conversation? Both are simply talking, and one happens to be talking
to God. Big deal. :-)"
You also wrote, "See what I mean about liberals? Should my children
have to leave the school grounds to pray over their food? Richard,
your position is so blatantly biased and unreasonable that I am amazed
you can't see it yourself. Comparing praying over one's food to
playing football, as if they were equally distracting! What a pitiful
example. FYI there are a number of churches who have baseball and
softball teams. Probably some who have football teams too. They just
don't practice inside the sanctuary. :-)"
I have a real problem with people who insist that prayer be allowed in
public school. That is the basis behind what I wrote. Your writings
seem to suggest that you support prayer in public school. If I'm
wrong, than I appologize, otherwise I stand by what I wrote.
>
>
>You know, I am really, really temped to say that you have definitively shown
>the answer to be "Yes!" But I won't. ;-)
I am neither.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Can a stupid person be a smart-ass?"
---George Carlin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Ian Dalziel 2005-12-04, 6:55 pm |
| On 4 Dec 2005 10:54:36 -0800, "Alistair"
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>James wrote:
>QUOTE Scotland no, but QEI in England, and Wales and unfortunately
>Ireland. We
>always refer to her sister as Mary, (Bloody Mary) - strictly speaking
>she was Mary I - then there's William of Orange and his wife who really
>
>should be Mary II, being the daughter of the previous monarch James II.
>
>
>And of course your James VI was the grandson of Henry VIII's sister
>Mary
>Rose.
>UNQUOTE
>
>It is only the reigning monarch who acquires the number, never the
>wife.
>Re Elizabeth I, she was never the Queen of Scotland and therefore, as
>far as numbering is concerned, Elizabeth II is in fact Elizabeth I of
>England AND Scotland.
William and Mary *were* joint reigning monarchs.
--
Ian
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| "SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> I have followed Ray Charles' career ever since "I've Got A Woman' and
> have read everything there is about him. I've never seen anything
> written about him witnessing his father's death.
Sorry, I was confusing the father thing with someone else. I now remember
that it was Charles' smaller brother. They told me that the water was very
hot, and when Ray's little brother fell in, Ray thought he was just horsing
around about being burned, until it was too late. Or maybe they said that's
how the movie portrayed it.
> He did witness his
> younger brother being drowned and tried to save him but his younger
> brother was too heavy to pull out of the washtub he drowned in. Ray
> was 5 at that time. Two years later he started going blind. It was
> an illness that caused it. Some believed he had glaucoma, something
> that wasn't widely known about in the 30's when he may have
> contracted it. The movie, "Ray", attributed his blindness to
> trachoma, an infectious disease found in overcrowded, unsanitary
> conditions with limited access to water. Those were certainly the
> conditions Ray grew up in.The clinical portrayal in the movie is
> accurate for trachoma with the chronic irritated eyes discharging pus.
> Glaucoma usually does not cause pain or irritation and certainly no
> discharge.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:23:12 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>In the general political sense, there is no 'true conservative' or 'true
>liberal', because one is only 'conservative' or 'liberal' in relation to
>one's culture.
Our "culture" has many facets. One can be a True Conservative with
regards to one facet, but a radical with regards to another facet.
And we don't always agree on what our culture is. When a
conservative wants a Constitutional Amendment to change the
Constitution, is that a conservative action? What if that amendment
is not favored by a majority of the people of the country? In that
case, "one's culture" is defined as something smaller than the whole
country.
By that standard, virtually everybody can find a culture that he can
be defined with as a conservative.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:23:12 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>You keep thinking in terms of 'being conservative' meaning 'believes these
>things', but the general political definition of 'conservative' and
>'liberal' are entirely relative. A person with the same beliefs can be a
>liberal in one society and a conservative in another. The terms speak to the
>relationship between a person's beliefs and the society he is in, not to his
>beliefs in an absolute sense. :-)
I like the argument between people of strong religious beliefs - one
who says "get out and change things", and the other who says "sit back
and live life right". This can be seen in its extreme in the Mid
East (with Muslims and Jews), but is also visible with various
Christian communities.
Both claim to be conservative - believing strongly in their old
religions and living according to what they believe the religions
said. But their actions are very different.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 23:33:41 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> All the Christians I know, when we eat in restaurants,
>we pray only loud enough for the people at our table to hear the prayer, but
>not loud enough to disturb people at nearby tables.
So those people who hold hands before eating at restaurants, with
heads bowed, but who don't pray out loud either are not known by you
or are not True Christians.
The Christian population of our country must be much smaller than
reported.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:44:22 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>How much more don't I know? There really is a Santa Clause, right? ;-)
>Actually, learning there wasn't a Santa Clause was very traumatic for me.
>Not because of Santa (I didn't care who brought the presents!), but because
>I had been systematically deceived by society, my teachers, even my own
>parents. I began to worry about what else I didn't know, and wondered "If I
>can't depend on my own parents to be honest with me, how do I know when I'm
>being lied to?"
My mother was hurt that her parents never bought her any Christmas
gifts. If Santa liked her enough to buy gifts, why not her parents?
My wife never was an effective liar. My kids learned to play the
Santa game, but it never became very real. I kind of like the idea
of having kids playing Santa just the way they play Cinderella or
Spiderman.
My son still claims that he believes in the Tooth Fairy - except when
his kids lose teeth. After all, there is only one consequence in
disbelief in the tooth fairy.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:44:22 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>Jimmy, your comment reminded me of something one of my kids told me a few
>days ago. They said Ray Charles' blindness was psychosomatic (real, but
>emotionally caused, not physically caused), and that seeing his father
>killed when he was young had brought it on. Perhaps I am the only person on
>the planet who didn't know this. I was dumbfounded that I hadn't heard
>before. Was this common knowledge?
This is the first I read of it.
The movie had him witness his brother dying.
Anyway "common knowledge" can be "true knowledge", but often isn't.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
> Also, I have been diagnosed with diabetes and am not
> able to afford treatment. About two ws ago--talking
> to a neighbor--I was ask if I was a veteren. Yes, I replied,
> and she told me to go to the VA Hospital (35 miles away).
