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
|
|
|
| In article <KlFpf.147657$Gd6.48038@pd7tw3no>,
James J. Gavan <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Richard wrote:
[snip]
>
>You do get a bit repetitive. What is your case for saying that pixies
>are from space. I'm sure I saw one last w in my garden behind the
>artificial toadstool.
My word... the artificial toads are leaving those behind in your garden,
too?
DD
| |
|
| In article <5f3f4$43a77dbe$4f9c629$16961@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
charles hottel <jghottel@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>To docdwarf: pet killer for me and when you find yourself with the "I just
>can't resist urge" that is the time that you most need to resist;-)
zzzzZZZZzzzzzz... zzzzZZNNNUUUURRRKKKHHHH... eh? whuh? Oh, sorry... well,
if you want my Considered Opinion then I must say that... errrrrrrr...
that I believe the situation might merit a closer look.
(Killer, as I type this, sits in my lap, snoring)
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:05:18 GMT, "James J. Gavan"
<jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Go back further - God created TWO - Adam and Eve who then had two sons
>that we know about. Then more folks came along, otherwise we wouldn't be
>discussing Making Money from Java. We call that incest today.
That's one interpretation. Another is that when they went into the
land of Nod, there were people to marry there. The Bible doesn't
state that Adam and Eve were the only people God created.
There are a lot of literalists who *know* a lot that the Bible doesn't
say.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:08:58 GMT, "James J. Gavan"
<jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>But the second part of his statement. There were TEN Commandments the
>last time I looked.
If God tells us to do something, it's a commandment. Ten
Commandments is a subset of all of the commandments in the Bible.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:08:13 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
wrote:
>
> In this case, the Indians, having never heard of this concept of a
>Christian God, did not actually disobey anyone! If they are punished, it is
>unfairly, and this seems to contradict the image of God being kind and
>loving.
Even if it was fair to let someone be tortured forever and ever - it's
not kind and loving.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:42:48 -0500, "charles hottel"
<jghottel@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You seen to hold very many strong beliefs. One of them seems to be a belief
>about your own beliefs, i.e. a metabelief: you believe that once you have
>formed a belief that it is very correct as though actually a fact, and you
>are extremely reluctant to reconsider that decision. There is a reason that
>faith is called faith and not called fact.
Apparently "faith" wasn't an issue in the time of Abraham. Religion
was accepted the same as any other part of life. If God talks to you,
you don't need faith.
But in a world where we expect evidence for cases of science and
justice and other life issues - but don't see evidence for the
supernatural, that the church has switched gears and proclaimed that
religion is all about faith.
It's not about love. It's not about doing good things. It's not
about following the Law. It's about believing without evidence.
(Believing with evidence isn't "faith").
If you believe the right way without evidence, you are one of us and
will be rewarded. If you believe the wrong way without evidence, you
are one of them and will be punished beyond all understanding forever
and ever.
What could be more monstrous than this creed?
| |
| Rick Smith 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:iNIpf.149846$Gd6.144963@pd7tw3no...
[snip]
> Go back further - God created TWO - Adam and Eve who then had two sons
> that we know about.
I would not have known had it not appeared in some
crossword puzzles--Seth was the third son. There is
a reference at Genesis 4:25
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Much of the Torah is about "The Lord said to Moses, 'Tell the Israelites
....' ", and Judaism takes these instructions very seriously. According to
www.aish.com, which cites Maimonedes, there are 613 of them (not 640, as I
had remembered it), and they specifically include the Decalog, though not
necessarily giving these ten instructions more weight than the other 603.
-Chuck Stevens
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:KQIpf.149852$Gd6.73217@pd7tw3no...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
> But the second part of his statement. There were TEN Commandments the last
> time I looked.
>
> Jimmy
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:fNDpf.6495$k76.3217@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> I would go for the media figure as being closest to 'correct', though it
> may be a little low. All the other figures are too high, though the
> General Population figure may be somewhat reasonable, at least here in the
> Southern U.S., often called the "Bible Belt".
I thought the "Percentage of Presidents" would be the most accurate,
though I'm not all that familiar with American history. Was there ever an
American president who claimed to not be Christian?
- Oliver
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:22:21 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
wrote:
>
> I thought the "Percentage of Presidents" would be the most accurate,
>though I'm not all that familiar with American history. Was there ever an
>American president who claimed to not be Christian?
No. Was there ever a president you could trust to tell us if he
wasn't?
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| "charles hottel" <jghottel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5f3f4$43a77dbe$4f9c629$16961@DIALUP
USA.NET...
Addressee not cited, so I'll jump in with some responses:
> Do you think the days of creation in Genesis are literal days as we know
> them now. If so please explain how that could be when the sun was not
> created until after the third day.
The word "yowm" (Strong's #03117) in Hebrew can be interpreted as "day", and
the "evening and morning" part would lend support to that interpretation,
but it can also be interpreted as "a period of time", "a year", or even "an
era". Insisting that the Bible says that the period before the separation
of the sky and the water (the formation of planets) was *exactly*, or even
*approximately*, 86,400 of what we now call "seconds" might just be
overstating what the original author intended.
So, no, I for one don't think the wording in the Masoretic Text absolutely
and unambiguously requires that the only possible time period being
described as "day" is what we consider "day" now. The original Hebrew word
is nowhere near that precise.
In addition, there's a whole bunch of form shifts in the verbs in this part
of Genesis, shifting back and forth from "instantaneous" to "continuous"
action. I've never seen this fully explored, nor have I seen a way to
convey the complexity and richness of these shifts in English
satisfactorily. One translation I know of begins something like "When God
was beginning to create the heavens and the earth, the earth being without
form and void, ...", but I'm not sure that covers it completely.
> Also what day do you keep as the Sabbath? Sunday or the original Jewish
> Saturday Sabbath ( actually sundown Friday evening until sundown Saturday
> evening, since the creation days each consisted of an evening and a
> morning)? If Sunday is the new Sabbath how do you explain that?