> Instead, I went to < www.va.gov >, found a program and
> application for benefits, and located a recently opened
> VA clinic only 5 miles away. Still, I have not submitted the
> application because I had to consider whether the program
> was consistent with "to support this Constitution". I have
> my principles to protect!
Rick, depending on the circumstances, if you are a veteran, the US
Government probably *owes* you the medical treatment, by law. If you're
entitled to it, then I recommend you take advantage of it, whatever you
think of the current state of legal affairs. You don't have to agree with
everything the government does (do any of us?) to take advantage of your
rightful benefits. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 12:25:56 -0500, SkippyPB
<swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>You want to promote your religious
>beliefs, do it outside of public school and away from government
>supported agencies/buildings.
I think you would be more comfortable if you were the one teaching
your children your religious beliefs than having the school teaching
them someone else's religious beliefs.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| On 2 Dec 2005 14:49:41 -0800, "Alistair"
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Al Jazeera is not an enemy, unless you abhor free speech and honest
>reporting.
I wonder if it was bombed in order to dispel rumors that they were
doing our bidding.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| On 3 Dec 2005 04:51:26 -0800, "Alistair"
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I do wonder, as a Scot, what justification there is for the II in QEII
>as I am not aware of any prior monarch by the name of Elizabeth within
>the kingdom of Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England. This one rankles
>as King James VI is always refered to as James I by the English.
If they wanted to name her QE XI, they are free to do so.
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2005 04:51:26 -0800, "Alistair"
> <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> If they wanted to name her QE XI, they are free to do so.
You have to admit Howard, that would be somewhat confusing. That's a bit
like saying Henry VIII had eight wives - died, beheaded, died, died,
beheaded, died - what happened to the last two asks a school student :-)
I can't remember the details now, but during the run-up to electing the
new Pope Benedict there was reference to *actual* number of previous
popes and the *true* number of previous popes. Assuming the list
contained, say 325, there were in fact only 324 - at least one, because
of disagreement, served TWICE !
Jimmy
| |
| Richard 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| > If they wanted to name her QE XI, they are free to do so.
The monarch gets to determine their name.
| |
|
| In article <mdt8p1t93njtsgbku13qo873h2ip3ier43@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On 3 Dec 2005 04:51:26 -0800, "Alistair"
><alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>If they wanted to name her QE XI, they are free to do so.
Kinda hard to pronounce... Keh Ksi?
DD
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| "SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> enlightened us:
>
> Really? Then you need to re-read what you posted. You wrote:
>
> "Praying visibly? Why not? What conceivable offense is someone bowing
> their head? Praying audibly? Why should a person praying audibly over
> their food be any more objectionable than a person having an audible
> conversation? Both are simply talking, and one happens to be talking
> to God. Big deal. :-)"
>
> You also wrote, "See what I mean about liberals? Should my children
> have to leave the school grounds to pray over their food? Richard,
> your position is so blatantly biased and unreasonable that I am amazed
> you can't see it yourself. Comparing praying over one's food to
> playing football, as if they were equally distracting! What a pitiful
> example. FYI there are a number of churches who have baseball and
> softball teams. Probably some who have football teams too. They just
> don't practice inside the sanctuary. :-)"
What part of what I said equates to "[I] want to promote [my] religious
beliefs" which is what *you* posted? Christians pay taxes like everyone
else. Do you think they should not have equal access? Please understand, I
*AM NOT* advocating that the government participate in, or otherwise solicit
religion. I am speaking *solely and only* about free exercise of religion,
either individually or collectively, on private or public property, as long
as the individuals themselves, and not the government, are the ones making
the decisions to participate. Should Christian groups not be able to meet in
public parks? Many civic groups, such as Civitans, meet on school or other
public property. Christian groups should (and do, by Supreme Court ruling)
have the same rights. This is all I have addressed in these threads. And in
none of these recent threads have I even mentioned the subject of Christians
having the right to promote their religious beliefs. But, okay, since *you*
brought it up, let's talk about that. :-)
What I want to ask is: what part of "If I can't discuss openly any subject I
like with anyone I like, as long as the person I am talking with dosn't ask
me not to do so, then I am not free" do you not understand? Is the
government going to tell us what and where we can speak? Are you free to say
to someone you are speaking with in public that you like or dislike some
particular movie or football team or public personality? Then you should
also be free to do the same thing about your religious beliefs! What the
dickens do you think the expressions "free speech" and "freedom of religion"
mean? Such things should be bound by principles of *politeness*, not *law*!
When two people are having a discussion, and one of them brings up a subject
the other does not want to discuss, then the other person should be free to
decline to discuss that subject. But that is *very different* from a whole
range of topics being publicly and legally forbidden! If we are going to
regulate *by law* which subjects we are free to discuss in public, are we
also going to regulate being disagreeable, or being rude, or being in a bad
mood in public, *by law* for Heaven's sake? I don't think people are
stopping to realize how draconian and dangerous your thinking is! Wake up
people! If we permit such restrictive oppression toward one group today,
what is your assurance it won't be *your* group that gets pegged tomorrow?
It is the nature of a free society (and a Very Good Thing) that we are
exposed to the opinions of many others (as is happening in this newsgroup
right now). This is the very fabric of how ideas are exchanged among free
people. Would you choose to dictate which ideas are to be censored in such a
culture? Apparently so, as long as it is Christian ideas that are censored.
But before you get too enthusiastic about weilding that censorial pen, you
should know that *you are not immune*. Your very most cherished personal
opinions may someday be the target of the very dictatorial authority that
you cheerfully helped put in place to suppress public Christian expression.
I really hope that is a Very Sobering Thought!
> I have a real problem with people who insist that prayer be allowed in
> public school. That is the basis behind what I wrote. Your writings
> seem to suggest that you support prayer in public school. If I'm
> wrong, than I appologize, otherwise I stand by what I wrote.
Well, I do and I don't. As I said, I *do not* advocate that teachers lead
students in prayer, or tell them to pray, or tell them what to pray. But I
do say that any student who wants to bow their head and pray over their meal
should be permitted to do so without hindrance, even audibly. Students say
pretty much anything else they want audibly at lunch, don't they? Don't
students in public schools often laugh and joke and tease each other, and
call each other names audibly? Are you for regulating that by law also? In
addition, if students, on their own, request to have Bible studies or prayer
meetings in unused rooms after school, they should be permitted to do so, to
the same degree civic groups would be permitted. US law and the US Supreme
Court agree with me on both these points, but many schools are openly
violating those laws, and the student's rights. Apparently you agree with
that violation of the student's rights, and US law. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 23:33:41 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
> <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> So those people who hold hands before eating at restaurants, with
> heads bowed, but who don't pray out loud either are not known by you
> or are not True Christians.
>
> The Christian population of our country must be much smaller than
> reported.
Public exhibition of religious belief. Didn't go looking for it but an
article repeated in my paper from the L.A. Times - the very REAL problem
they are having in France with Muslims. Not surprisingly France has the
largest Muslim population among European countries because of their
former N. African colonies. (4.98 million or 8.2%).
Appears Muslims were professing their faith in public in the French
Disney World :-
'Denece's study cites a case examined in 2004 by Renseignements
Generaux, the domestic intelligence agency, involving the discovery of
what it called "about 10 clandestine prayer rooms" on the grounds of
Euro Disney.......
.... As for the prayer areas (Disney) spokesman Pieter Boterman said the
company resolved that issue. "I thought it was exaggerated to talk about
prayer rooms", Boterman said. "During Ramadan, they took a few minutes
to pray somewhere. We made it clear that we thought the work floor was
not the place to express your personal religion".
So Judson, if you are having your cafe latte, how would you feel if the
guy at the next table whisks out his floor mat and kneels down praying
to the East. It really doesn't qualify if he just does a bowing of the head.
........................
The above to one side, "inclusiveness" which I mentioned only a day or
so ago. This really got up my nose. The article has a large photo, can't
figure if it is a supermarket or a burger-joint. Sign-boards in
background 'Formules Poulet', 'Burgers'.... Centre a young Muslim woman
dressed head-to-toe in traditional black, front centre a two-layer
burger and a bag of pommes frites. (I know we are supposed to be
bilingual in Canada, but I didn't think that was the case in France).
Centre of the photo between the burger and the girl, a cash register
display screen which contains in uppercase :-
MERCI SALAMWALEIKOUM
MERCI ET A BIENTOT
Jimmy
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> SkippyPB <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think you would be more comfortable if you were the one teaching
> your children your religious beliefs than having the school teaching
> them someone else's religious beliefs.
Spot on, for me. I don't want public school teaching religious beliefs to my
children. I don't want public school interfering with my children's
religious beliefs, either. I agree that, if you want your children taught
religion in school, then home school them yourself or send them to a
religious school of your choice. Unfortunately, that isn't possible for many
parents. I wish parents of school children here in Alabama could get voucher
credit for such purposes, as in some states. My own kids are grown, but I
have grandchildren.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:58:25 GMT, "James J. Gavan"
<jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>You have to admit Howard, that would be somewhat confusing. That's a bit
>like saying Henry VIII had eight wives - died, beheaded, died, died,
>beheaded, died - what happened to the last two asks a school student :-)
I'm Henry the eighth I am
Henry the eighth I am, I am
I got married to the widow next door
She's been married seven times before
And every one was an Henry (Henry)
She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (no Sam)
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry
Henry the eighth I am
>I can't remember the details now, but during the run-up to electing the
>new Pope Benedict there was reference to *actual* number of previous
>popes and the *true* number of previous popes. Assuming the list
>contained, say 325, there were in fact only 324 - at least one, because
>of disagreement, served TWICE !
Second verse same as the first.
Grover Cleveland counts as twice in some presidential counts.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:07:35 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>Kinda hard to pronounce... Keh Ksi?
That's how it's spelled, but it's pronounced "Betsy".
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> So those people who hold hands before eating at restaurants, with
> heads bowed, but who don't pray out loud either are not known by you
> or are not True Christians.
>
> The Christian population of our country must be much smaller than
> reported.
Wow, Howard, you're really working hard to take issue with me. :-) I was
simply describing what the Christians I personally know are in the habit of
doing. I wasn't trying to make any point about people who do the same or
otherwise, Christian or no. And I *certainly* wasn't trying to make any
statement about how this conduct might reflect on one's Christian Quality,
if there is such a thing. Being a Christian is about how one relates
personally to Jesus Christ, not about whether one holds hands, or bows their
head, or prays audibly over meals. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:20:41 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>Wow, Howard, you're really working hard to take issue with me. :-) I was
>simply describing what the Christians I personally know are in the habit of
>doing. I wasn't trying to make any point about people who do the same or
>otherwise, Christian or no. And I *certainly* wasn't trying to make any
>statement about how this conduct might reflect on one's Christian Quality,
>if there is such a thing. Being a Christian is about how one relates
>personally to Jesus Christ, not about whether one holds hands, or bows their
>head, or prays audibly over meals. :-)
I see a fair amount of people who have pretty narrow definitions of
what Christians, patriots, freedom lovers, good people,
programmers... are. It is easy to get into these definitions, and I
like to point it out early when I see it.
If that's the only type of Christians you know, then you have to admit
that you are pretty isolated within the Christian community. If
that's the case, you should be aware that there are other significant
differences between your beliefs and the beliefs of many other
Christians.
Or of patriots.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> So Judson, if you are having your cafe latte, how would you feel if the
> guy at the next table whisks out his floor mat and kneels down praying to
> the East. It really doesn't qualify if he just does a bowing of the head.
I often hear people cursing at tables near me, and don't complain about
that. I wouldn't protest the kneeling in prayer, either. Rather that than
hearing God's name used blasphemously :-)
I do agree that public expression of personal opinions or beliefs, religious
or other, should be done with respect for those who may disagree. That
doesn't mean you never get to express them! For example, Jesus openly
preached and taught, but He didn't pressure people to listen, or harangue
them if they didn't. Many times people questioned or challenged what Jesus
said, and He answered them. The only time I can think of when Jesus acted
forcefully toward anyone was when He drove the money changers from the
temple. In that case, assuming Jesus was in fact God, then He certainly
would have had the right to this in His temple. And as we know, He
voluntarily submitted to a mockery of a trial and one of the most cruel
forms of execution the world had ever seen, without making a protest.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> I see a fair amount of people who have pretty narrow definitions of
> what Christians, patriots, freedom lovers, good people,
> programmers... are. It is easy to get into these definitions, and I
> like to point it out early when I see it.