Technically, Sunday isn't the Sabbath, it's the Lord's Day. The convention
of celebrating both Resurrection and Pentecost on the first day of each w
by "breaking of bread" is covered specifically in Acts 20:7, mentioned in 1
Corinthians 16:1-2, appears to be implicit in Colossians 2:16 (which
distinguishes it from the Sabbath), and the term "Lord's day" itself is used
in Revelation 1:10. I'm not at all convinced we should be enjoined from
observing *both*.
> After all, the keeping of the Sabbath is one of the ten commandments i.e.
> part of the law which supposedly cannot be changed.
Acts 15 (Council of Jerusalem). It is not necessary for Gentile Christians
to observe the *Jewish* laws.
> One last thing. Thou shalt not kill.
Most modern translations have "murder", not "kill", and Strong's seems to
support that distinction.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:44:59 -0800, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
>Acts 15 (Council of Jerusalem). It is not necessary for Gentile Christians
>to observe the *Jewish* laws.
Most Christians pick different commandments from God as being
inapplicable to them.
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:zyEpf.6629$k76.2723@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> I believe that, since God created us, and we rebelled against His
> authority, He could have done anything He wanted with us and been
> justified.
Even if we assume that the events described in the Bible actually did
literally occur (e.g. that there really was an Adam and Eve and that they
really ate the apple, etc.), it still does not justify God punishing ALL
humans for a "sin" performed by two specific humans. To me, it is the same
error as dimissing all christians as illogical lunatics based an encounter
with two specific christians who happened to be illogical lunatics.
> Instead, he has gone to great effort and personal sacrifice to help us
> avoid His judgment.
The way you phrased it, you make it sound like he has gone to great
effort and personal sacrifice. Of course, he hasn't. He's God. Everything he
does is effortless.
Imagine I am in a room with two buttons; a red one and a green one. If I
press the red button, 99% of the human populace will suffer unimaginable
torture for all humanity, and the remaining 1% will be unaffected. If I
press the green button, 99% of the human populace will lead extremely
satisfying and joy-filled lives, and the remaining 1% will be unaffected.
Furthermore, I am guaranteed to be unaffected; i.e. that I will be part of
the 1% of the population, and I will never encounter anyone who is a member
of the 99% of the affected population, and I am forced to press exactly one
button. Just for the heck of it, I press the red button. Why red? I don't
know. I just chose it arbitrarily; it would have been just as easy to press
the green button instead.
Most people would consider that action to be cruel; I had the
opportunity to help out a lot of people at no sacrifice or effort on my
behalf, but instead I chose to deliver pain to them.
What God is doing, according to your belief, is no different. He could
have just as easily made life easy for all humans, but instead he chose to
make it painful for them.
> If you were in God's situation, your viewpoint would be different. Your
> problem with this Howard, is that you simply do not want to acknowledge
> any debt to your Creator, and you resent the suggestion of such debt.
This is a "forced" debt. If the creator had asked Howard if he was
willing to live under God's rule in exchange for coming into existence,
perhaps Howard would not have accepted the terms of this agreement. But He
didn't ask. He just created Howard, and now Howard is under the Creator's
debt. It's like the Mafia claiming that you are under their debt, because
they are offering "protection" to you. You have no choice in the matter; you
did not agree to anything, but now you are indebted to someone.
> Like the majority of humanity, you want to have your own way and not
> submit your will to God. You have that freedom, because God gave it to
> you, as He gave you life, and moment by moment gives you every breath you
> breathe. God could snap you out of here and throw you into the Lake of
> Fire before you could blink. If He simply wanted to torture us, what would
> stand in His way? He could do it right now, or done it the instant Adam
> and Eve (or we) disobeyed Him. God did not have to give us a way to escape
> His terrible judgment, but He did.
(1) Person A could have done terrible act number 1 (e.g. murder 100
newborn babies).
(2) Instead, Person A did slightly less terrible act number 2 (e.g.
murder 20 newborn babies).
(3) Therefore, Person A is a good person.
This is, of course, fallacious reasoning.
> He has given His Son to pay for our sins, and He patiently waits for all
> non-believers to follow Him, as we were created by God to do. Don't blame
> God if you sin against Him (as we all have), then reject His unbelievably
> merciful and gracious offer, bought with the sacrifice of His sinless Son,
> and thereby, through your very own choosing, come to face that grim and
> terrible judgment. At his very moment, in obedience to Jesus' command, I
> am trying to keep you from that very judgment.
When you say "Don't blame God if you sin against Him (as we all have)",
I'm not sure what you are referring to. If you are saying that we've all
sinned against him because we are born with that link to the "First Sin",
then yes, I do blame God. God, if he exists, has control over the entire
universe. For whatever reasons, he chose to arrange destiny in such a way so
that I was born with this link to the first sin. Therefore, the link to that
sin is God's doing, not mine. I could have been born on another planet
somewhere else in the universe, where there was no Adam and Eve and there
was no original sin. But instead, he chose to tie me to that sin, and force
this debt upon me. Not fair.
If instead you meant "We're all human, so there is a very high
probability that at some point in your life, you've commited at least one
sin", then is it not conceivable that there could exists someone who
coincidentally happened not to commit any Christian sin, and yet chose not
believe in the Christian God? I'm assuming here that not believing in God is
not considered a sin, otherwise the posibility is zero by definition.
- Oliver
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:KQIpf.149852$Gd6.73217@pd7tw3no...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
[color=darkred]
> There were TEN Commandments the last time I looked.
This reminds me of that Monty Python skit where Moses is shouting "I've
got twelve commandments for our Lord! Twe-" and one of the tablet falls on
the floor and breaks "- er... Ten! Ten commandments!"
- Oliver
| |
| Rick Smith 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
"Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
news:CPXpf.13491$wg4.5736@edtnps84...
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:KQIpf.149852$Gd6.73217@pd7tw3no...