>
> If that's the only type of Christians you know, then you have to admit
> that you are pretty isolated within the Christian community. If
> that's the case, you should be aware that there are other significant
> differences between your beliefs and the beliefs of many other
> Christians.
>
> Or of patriots.
Never thought otherwise, Howard. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> My mother was hurt that her parents never bought her any Christmas
> gifts. If Santa liked her enough to buy gifts, why not her parents?
>
> My wife never was an effective liar. My kids learned to play the
> Santa game, but it never became very real. I kind of like the idea
> of having kids playing Santa just the way they play Cinderella or
> Spiderman.
>
> My son still claims that he believes in the Tooth Fairy - except when
> his kids lose teeth. After all, there is only one consequence in
> disbelief in the tooth fairy.
I don't have any problem with fantasy. But I don't like the idea of lying to
children. If you can have the fantasy, knowing it's a fantasy, without
lying, then great. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Richard 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
|
Judson McClendon wrote:
> Christians pay taxes like everyone
> else. Do you think they should not have equal access?
Of course they have equal access, they get to go to school to do
_school_ things.
> I am speaking *solely and only* about free exercise of religion,
> either individually or collectively, on private or public property, as long
> as the individuals themselves, and not the government, are the ones making
> the decisions to participate.
We have this discussion in this country. One of our Menmbers of
Parliment is a Rastafarian (did I mention my grandfather ...) and part
of their religious observence is to smoke cannabis. How would you feel
if a young Rastafarian was allowed to smoke pot in the lunch room under
the same rule that you want to have for your group.
> Should Christian groups not be able to meet in public parks?
> Many civic groups, such as Civitans, meet on school or other
> public property.
How about New Nazi groups ? or Wicken coverns ? or Satanists ? or
Rastafarians ?
> What the
> dickens do you think the expressions "free speech" and "freedom of religion"
> mean?
Fortunately there is also freedom _from_ speech and freedom _from_
religion.
> then the other person should be free to
> decline to discuss that subject.
Unfortunately some people think that their religion is important, or
real, and think that being told to 'bugger off' is merely a test by
'the devil', one that they can overcome.
Would you allow Scientologists, or Jehovah Witnesses, or .. the freedom
to discuss their beliefs with your children ? To invite them to their
'sessions' ?
> Wake up
> people! If we permit such restrictive oppression toward one group today,
> what is your assurance it won't be *your* group that gets pegged tomorrow?
Well, actually it is. They stopped various groups, such as Witches,
Communists and Fascists, Scientologists, and that was _by_ the
christians, but the rules apply to everyone.
> Would you choose to dictate which ideas are to be censored in such a
> culture? Apparently so, as long as it is Christian ideas that are censored.
It is not a matter of _what_ it is a matter of _where_. There is _no_
censorship of what you say but only of where you say it.
> But I
> do say that any student who wants to bow their head and pray over their meal
> should be permitted to do so without hindrance, even audibly.
Sure, as long as they don't mind having left overs thrown at them.
> In
> addition, if students, on their own, request to have Bible studies or prayer
> meetings in unused rooms after school, they should be permitted to do so, to
> the same degree civic groups would be permitted. US law and the US Supreme
> Court agree with me on both these points, but many schools are openly
> violating those laws, and the student's rights. Apparently you agree with
> that violation of the student's rights, and US law. :-)
The decision as to which groups get toi use the facilities is entirely
that of the school board. If they let your group do this, then they may
be lobbied to let every different group in that claims it is a
religion: raelians, suny, shiite, mormans, wickens, bhrmans,
rastafarians, jedi, ..
I am sure that the 'civic groups' have to meet some criteria of
relevence to the school itself.
| |
| Richard 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| > I don't have any problem with fantasy. But I don't like the idea of lying to
> children. If you can have the fantasy, knowing it's a fantasy, without
> lying, then great. :-)
So, how do you feel about Hindu children who are taught
(indoctrinated?) by their parents that Brahman created Brahma, Vishnu
and Shiva and the Saptarishi to help him create the Universe and
Marichi, Atri, Angirasa to populate it ?
Do you think that they are lying about this fantasy ?
How do you think that they, while discussing whether Brahma of Shiva is
supreme, think about the myths and fantasies that you indoctrinated
your children with ?
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-12-05, 6:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>
> I'm Henry the eighth I am
> Henry the eighth I am, I am
> I got married to the widow next door
> She's been married seven times before
> And every one was an Henry (Henry)
> She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (no Sam)
> I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry
> Henry the eighth I am
>
Very good for locating it Howard. But perhaps the more challenging, do
you know the tune and could you sing it ?
I'll do a quick Professor Higgins for you - 'reverse-elocution'
It will come out something like :-
'Enery the eighth Iyam,
'Enery the eighth Iyam, Iyam
I ghot marri'd to ther widder next doah
She's bin marri'd seven times befoah
And ev'ry wun was an 'Enery ('Enery) etcetera, etcetera..... :-)
Jimmy
| |
|
| In article <zA%kf.59802$6y4.52625@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
[snip]
>What part of what I said equates to "[I] want to promote [my] religious
>beliefs" which is what *you* posted? Christians pay taxes like everyone
>else. Do you think they should not have equal access? Please understand, I
>*AM NOT* advocating that the government participate in, or otherwise solicit
>religion. I am speaking *solely and only* about free exercise of religion,
>either individually or collectively, on private or public property, as long
>as the individuals themselves, and not the government, are the ones making
>the decisions to participate. Should Christian groups not be able to
>meet in public parks?