> [snip]
of[color=darkred]
>
> [snip]
>
>
> This reminds me of that Monty Python skit where Moses is shouting
"I've
> got twelve commandments for our Lord! Twe-" and one of the tablet falls on
> the floor and breaks "- er... Ten! Ten commandments!"
Don't know about Monty Python; but Mel Brooks,
"History of the World: Part I" had this exchange.
< http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082517/quotes >
with Mel Brooks as Moses
-----begin quote
Moses: The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen...
[drops one of the tablets]
Moses: Oy! Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey!
-----end quote
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:ij2pf.641$RZ6.587@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
[Snipping a bunch of stuff except proposition A, which is referenced later][color=darkred]
>
> Proposition A: God created the universe.
>
[Snipping a bunch of stuff except proposition A, which is referenced later]
>
> What I said was essentially this: *If Proposition A is correct* (that
> Divine Creation happened), then for science to study origins sing a
> scientific explaination was pointless, because any evidence found would be
> useless for that purpose.
Yes, but apriori, scientists do not know whether proposition A is true
or not. Therefore, it may still make sense to attempt to find a scientific
explanation for the origin of life. Similarly, if the bible is false, then
it is pointless to study the bible. But if you are not yet sure whether or
not the bible is false, it may be useful to study the bible in order to
determine whether or not it is false.
> Therefore, the very fact of studying evolution implies an assumption that
> Proposition A is not correct. I.E. an a-priori assumption of no Divine
> Creation. As far as I can see, this is absolutely logically valid.
Studying evolution does NOT imply an assumption that proposition A is
false. (It may assumes things like "our senses are not lying to us", etc.) I
think you are looking at things in the wrong order. When you make no
assumptions, as a scientists should try to do, you do NOT start off with the
beginning of time, because you don't know what happened at the beginning of
time. Scientists make observations about animals, genome, etc. All of this
is purely empirical. Then, once they have gathered some data through
experiments and observations, they try to work backwards as to what was the
most likely sequence of events that lead to the universe we observe now.
It's like you hear a thud coming from a room, so you enter it and see a
bucket of paint lying sideways on the floor, with a puddle of paint formed
around it, spreading radially outwards. There is a stool nearby, right next
to where the can of paint is, and opposite of the direction of where the
radial fins of the streaks of paint are pointing, and the bottom of the
paintcan is facing the tool. Your child is standing there, with his pants
and part of his shirt covered in paint, with a paintbrush in his hand. The
bristles of the brush are wet with paint, and he is standing facing the can,
with his brush in his right hand, near the stool. As he sees you, he blushes
and says "Sorry, I spilled some paint." So far, this is all purely
observation. Now you have multiple ways to reason about it.
One way of reasoning is to think chronologically. Perhaps a hundred
years ago, a devil came and got into a fight with an angel at this very
spot, and had tried to send a curse to the angel who dodged the attack.
However, the curse was imbued into this very spot in the ground. Later, a
house was built over this terrain, unaware of any curse that might be
present. Then, you moved into the house, and started a family. Finally, very
recently, your son walked into the room, stepped onto the cursed region,
which triggered a paint can to spontaneously come into existence, pour paint
over your son, and then cause your son to lie about the sequence of events.
The other way of reasoning is to think in reverse chronological order.
The fact that the paint on the floor is pointing in a certain direction is
evidence that the paintcan at one point contained paint, but was tipped
rapidly in a certain direction, causing the paint to leave the paintcan in
that direction. The lengths of the streaks of paint are evidence that a lot
of energy was released, hinting that perhaps the paintcan fell. The sound of
the thud you heard further supports this theory, and the fact that the
bottom of the can is towards the stool leads you to believe that the paint
can may have been on the stool, and fell off of it. The position of the
paintbrush in your son's hand supports the theory that the paint can was on
the stool, and your son's claim that he spilled the can also supports this
theory. So far, you have a very high confidence in your theory that your son
knocked over a can of paint, but of course, you cannot completely rule out
the possibility that it was the battle between angels and devils a hundred
years ago.
Thinking chronologically about the origin of life (i.e. first God
created life, etc.) is likely to lead one to make MORE assumptions than
thinking in reverse chronological order (i.e. I see lots of different life
forms; how did they get here?)
Studying evolution is studying science's best theory about why life is
the way it is, and it was derived by working backwards; it started with
Darwin making observations about animals, and trying to think about what was
the most likely sequence of events that would lead to these observations. It
does not even address proposition A; we're evolution hasn't gone so far back
yet that it has reached the point where it has to worry about who created
the universe, if anybody.
[snip]
>
> On the contrary, I just proved above that it is a logical necessity in the
> study of evolution. And ***THIS*** is my point. :-)
Well, your "proof" contains an error, because I have shown how it is
possible to study evolution without assuming the truth or falseness of
proposition A.
>
>
> All I am saying is that a theory of evolution requires an assumption
> (postulate) that Divine Creation as described in the Bible did not occur.
> If not, any physical evidence is pointless. I'm not saying that about all
> science, just science involving Creation/Evolution issues.
Theories of evolution do not REQUIRE an assumption that Divine Creation
as described in the Bible (DCaditB) did not occur; as shown above, you can
start with your observations, and work backwards without ever making any
assumption about DCaditB at all. Charles Darwin went to the Galapagos
islands and made some observations. Some of his observations (a
non-exhaustive list):
* There are several different specifies of Finches on the Galapagos
islands.
* The bible claims that DCaditB occured.
Now given all of Darwins observations, he could start forming theories.
One possible theory is that the finches were the way they were because
that's how God made them, and the bible is literally true. Another possible
theory is that evolution may have occured on these islands, and the DCaditB
did not occur. (There are other possible theories, of course, and Darwin may
have considered them too).
Note that neither of these theories contradict the observation. In
particular, the observation that "the bible *CLAIMS* that DCaditB occured"
is not the same thing as the observation that "DCaditB occured" itself.
Other theories (e.g. the theory that "There are no such thing as finches")
are dismissed because they contradict the observations.
Now both theories, "Evolution" and "God did it", might be equally valid,
but one theory has predictive power, and one doesn't. That is, even if the
theory that "Things are the way they are because God made it that way" is
correct, that doesn't allow us to make predictions about future
observations. So Darwin was unable to actually TEST the predictive powers of
that theory. So he put that one aside for now (maybe he'll come back to it
again later), and decided to look at the other theory. Well, the other
theory DOES have some predictive power. It predicts, for example, that pests
will eventually become immune to the pesticides used against them. So he (or
perhaps other scientists) perform an experiment to test this prediction, and
lo and behold, the prediction turned out to be true! "Say", the scientists
say to themselves, "there may be something to this evolution theory after
all! Let's investigate further!"
So while they haven't disproved that the alternate theory, that "things
are the way they are because God made it that way", it's currently on the
backburner, because the theory of evolution looks much more promising at
this point. If we hit a dead end with it, we may have to go back and take a
look at other theories, but so far it seems to be working pretty well.
- Oliver
| |
| James J. Gavan 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Oliver Wong wrote:
>
> I *have* gotten a wide variety of answers (haven't tried googling, but
> I've heard different view points from different friends, and I've read a
> Wikipedia article or two on western religions in general). And I don't know
> which one is "the right one". Like Judson mentioned earlier, a few
> mis-representatives can make the whole religion look bad. And I've seen a
> lot of things which simply don't make sense to me. I don't know if that
> means religion and I are generally not compatible, or if I just got unlucky
> and hit a lot of bad representatives of those religions.
Fine in the above, and I can understand your reaction. How I view the
topic; there are essentially three groups Believers (in ANY religion),
Agnostics and Atheists. As Judson has commented with which I agree, if
there is NO God then we are all eventually just dust - no harm done,
except us suckers that did believe were spending a lot of time believing
in something that didn't exist. However if a particular God DOES exist
.......?
To an extent I see agnosticism as a half-way house where you hedge your
bets, so that hopefully nobody is able to apply the label to you,
"damned if you do, and damned if you don't". Agnosticism is a religious
insurance policy to protect your arse ! I think you (Oliver), owe it to
yourself to be honest to yourself. You can sit on the fence for your
remaining days on earth, quite a few more decades than I will be around,
and still check-out as an agnostic. No harm done and you didn't have to
make any decisions.
Quite likely you have met a lot of mis-representatives in various
religions. Introduce me to a group of say Catholics that you know - I
could recommend which ones to stay away from once I know their
characters. Whether it is Sikhism, Bhuddism, Christianity etc..., there
will always be the bad eggs or the people that don't practice what they
preach; actually most of the baddies probably don't even 'preach'. Any
religion starts out with theological thought, but being mankind we
gravitate to organized structures. It is *not* the original concept that
is necessarily wrong but human ego that insists on taking that thought
and using it in a particular fashion, finishing up with an
organizational hierarchy and a stiff-necked attitude to any dissenters.
Judson likes the historical bits, so let's throw one in. You should be
vaguely familiar with her as in you are in Quebec. Jeanne d'Arc, (1412 -
1431). The English (not British) were doing very nicely in their
territorial wars in France, with devastating results on the French at
Agincourt and Crecy. Out of the blue comes this peasant girl with
visions and musters the Dauphin's army, with good results for the
French. Obviously with connivance from some in the French ranks the
English captured her and put her on trial.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia :-
"There can be no doubt that the English, partly because they feared
their prisoner with a superstitious terror, partly because they were
ashamed of the dread which she inspired, were determined at all costs to
take her life. They could not put her to death for having beaten them,
but they could get her sentenced as a witch and a heretic......"
Suffice to say the trial was a rigged court by her English and
Burgundian detractors. Eventually she was found guilty, burned and her
ashes thrown in the Seine.
CE : "Twenty-four years later a revision of her trial, the procès de
réhabilitation, was opened at Paris with the consent of the Holy See.
The popular feeling was then very different, and, with but the rarest
exceptions, all the witnesses were eager to render their tribute to the
virtues and supernatural gifts of the Maid. The first trial had been
conducted without reference to the pope, indeed it was carried out in
defiance of St. Joan's appeal to the head of the Church. Now an
appellate court constituted by the pope, after long inquiry and
examination of witnesses, reversed and annulled the sentence pronounced
by a local tribunal under Cauchon's presidency. The illegality of the
former proceedings was made clear, and it speaks well for the sincerity
of this new inquiry that it could not be made without inflicting some
degree of reproach upon both the King of France and the Church at large,
seeing that so great an injustice had been done and had so long been
suffered to continue unredressed. Even before the rehabilitation trial,
keen observers, like Eneas Sylvius Piccolomini (afterwards Pope Pius
II), though still in doubt as to her mission, had discerned something of
the heavenly character of the Maid. In Shakespeare's day she was still
regarded in England as a witch in league with the fiends of hell, but a
juster estimate had begun to prevail even in the pages of Speed's
"History of Great Britaine" (1611). By the beginning of the nineteenth
century the sympathy for her even in England was general. Such writers
as Southey, Hallam, Sharon Turner, Carlyle, Landor, and, above all, De
Quincey greeted the Maid with a tribute of respect which was not
surpassed even in her own native land. Among her Catholic
fellow-countrymen she had been regarded, even in her lifetime, as
Divinely inspired".
She didn't become St Joan until 1920.
How the stiff-necks can get it so wrong !
So Oliver, be true to thyself. Don't sit on the fence, research ALL
religious groups. You may come to the decision that it makes sense you
should be an atheist. However, the alternative is you may find something
in ANY religion which gives your soul the comfort you may yearn for. Go
for it.
The God I believe in and my own particular brand of religion has been
consistent in this thought; if you accept ANY religion my God will
accept you; if you stay an agnostic, I can't know His mind, but he will
be somewhat disapproving although you will still be acceptable; if you
are an atheist, and providing you stance is not based on intellectual
arrogance, again He will accept you. Now go look at the following
Section X dealing with types of Baptism - you have the intellect to
understand what is being stated :-
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
You will see that this is completely opposed to what Judson is offering.