'Free exercise of religion' on government property... there's the rub, Mr
McClendon. It's one thing for two folks to have a chat about how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin... another for a group to gather to
sing hymns of praise to their Creator (in multi-part harmony, of
course)... and still another to erect a forty foot tall cross with
flashing red and green lights... and yet each of these is a 'free exercise
of religion'. At some point even the most enlightened constabulary might
say '*You might call it freely exercising your religion by a literal
demonstrating of Mark.XVI:17-18... but rattlers are dangerous and there's
young'uns in this park so how about you close up shop, *now*, or come
downtown and face charges for violating... oh, Municipal Ordinance 123.45,
Maintaining A Menagerie Without a Permit?'
As was stated in
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...de=source&hl=en>
--begin quoted text:
You don't ask my tax dollars to go to support your interpretations of
these admittedly imperfect relatings of what you are calling 'divine' and
I don't ask your tax dollars to do the same with... whatever I come up
with, as well.
(Note that when I say 'support' I use it in the broadest sense, including
but not limited to such things as the wall of a building paid for by your
taxes is not be used as a base for broadsheets for my church's functions,
the salary of public officials paid for by your taxes is not to be used
for their implementing of my religions tenets or mouthing of their
preachings, the land paid for by your taxes is not to be used for displays
of my religion's icons. That would seem to be fair enough, wouldn't you
say?)
--end quoted text
DD
| |
|
| In article <QJ%kf.59813$6y4.43015@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I wish parents of school children here in Alabama could get voucher
>credit for such purposes, as in some states.
In a way, Mr McClendon, public education funds are like insurance
policies... when enough folks put together a Large Mass of Money it
behaves differently than discrete, smaller masses do; folks get covered
for unexpecteds - kidney transplants are not inexpensive - and the
insurance company employees get to make a living, too.
When such parents as you mention cease to gain benefit from living in a
society where others have availed themselves of education this 'voucher
system' might make sense... but until then it is only right and just to
expect them to pay for that from which they derive benefit.
DD
| |
|
| In article <0q29p1ln8q0rgr4eu7pd7ghsrcqkuf22ve@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:07:35 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>That's how it's spelled, but it's pronounced "Betsy".
Heavens, too!
(nobody would pay for this... that is why it is called 'free' association)
DD
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-12-05, 9:55 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:zl_kf.58847$6y4.51979@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
[snip]
> Rick, depending on the circumstances, if you are a veteran, the US
> Government probably *owes* you the medical treatment, by law. If you're
> entitled to it, then I recommend you take advantage of it, whatever you
> think of the current state of legal affairs. You don't have to agree with
> everything the government does (do any of us?) to take advantage of your
> rightful benefits. :-)
Apparently, the times I live in are far more interesting
than I could have imagined.
In researching the VA health care benefit, I located
"VA Pamphlet 20-67-1," Revised April 1970, which
I received in May 1971 when I separated. Under a
section on medical care, I found the following:
"Public Law 89-358 extends to veterans whose sole
service was after January 31, 1955, hospital care from
the VA on a bed-available basis for treatment of their
non-service-connected conditions, provided such
veterans state under oath their inability to defray the
costs of such care. ...
"Any Viet-Nam Era veteran who develops an active
psychosis within two years after separation from active
service and before the expiration of 2 years from the
date determined to end the war period, shall for
purpose of securing VA medical benefits be deemed
to have incurred the psychosis in the active service."
And on the last page, "No Time Limit ..... To file
compensation claim for injury or disease".
Two years ago, while filing for Social Security
Disability, I had to revisit the long list of incidents
associated with my problems. Some occurred while
I was in the military and, twenty-three months after
separation, I started experiencing the recurring
symptoms that finally sent me into psychotherapy.
To take advantage of my "rightful benefits," I now
also need to file for Veteran's disability benefits for
a determination of whether my disability is, or is not,
service-connected. Disability by a disease
(presumably, including mental illness) may be
considered service-connected if it is "aggravated
during active service." The difference is a bump in
priority from Group 5 to Group 3 and elimination
of co-payments. It may also trigger a small pension
benefit; but I doubt it.
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-12-05, 9:55 pm |
| Rick Smith wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
> news:zl_kf.58847$6y4.51979@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> [snip]
>
>
>
> Apparently, the times I live in are far more interesting
> than I could have imagined.
Good luck. You've just got to love the following quote, from a certain
lady's lips - more to follow under 'McCarthyism'.
To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that
war."---MSNBC
Jimmy
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-06, 3:55 am |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> In a way, Mr McClendon, public education funds are like insurance
> policies... when enough folks put together a Large Mass of Money it
> behaves differently than discrete, smaller masses do; folks get covered
> for unexpecteds - kidney transplants are not inexpensive - and the
> insurance company employees get to make a living, too.
>
> When such parents as you mention cease to gain benefit from living in a
> society where others have availed themselves of education this 'voucher
> system' might make sense... but until then it is only right and just to
> expect them to pay for that from which they derive benefit.
Every time a citizen takes their child out of public school (for which they
must still pay taxes) and put them into private school, it saves the
government the cost of educating their children. Is it not fair for them to
get at least some of those savings back? :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Richard 2005-12-06, 3:55 am |
|
Judson McClendon wrote:
> Every time a citizen takes their child out of public school (for which they
> must still pay taxes) and put them into private school, it saves the
> government the cost of educating their children. Is it not fair for them to
> get at least some of those savings back? :-)
That's not true at all. If 30 or 40 are taken out that _may_ reduce the
costs by 1 whole teacher, or it may not, depending on how the classes
are arranged. The capital, management, administration, maintenance, and
many other costs are not reduced at all.
If you decide to walk instead of driving your car you won't get your
'share' of the roading costs paid back to you to pay for shoes.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-06, 3:55 am |
| "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Well, you tell me: the verb involved is "read". You might also tell me
> what the purpose would be of Jesus/God "paraphrasing" his own words.
> You might also tell me why you say he's paraphrasing.