Not in the same words but when asked, "What about those in the past who
didn't believe in the *right* God ?", his reply could be phrased, "Then,
sorry, I guess they are shit out of luck".
I said he coppd-out. He completely missed the point. I was referring him
to the same URL as above. But with the white heat intensity of his
belief, and having got it right, he saw no necessity to even just take a
curious p.
That's his second cop-out. Did the same when I suggested his
journalistic daughter should research Ann Coulter. Gave us some BS about
her being a single Mom with two kids etc.... Well I'll make it real easy
for him - see my next under McCarthyism.
Dubya just has to LOVE supporters like Judson.
Jimmy
| |
| Judson McClendon 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
> I think Judson agrees that there is no way to know who is a real
> Christian (just like there is no way to know who really loves you or not).
> He can correct me if I've misunderstood, but I think Judson is NOT
> claiming that there exists a reproduceable experiment to test for
> post-mortem salvation.
Correct. :-)
--
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 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
> <quote>
> The Christian Right would seem to have a lot to celebrate as Christmas
> approaches. In recent days, it has scored a number of significant
> victories over its perceived opponents in Corporate America. Many of the
> nation's biggest cable operators have just announced plans to offer a
> "family tier" of networks in response to the Christian Right's
> long-running campaign against "indecent" TV programming.
>
> Disney (DIS ), which has come under fire from some Christian groups, is
> now cultivating Christians to promote its big new hit, The Chronicles of
> Narnia. On Dec. 9, the American Family Assn. (AFA) called off its boycott
> of Target (TGT ) after the retailer said it would include Christmas in its
> advertising and in-store promotions.
>
> [...]
>
> CHRISTMAS SPIRIT. The Catholic League has had better luck with its
> campaign to fend off corporate efforts to malign Christmas. On Nov. 11,
> the League called off its boycott of Wal-Mart after the world's largest
> retailer apologized for a statement it gave a customer who had complained
> that it was replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays."
>
> The statement argued that Christmas was "an ancient tradition" with roots
> in pagan cultures. And this month, the Catholic League got Land's End to
> repudiate its earlier explanation of why it no longer mails out catalogs
> wishing customers a "Merry Christmas." The reason: It didn't have any way
> to determine which customers celebrated Christmas.
>
> But are these companies bowing to the Christian right -- or to economic
> realities? Britt Beemer, chairman of America's Research Group, a market
> research firm based in Charleston, S.C., thinks it's the latter. "Some of
> these retailers are awakening to a sleeping giant," he argues.
> </quote>
>
> It would seem that Christians are not "powerless" in the media circles
> either.
This is the marketplace, not the media. -)
--
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 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:03:35 GMT, "James J. Gavan"
<jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>Fine in the above, and I can understand your reaction. How I view the
>topic; there are essentially three groups Believers (in ANY religion),
>Agnostics and Atheists.
I suspect that there is not the strong line between these as you may
think, but that virtually everybody has doubts.
And to a True Believer, the distinction between atheists and True
Believers in wrong religions is a meaningless distinction.
And there are some religions where Belief isn't nearly as important as
it is for Christianity. Nor is exclusion of people with other
religions.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1135019731.599662.166360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> I had to scan and store a text document for a friend of my father about
> one year back. The guy had retired but was heavily involved in studying
> criminality and had quite a good reputation in those academic circles.
> The content of the article went along the lines that the passing of
> laws creates criminals and that creating more laws would not reduce the
> number of criminals but would unnecessarily criminalize more people. He
> seemed to advocate the abolish of law.
>
Not quite the same thing, Alastair.
Punishing people who break the law can be argued to be axiomatically
ineffective. We have lessened the severity of punishments over the centuries
and crime has not decreased. We increase the severity of punishments and
crime does not decrease.
Many criminals claim that punishment is not a deterrent to them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't lock people up and remove them from society for
certain crimes; I'm simply saying that doing so in order to punish them,
serves no useful purpose.
We should either work to change their mind about crime (rehabilitation), or
simply remove people who have shown they cannot live in society without
creating mayhem, and are unlikely to be rehabilitated. (Incarceration or
execution). The imposition of penalties purely as "punishment", to my mind,
serves no useful purpose. It comes from the primitive desire to "get even".
"An eye for an eye..." etc. until the whole world is blind and toothless...
The point is I am not advocating the removal of penalties for breaking the
law; I am advocating the removal of penalties which are imposed purely from
a desire to punish.
Pete.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Saying "The Bible clearly and definitely states ..." is a FAR CRY from
> "What I read in the Bible leads me to believe ... ".
Yes it is. In order to say it honestly you have to be that convinced. Does
it offend you that I am that convinced? You may be completely happy
believing that everything is relative, but there are absolutes.
> Behavior reflecting humility I find more convincing of a Christian life
> than behavior reflecting hubris.
Ha! You find *nothing* convincing of a Christian life, as you have
repeatedly pointed out in great detail. You simply want Christians to be as
uncertain as yourself. Sorry. :-) The fact is, when a person is willing to
submit their will, their very life, to God, that is a very clear indication
of humility, at least in that respect. Being certain about God has no
relationship whatever to hubris. But taking upon yourself the decision to
reject your Creator from your life, *that* is hubris. :-)
>
> I agree. If you believe that, then what you write ought to reflect it
> consistently. It hasn't, at least to me.
Sorry, I can't help that.
>
> Show me, don't tell me!
Sorry. If you don't believe the evidence Creation, if you don't believe the
evidence of the Bible, and you don't believe the witness of millions who
have met Jesus, then there's nothing I can do for you, except pray for you.
I've been doing that. :-)
>
> I speak with confidence on issues with respect to the COBOL standard, at
> least in part because I have played an active role in its development over
> the last five years, and have been actively involved in ensuring that
> three different COBOL implementations were in conformance with their
> respective standards for over twenty years. I also have access to the
> standards themselves and am reasonably facile in ferretting out answers to
> questions of what the standard states and what it does not. But when I
> speak clearly on behalf of the standard it is because the standard, having
> been written in English in the first place, is incontrovertibly explicit
> on the particular subject. E.g., it's not a leap to describe the behavior
> of MOVE statements in which the operands overlap as undefined in ANSI-85
> implementations given ANSI X3.23-1985 page VI-69, 6.4.5, Overlapping
> Operands: "When a sending and a receiving item in any statement share a
> part or all of their storage areas, yet are not defined by the same data
> description entry, the result of the execution of such a statement is
> undefined." I don't think there's much wiggle room on that one. If an
> implementor defines the behavior, well, that's up to the implementor, but
> there's no guarantee that any other implementation will be the same. In
> a few cases in '02 COBOL and more in the upcoming draft, I've actually
> written some of the features specified in the standard.
>
> I speak with authority on the Unisys MCP COBOL implementations because I'm
> looking at the Original Text and can tell (in most instances) *exactly*
> what they do. I also have full access to the change history over the last
> twenty years for these products and am therefore able to track exactly
> what each *used* to do. And in the particular case of the COBOL74
> compiler in that environment, I've personally revised around a third of
> the compiler either to improve its maintainability and eliminate
> ambiguities at the source level, or (in the most obvious example of MOVE
> statements involving group items and the PICTURE processor) rewritten all
> of the logic associated with the feature. I have confidence in my
> understanding of the rules for PICTURE because I've written *three
> different* parsers for the PICTURE character-string in my time, each time
> with careful study of the standard, and each time painfully aware of the
> pitfalls therein.
>
> Put a different way, I speak from authority on the subject of Unisys MCP
> COBOL precisely because I am an architect for the products, and it's my
> job to define as well as state what they do.
>
> I speak from a position of authority on the subject of *standard* COBOL
> based on two decades' experience and involvement in defending and/or
> correcting the behavior of the Unisys MCP compilers relative to their
> respective standards for over two decades, which means that I have
> considerable experience finding my way around the documents.
>
> I also speak from a position of authority as that I have been serving as
> the Unisys representative on INCITS/J4, the committee that writes,
> modifies and amends the COBOL standard for the last five years, and as
> part of those duties, served as a part of the US delegation to ISO/IEC
> JTC1/SC22/WG4, the international committee chartered with the overall
> direction and technical content of the COBOL standard. I've also been
> appointed convener (chair) of the latter committee for a three-year term,
> which gives my opinions *some* credibility as to what conforms to the
> standard and what does not!
>
> Despite all that, if you notice, my opinions usually begin with the likes
> of "My reading of <relevant standard>, in particular
> <page-chapter-and-verse citation>, leads me to believe ... that " and
> similar.
I suggest that the question of where your soul will spend eternity is one in
which you should have more certainty than you express by that language.
Would you think it preferable if I were to be a bit more uncertain about my
own destiny? If I expressed lack of certainty in the things in which I place
my faith, you would simply criticize that as lack of faith in what I
believe. You have constructed, by your choice of attitude, a situation in
which you would feel justified in attacking my position either way. Sorry.
:-)
--
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 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:05:18 GMT, "James J. Gavan"
> <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> That's one interpretation. Another is that when they went into the
> land of Nod, there were people to marry there. The Bible doesn't
> state that Adam and Eve were the only people God created.
>
> There are a lot of literalists who *know* a lot that the Bible doesn't
> say.
Well of course there's another possibility, (not belief). Assuming God
did create more, might he not possibly have considered Adam and Even to
be a couple of duds from the assembly line. Not quite what he was after.
He could have just let them die out and concentrate on his new models.
Jimmy
| |
| James J. Gavan 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Rick Smith wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:iNIpf.149846$Gd6.144963@pd7tw3no...
> [snip]
>
>
>
> I would not have known had it not appeared in some
> crossword puzzles--Seth was the third son. There is
> a reference at Genesis 4:25
OK so now there's five of 'em playing the game of incest. Any more takers ?
| |
| Judson McClendon 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>
> The first part of my post has been lopped: Judson quoted the Bible where
> it states that Lot was righteous. If it's righteous to treat your
> daughters as he did - sorry, I don't buy it. It's disgusting at the
> very best.
I agree, it is disgusting. But you're missing the point. Lot was not
righteous because of his actions, Lot was righteous because of his faith in
God. Every single person (other than Jesus Christ) is a sinner, and must be
saved by God's grace, through faith in God. This was as true for Lot as it
is for any Christian today.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:38:25 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>Yes it is. In order to say it honestly you have to be that convinced. Does
>it offend you that I am that convinced? You may be completely happy
>believing that everything is relative, but there are absolutes.
It offends me that you accept eternal torture (worshiping a God that
you believe chooses not to stop it from happening to people who are
fooled). I am unable to accept 5 minutes of torture of MY children
without doing everything I can to stop it.
I'm offended that you think allowing such torture is a sign of loving.
Eternal torture is evil. Allowing eternal torture when you can stop
it is evil.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:KlFpf.147657$Gd6.48038@pd7tw3no...
> Richard wrote:
<snip>
> You do get a bit repetitive. What is your case for saying that pixies are
> from space. I'm sure I saw one last w in my garden behind the
> artificial toadstool.
>
I heard something about a fairy who got pregnant from sitting on a
toadstool...
Pete.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Rick Smith wrote:
>
> OK so now there's five of 'em playing the game of incest. Any more takers
> ?
"After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had
sons and daughters." (Genesis 5:4,5)
--
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 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| > there are essentially three groups Believers (in ANY religion),
> Agnostics and Atheists.
You make it sound so simple. Does that make you an atheist or an
agnostic in respect of the Hindu religion ?