Peter, the Old Testament (which was the only 'Bible' available in Jesus'
time) was written in Ancient Hebrew. The New Testament is written in Gr
and Aramaic. If you know or have been exposed to more than one language,
you will know that it is sometimes difficult, perhaps even impossible to
express *exactly* the same statement in two languages. But my point was
that, Jesus, being the actual author of all Scripture (through inspiration
of the Holy Spirit), the He is certainly free to articulate those Scriptures
in any way He sees fit. From what rational standpoint would a finite created
being be able to challenge his infinite Creator's actions? ;-) There's far
less distance between a microbe and a man (both being finite) than between a
finite man and infinite God. That gulf is vast beyond human comprehension.
God can bridge the gap to us, but man could never bridge the gap to God,
without God's help. Nor could man understand God, or anything about God,
without Divine revelation. For a man to think otherwise is the epitomy of
conceit and foolishness. :-)
>
> Possibly; I don't know what you have seen in quite a while.
>
>
> That may also be so, although I'd be dubious about the New Testament.
> Still, you haven't answered what I wrote: that there is no INDEPENDENT
> mention of Jesus except in Josephus. Julius Caesar is mentioned in
> sources other than his own writings.
That statement is simply false.
>
> It must be a remarkable little book. From Biblical evidence alone, you
> can't tell me Jesus' birth year or month; you can't give a consistent
> list of the twelve disciples; you can't tell me why one family would
> have two living daughters named Mary; and you can't tell me whether the
> last supper was on Passover or the day before. Nor can you tell me the
> name of the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.
>
> Old testament: why does poor old Pharoah have such a bad reputation;
> after all, for the last four of the plagues, he was ready to let the
> Israelites go, but God hardened his heart then punished him again.
> What's the point of that? Did you, when you got married, take a year
> off to cheer up your wife (Deut.24:5)?
>
> (If anybody want to know the source of these statements, contact me
> off-group).
>
>
>
> As it happens, I have it. I found it very difficult to read because of
> his idea of argument.
>
> Never mind. I'm an agnostic by decision, because there isn't enough
> information available to the mortal man. The Bible is insufficient in
> and of itself simply because it condemns everybody not fortunate enough
> to hear (or have heard before the time of Jesus) of it. Further, there
> are impossible difficulties with the "eternity" required by Christian
> theology. I don't dispute that there was a man named Jesus. He may
> even have done all the things that the Bible says he does. But since I
> wasn't there at the time (and you weren't either) we have to subject the
> Bible as history to the same sort of open-minded skepticism that we
> would to any other document of equal antiquity.
>
> (You haven't commented on my concept of how the holy words of God would
> be written, I notice).
>
> The Bible and the Koran are both the words of God, according to their
> followers. I have to throw the towel in at that point because - again -
> there isn't enough available information to make a rational choice.
>
> I've had experience with discussions like this before. My brother is of
> your school of thought, although he's had to mellow a bit with age. I
> find that he never quite answers the question and is adept at shifting
> the subject. Nor will he answer questions about what things in Gr
> actually say: for instance: KJV: Genesis 7:20 - "fifteen cubits upwards
> did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered". What EXACTLY
> is the translation of the original Gr? (A cubit is usually taken to
> be 18"; so it wasn't all that much of a flood. Either that or the
> mountains were pretty puny then. You can get out if it by assuming that
> the verse means that the waters were 15 cubits higher than the mountains
> - but since the Bible doesn't actually say so you can't claim it as
> Truth. Nor does the Bible state where that much water came from - Mount
> Ararat is over 17,000 feet high - or where it went). In any case,
> what's been accepted by faith is never admitted to be open to question -
> thence the unsatisfactory discussions.
>
> Answer if you like, Judson; further questioning or commentary on my part
> would be pointless. Our standards of proof are utterly incompatible. I
> think you're wrong but that's your privelege.
The difference between us is that I know God personally. Nothing special
about me, God is eager to have a relationship with all of us. With you as
much as with me or anybody else. We were created for this very purpose. God
became a man and died on a Roman cross to provide a way for our offenses
against Him to be forgiven, marked "Paid in Full". It's easy to meet God.
All you have to do is to ask with a sincere heart (you have to really mean
it) for God to reveal Himself to you. A lot of people have met God that way,
"God, if you are really there, then reveal Yourself to me." Then get ready,
because once you meet God for real, and His Holy Spirit comes to live within
you, you don't have to guess, you *KNOW* that God is real. I speak to God,
and He speaks to me. But, this is a personal thing between God and each of
us. God is not going to force Himself on anybody who doesn't want Him. All
of us have a choice, we can reject God and spend eternity without God, or
receive God and spend eternity with God. If you want to meet God, He is
ready and waiting. But the choice is up to each of us. Personally, I would
rather spend eternity with Someone who was willing to die for me, even
before I knew Him. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <gb8lf.53738$s92.32183@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>Every time a citizen takes their child out of public school (for which they
>must still pay taxes) and put them into private school, it saves the
>government the cost of educating their children.
No, Mr McClendon, it does *not* 'save the government the cost of educating
their children'; to say this appears to demonstrate an almost willful
ignorance of economics.
A citizen takes two children out of a school. This does not require for
the roof to be removed from over the heads of the remaining students... if
*enough* citizens take their children out of public schools then yes, one
can close down a building... but not for 'their child', as you clearly and
unambiguously state.
A citizen takes three children out of a school. This does not necessarily
allow for a teacher to be laid off because now there are only thirty-one
papers to grade a night instead of thirty-four; the remaining students
still need to have their papers graded.
A citizen takes four children out of a school... doesn't mean that you can
therefore fire the janitor because there will be no floors to sweep.
>Is it not fair for them to
>get at least some of those savings back? :-)
I am saying that teaching a mass of students requires an economy of scale
to be achieved and maintained, Mr McClendon; as all citizens benefit from
an educated populace all citizens should be required to pay for it.
DD
| |
|
| In article <wT8lf.54020$s92.31937@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
[snip]
>The difference between us is that I know God personally.
This reminds me of a three-panel comic strip I saw, decades ago. A
policeman stops a car and has the following conversation with the female
driver:
'Lady, it says on your license here that you have to wear eyeglasses while
driving.'
'But Officer... I have contacts!'
'Lady, I don't care *who* you know, it says here you need glasses!'