What about believers in Scientology ? As their religion is based on the
SciFi books of ElRon does this make them Believers or Atheists ?
> if you accept ANY religion my God will accept you;
I find that just as arrogant as Judson's. You are saying that everyone
else's religion is wrong, but it doesn't matter because _my_ god will
overlook your ignorence and stupid waste of belief and you will be
accepted as if you had believed in the _right_ religion all along.
> f you stay an agnostic, I can't know His mind, but he will
> be somewhat disapproving although you will still be acceptable;
So you say that you "can't know his mind" but you know it anyway.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
"Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
news:uyHpf.9340$ic1.2236@edtnps90...
>
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:40i4bhF193nl1U1@individual.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> There are two kinds of axioms. One is the self-evident kind, which are
> also known as "tautologies".
I'm afraid I use these terms differently from you. It doesn't really matter
because I understand what you are saying.
An axiom, for me is a self-evident truth.
A tautology is not necessarily self-evident but is logically derived to
conclude the same as the proposition or assertion on which it is predicated.
What you describe below would be a postulate, not an axiom.
>The other kind is assumption that you make true in order to see what
>interesting propositions you can derive from it. You might, while
>discussing with a friend, say for example "Let's just take 'The Spaghetti
>Monster exists' as an axiom and see what we get from that, okay?". That the
>spaghetti monster exists is not nescessarily self evident, but if we accept
>it as true for a given logical system without trying to prove it, then I
>believe it is called an axiom of that logical system.
>
I believe it is a postulate; see above.
>
> This is a new concept to me. After a brief analysis though, as far as I
> can see, single valued systems are as "uninteresting" as omnipotent
> beings.
>
Yes, that is certainly agreeable. (in the sense of being able to be
agreed...:-))
I do not dismiss Boolean Logic. Quite the contrary. Having studied BL and
propositional calculus and actually taught it also, I recognise its
usefulness. (especially for tightening computer code when complex conditions
need evaluation.).
However, it is a two-valued logic system based on the Aristotlean principle,
and sometimes a three-valued (YES, NO, MAYBE) or infinity-valued (RELATIVE)
system can achieve more.
In terms of philosophical logic, I prefer the idea of relativeness in things
and would ascribe to the idea that "absolutes are unobtainable" (although
not absolutely... :-))
> [snipped the rest, because, while interesting, I agree with all of it,
> and have nothing to add.]
>
Very fair. Thank you.
Pete.
>
| |
| James J. Gavan 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Peter Lacey wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" wrote:
>
>
> Check it out. Matthew 13:53-58; Mark 6:3; there are others but I can't
> identify them on short notice.
I duly checked your two references Peter - they are almost identical
wording. I still go back to interpretation as I used in my example of
the trade unionist.
Do some googling on "Jesus and brothers/sisters" and variations on same.
Get some interesting hits. Some are very obviously Catholic sites; one
of which I found a bit lame. However if you do want to try and take the
New Testament text literally you have to do it in time sequence. Follow
the story of Mary's annunciation by the angel and subsequent promise of
retained virginity.
If she held to her promise then there was ONLY Jesus and she retains
that special ranking as the 'Virgin Mary', 'Immaculate Conception', and
'the Mother of God'.
If she had other children then she is lying and the above three titles
are meaningless.
Are you a Dan Brown fan ? How about Jesus getting married :-)
Jimmy
Jimmy
| |
| Richard 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| > he saw no necessity to even just take a curious p.
This link was posted previously, I forget by who, and I found it an
interesting read:
<a
href="http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm">http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm</a>
It seems to me to be a scolarly essay, I wonder if you would just
reject what it says out of hand, I am sure that Judson would not even
follow the link.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| On 20 Dec 2005 13:20:01 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>You make it sound so simple. Does that make you an atheist or an
>agnostic in respect of the Hindu religion ?
Or better yet, a non-theist religion such as Buddahism?
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:22:19 GMT, "James J. Gavan"
<jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>If she held to her promise then there was ONLY Jesus and she retains
>that special ranking as the 'Virgin Mary', 'Immaculate Conception', and
>'the Mother of God'.
>
>If she had other children then she is lying and the above three titles
>are meaningless.
Everybody was a virgin at one time. What happened after Jesus'
conception shouldn't change the above theology.
| |
| James J. Gavan 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| In-Reply-To: <kmtgq15pu356u968scrprdimhihjdv4plc@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <gR_pf.40313$2k.38960@pd7tw1no>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:38:20 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.59.135.176
X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1135114700 64.59.135.176 (Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:38:20 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:38:20 MST
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.cobol:154361
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:22:19 GMT, "James J. Gavan"
> <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Everybody was a virgin at one time. What happened after Jesus'
> conception shouldn't change the above theology.
You do love your one-liners don't you ? Just to satisfy your own
curiosity, do some googling and see the points presented - what I did
above was a poor paraphrasing.
| |
| Peter Lacey 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>
> I agree, it is disgusting. But you're missing the point. Lot was not
> righteous because of his actions, Lot was righteous because of his faith in
> God. Every single person (other than Jesus Christ) is a sinner, and must be
> saved by God's grace, through faith in God. This was as true for Lot as it
> is for any Christian today.
> --
Take it a bit further, then. Would you use Lot as a role model? Does
being "righteous because of one's faith" excuse one from acting in a
righteous way? It's a real question, not a rhetorical one; I have any
number of instances close to home where being a Christian (of any stripe
- in the cases I'm thinking of, they claim to be born again) does not
prevent one from committing grievous sins. (There is no point in
supplying names or details; suffice it to say this sort of thing has now
extended over three generations that I know of). Are we to ignore all
actions because of the person's faith?
I have a hypothetical tale to probe this question but it's a bit too
direct for this discussion. Anyone who's interested can contact me
off-group.
PL
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2AJpf.31981$2k.21215@pd7tw1no...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> Well as a result of Vatican II we have modernised a bit. But you've
> probably already latched on that I'm none too thrilled. No doubt I could
> look in some currently glossy Christmas, (sorry that should be 'Seasonal'
> to be PC), catalogue and find something from Hamilton Beach, "Your own
> broiler gizmo for heretics'.