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-12-06, 7:55 am |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:wT8lf.54020$s92.31937@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>
> Peter, the Old Testament (which was the only 'Bible' available in Jesus'
> time) was written in Ancient Hebrew. The New Testament is written in Gr
> and Aramaic. If you know or have been exposed to more than one language,
> you will know that it is sometimes difficult, perhaps even impossible to
> express *exactly* the same statement in two languages.
No it isn't....
"This is bullshit"
"Dieses ist Bullshit"
"C'est connerie"
"???bullshit ????"
It depends entirely on the statement.
>But my point was that, Jesus, being the actual author of all Scripture
>(through inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the He is certainly free to
>articulate those Scriptures in any way He sees fit. From what rational
>standpoint would a finite created being be able to challenge his infinite
>Creator's actions? ;-) There's far less distance between a microbe and a
>man (both being finite) than between a finite man and infinite God. That
>gulf is vast beyond human comprehension. God can bridge the gap to us, but
>man could never bridge the gap to God, without God's help. Nor could man
>understand God, or anything about God, without Divine revelation. For a man
>to think otherwise is the epitomy of conceit and foolishness. :-)
>
Judson, I have kept out of this because I see it as a pretty tedious thread,
with no minds about to be changed, even though some of the viewpoints and
opinions expressed are "interesting".
However, with the above you may have gone too far.
It isn't even logical. There is no conceit or foolishiness in sing to
understand God. It is a necessary path to growth.(Whether you succeed in
reaching the understanding or not...)
Yet, you have defined God to be ineffable, unknowable, infinite and
therefore unable to be understood.
Er... man is created in His image, and is NOT ineffable, unknowable,
infinite, or unable to be understood. And throughout the Bible this infinite
superior being behaves like a spoilt brat. Raining frogs, destroying cities,
and killing children just to show how powerful He is. (More like an insecure
6 year old than the Lord God of Hosts. Certainly not very infinite when it
comes to wisdom, or restraint... )There are many bright minds who are
capable of dealing with the infinite... why should dealing with God be any
different?
You are saying that anyone who disagrees with you is either conceited or
foolish. I say, anyone who says that people who disagree with him are either
conceited or foolish, has closed his mind and stopped listening. An unkind
person might call this arrogance.
Draw your own conclusions.
>
> That statement is simply false.
>
>
> The difference between us is that I know God personally. Nothing special
> about me, God is eager to have a relationship with all of us. With you as
> much as with me or anybody else. We were created for this very purpose.
Was He lonely then? Did He need respect and admiration? Not very well
adjusted is He? I guess that explains His irrational behaviour in the OT.
>God became a man and died on a Roman cross to provide a way for our
>offenses against Him to be forgiven, marked "Paid in Full".
Why did they require a blood sacrifice in order to be forgiven? Why couldn't
Jesus just say "Hey, folks, look, there's a much better way than all this
robbing and killing and rampaging that's going on. Be kind to one another.
Forgive the people who rip you off, have a kind and loving heart. You'll be
amazed at how much better the world could be. Oh, and my Father (who is
really me, but we'll wait until you've all learned to read before going into
that one...) says, if you turn over a new leaf all the previous wicked stuff
you did will be wiped clean. Clean slate. You can have as much chance at
Heaven as those Pharisees and High Priests have... level playing field,
everybody equal, just behave better..."
Then, there would be no need for all the ensuing nastiness, with perfectly
good temple veils being rent and darkness on the land and Mel Gibson having
to exorcise his Catholic School upbringing...
What kind of God requires His own son to be tortured to death to pay off the
debt of Mankind?
Just forgive it. We can do it with Third World debt, and we are far from
infinite, wise, omnipresent, or omnipotent.
>It's easy to meet God.
My understanding is that anyone who has since Moses, never returns to talk
about it...
> All you have to do is to ask with a sincere heart (you have to really mean
> it) for God to reveal Himself to you. A lot of people have met God that
> way,
And a lot of people have deluded themselves that way, too. I've attended at
least two Billy Graham Revivals (very good shows) and seen the power of mass
hysteria working...
> "God, if you are really there, then reveal Yourself to me." Then get
> ready, because once you meet God for real, and His Holy Spirit comes to
> live within you, you don't have to guess, you *KNOW* that God is real. I
> speak to God, and He speaks to me.
So, He has bridged the gap because you couldn't? But you did by asking, even
though you previously stated it wasn't possible. There was this infinite all
powerful Being who decided He might as well have a chat with Judson. And to
what purpose would that be? Presumably He knows what you're going to say
before you say it, and He already knows what His response will be before He
makes it. Kind of a pointless conversation isn't it? And He's doing this all
the time with legions of the faithful... well, I guess if you are infinite
you have to try and pass the time somehow... Maybe He should just start
another pointless thread on CLC... maybe He has... maybe this is it...
> But, this is a personal thing between God and each of us. God is not going
> to force Himself on anybody who doesn't want Him.
Ah, so there IS free will? But if He's infinite there cannot be... any
choice I make will include God, and will have been foreseen by God. It seems
to me that He's finite when it suits your argument and infinite when that
suits your argument.
> All of us have a choice, we can reject God and spend eternity without God,
> or receive God and spend eternity with God.
Or, you could just die and have your atoms redistrubuted back to the Cosmos
from whence they came, with NO eternity (other than the Laws of
Thermodynamics, guaranteeing the eventual heat death of the Universe.... NOT
eternal, but certainly a very long time (unless you're infinite, of course,
in which case the life of the Universe would be the blink of an eye...))
>If you want to meet God, He is ready and waiting. But the choice is up to
>each of us. Personally, I would rather spend eternity with Someone who was
>willing to die for me, even before I knew Him. :-)
Even if you were right, I wouldn't want to spend eternity with someone who
was ready to die for me before I met him... it shows a marked lack of
judgement, on his part. Besides, I never asked him to die for me (I wouldn't
ask that of anyone... )quite happy to take responsibility for my own
transgressions, thanks.
Pete.
| |
| Donald Tees 2005-12-06, 7:55 am |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Every time a citizen takes their child out of public school (for which they
> must still pay taxes) and put them into private school, it saves the
> government the cost of educating their children. Is it not fair for them to
> get at least some of those savings back? :-)
nope.
Donald
| |
| Donald Tees 2005-12-06, 7:55 am |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> The difference between us is that I know God personally. Nothing special
> about me, God is eager to have a relationship with all of us. With you as
> much as with me or anybody else. We were created for this very purpose. God
That has to be the most arrogant bit of drivel I have ever read on-line.
You can not predict what a *cat* will do in a given circumstance, let
alone god.
You not only assume perfect understanding of spirituality, but you also
assure us that we do not. Then you go on to a mini-lecture about how
humble you are ... you are only really perfect 'cause god made *you* in
his image.
It makes me wish some of it were not such a farce. It would be kind of
fun seeing you meet your shallow little god in a silly little courtroom
with a USA flag at the front, and telling the judge that your personal
perfection means that he can retire, you are available to take over.
You are delusional.
Donald
| |
|
| In article <3vl8n2F169mq1U1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>Yet, you have defined God to be ineffable, unknowable, infinite and
>therefore unable to be understood.
>
>Er... man is created in His image, and is NOT ineffable, unknowable,
>infinite, or unable to be understood.
[snip]
>He? I guess that explains His irrational behaviour in the OT.
.... and the Secret Word gets said and lo, a duck descends from the
Heavens.
As I understand it - and my understanding is, of course, limited - there
is no ratio between the states of existence and negation; to borrow a
metaphor from the world of computing... insofar as 'is' and 'is not' are
concerned either the bit is on or the bit is off.
Finite is a condition of existence, infinite is its negation... between
the two there is no ratio. If there is no ratio then, by definition, the
relationship is irrational.
DD
| |
|
| In article <Ifflf.1636$PX2.167626@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>That has to be the most arrogant bit of drivel I have ever read on-line.
Oh, I *cannot* resist...
.... Mr Tees, you really should read more on-line!
(variant of: 'I've *never* been so insulted!' 'Well, you ought to get out
more.')
DD
| |
| Donald Tees 2005-12-06, 6:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <Ifflf.1636$PX2.167626@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>
> ... Mr Tees, you really should read more on-line!
>
>
> (variant of: 'I've *never* been so insulted!' 'Well, you ought to get out
> more.')
>
> DD
Name a more arrogant statement than "I know God personally." as the
basis for a political position.
Donald
(no smiley)
| |
| Donald Tees 2005-12-06, 6:55 pm |
| Donald Tees wrote:
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Name a more arrogant statement than "I know God personally." as the
> basis for a political position.
>
> Donald
> (no smiley)
>
PS. particularly when preceded by the statement "unlike you".
Donald
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-06, 6:55 pm |
| "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
> So, how do you feel about Hindu children who are taught
> (indoctrinated?) by their parents that Brahman created Brahma, Vishnu
> and Shiva and the Saptarishi to help him create the Universe and
> Marichi, Atri, Angirasa to populate it ?
Of course, I disagree with the Hindu religion, but I don't blame them for
teaching their children what they believe.
> Do you think that they are lying about this fantasy ?
A lie is to knowingly communicate false information. If you believe what you
are communicating you aren't lying, irregardless of its objective truth. If
the Hindis actually believe what they're teaching their children, then they
aren't lying to them.
> How do you think that they, while discussing whether Brahma of Shiva is
> supreme, think about the myths and fantasies that you indoctrinated
> your children with ?
Of course, I do not accept that what I teach my children are myths or
fantasies. :-) But you'll have to ask a Hindu what they think about that.
Now, let me ask you a question. If you talk to 400 people, and only one of
them believes that 2+2=4, does that make all of them equally correct or
equally wrong? Just because people believe many different religions, doesn't
make them all equally valid or false. Each of us must decide in our own
hearts what we will believe. You cannot force such things. The kicker is
that we will all face God one day, and it is He Who is the final Arbiter.
What you or I think about God doesn't affect His reality one whit, it only
affects how He will deal with us on that day. So be sure you get it right!
There is a way to do that, but you can't get there by denying God. To know
the truth, you must personally know God, Who *is* Truth. And you can only do
that on His terms, not yours or mine.
I didn't always know God. I used to wonder if God even existed. Then at one
point my life was really in the pits, and out of desperation I called on
God, and He answered. From that moment, the question of God's existence has
been settled in my heart. I haven't always agreed with what God was doing in
my life at the time. You see, like a good parent, God chastises us for our
own good, and when we do dumb things He will often let us face the
consequences so we will learn better. I've been  , even bitter at God,
and accused Him of being unfair. You would probably be surprised at some of
the things I have said to God in times of intense physical or emotional
pain. But God's Presence in my life has never been in doubt since that day
in the summer of 1975. And God is always faithful. Like a good parent with
an unruly and child, He is always there to forgive and hug me when I
finish my childish ranting and turn back to Him. :-) I wish I had shown the
patience with my children that God has shown me.
So, you can view me as dogmatic or living in fantasy if you like. But God
has given me more than abundant evidence in my own life that He is real,
that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, and that Jesus Christ is Who the
Bible says He is. Millions of other Christians will tell you the same thing.
It's up to you to believe it or not. That's what free will is all about. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-06, 6:55 pm |
| "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>
> That's not true at all. If 30 or 40 are taken out that _may_ reduce the
> costs by 1 whole teacher, or it may not, depending on how the classes
> are arranged. The capital, management, administration, maintenance, and
> many other costs are not reduced at all.
>
> If you decide to walk instead of driving your car you won't get your
> 'share' of the roading costs paid back to you to pay for shoes.
Richard, take a wild guess how many *million* students are in private
schools right this minute. Is millions enough to qualify? ;-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-06, 6:55 pm |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> No, Mr McClendon, it does *not* 'save the government the cost of educating
> their children'; to say this appears to demonstrate an almost willful
> ignorance of economics.
Yada, yada, yada. As I asked Richard, do millions of students inprivate
school not qualify? You choose to ignore the vast numbers of people who have
already taken their children from public schools in disgust, and only look
at the trickle who are still doing so right now. Sheesh! Get your head on
straight. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| |