>
We are really into the barbeque season here... I like to play "Spanish
Inquisition" with the chops... searing them on the outside then letting them
cook slowly off the heat...:-) (Of course, "nobody expects" the chops to be
anything other than delicious.)
To be serious ("sear"ious?) for a moment, I don't think any thinking person
could hold the modern RC church responsible for the atrocities of the past,
but we should all learn that intolerance and bigotry can have disastrous
effects on the human population....
Pete.
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:40r7evF1avmuqU1@individual.net...
>
> Punishing people who break the law can be argued to be axiomatically
> ineffective. We have lessened the severity of punishments over the
> centuries and crime has not decreased. We increase the severity of
> punishments and crime does not decrease.
>
> Many criminals claim that punishment is not a deterrent to them.
Instead of looking at punishment (i.e. the intent of the authorities in
power), we might want to look at pain (i.e. the effect). The reason people
don't like the be punished is because it is "painful" (perhaps
psychologically or financially, if not physically).
If there were no penalty for not paying the parking meter, for example,
I suspect a lot less people would pay it. It is primarily out of fear of
receiving a parking ticket that one pays the meter.
>
> I'm not saying we shouldn't lock people up and remove them from society
> for certain crimes; I'm simply saying that doing so in order to punish
> them, serves no useful purpose.
>
> We should either work to change their mind about crime (rehabilitation),
> or simply remove people who have shown they cannot live in society without
> creating mayhem, and are unlikely to be rehabilitated. (Incarceration or
> execution). The imposition of penalties purely as "punishment", to my
> mind, serves no useful purpose. It comes from the primitive desire to "get
> even". "An eye for an eye..." etc. until the whole world is blind and
> toothless...
>
> The point is I am not advocating the removal of penalties for breaking the
> law; I am advocating the removal of penalties which are imposed purely
> from a desire to punish.
Agreed. This is the conclusion that comes out of my "no free will"
philosophy too.
- Oliver
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:AxZpf.16314$k76.12687@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
>
>
> This is the marketplace, not the media. -)
"Disney" and "cable networks" are in the business of media, I think. As
for the walmart thing, what "The Catholic League" was complaining about here
had nothing to do with prices or products offered (i.e. things to do with a
market), but rather with what was written on catalogs (which has to do with
media -- text). I.e. they weren't unhappy with the products and services of
Walmart, they were unhappy with the message that their advertisement sent
out. This is a media issue too.
- Oliver
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| X-Trace: individual.net HWPTIh/22/DpBW/1KajXowWoTgKZKHmXAiRIyo866Pjz0+yLlo
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.cobol:154366
Thanks for posting that, Chuck.
I was surprised to find a great deal of congruence in our positions.
Some comments below...
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:do71lt$1jnq$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
<snip>
> And having lived with condemnation all my life, I am now at the point
> where I do the best I can from day to day to keep my thoughts and my
> actions focused toward my understanding of proper attitude and behavior,
> and am prepared to face my Maker and His judgment of my strengths, my
> weaknesses, my understanding, my misunderstandings, my accomplishments and
> my transgressions.
I was sorry to see the opening clause; you have obviously recovered well and
are dealing with it.
I was fortunate enough to have been raised in a close, loving, family where
I received encouragement and direction, rather than condemnation. (I realise
how lucky this was, and never take the love and wisdom of my parents (now
both departed) for granted.)
Like you, I also do the best I can. The only difference is our motivations,
and I don't think yours is "wrong". (It is wrong for me, but that's OK...)
Like you, I will be happy to give account at "God's great Judgement seat"
(Kipling) if required to. (However, I don't expect to have to, so it has no
bearing whatsoever on my behaviour in this life.)
> What the outcome will be is whatever the outcome will be at the time; I
> don't focus on either the reward or the punishment, only in doing the best
> I can to stay in alignment with what I believe God's will for me to be on
> a daily basis, not out of fear but out of love.
The only difference here is our motivation. The results are the same.You
behave well through love of God; I do so through love of Man. I want a
better world. (I'm sure you do too...)
..
> Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't, and when I don't, I regret it and
> work to avoid it, again, out of love, not out of fear.
Slight difference here... I won't entertain shame, blame or regret. I see
them as wasted emotions. When I screw up, I do everything I can to make it
right. Take responsibility for what I did, do whatever I can to fix it and
that's it. Move on, no grudges held, no recriminations, accusations,
criticisms. I see no point in regretting what cannot be changed; learn from
it. For the same reason I see no point in assigning blame (and I covered
that at length in the "Management wars" thread here.) And shame is OK as a
learning aid, but should not be revelled in... :-)) I work to fix things and
learn from mistakes because it makes me a better person and helps me grow.
Not because it is what God wants. But I do not dismiss ANY motivation that
leads to better behaviour from someone.
>Whether that's good enough for God the Father is up to Him, and I'm willing
>to accept what comes, be that eternal bliss, eternal torture, eternal
>oblivion, or anything else.
Wow! That is a lot closer to my position than I would expect from a
committed Christian...:-) My respect for you grows.
> And yes, I rely on Jesus in the process. I do not believe that reliance
> is in vain because of my position on "sola fide".
>
Neither do I. If there is any justice in the Christian position I believe
you will be fine... :-)
Pete.
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:IWZpf.16589$k76.7165@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Yes it is. In order to say it honestly you have to be that convinced. Does
> it offend you that I am that convinced? You may be completely happy
> believing that everything is relative, but there are absolutes.
It offends me that your conviction about your opinions leads you to
categorize the views of those who disagree with you, not as differences of
opinion, but as fundamental errors in fact. What emphasis to place on which
meaning of what words in which passages is a matter of *opinion* and of
*choice*, not of *fact*.
>
> Ha! You find *nothing* convincing of a Christian life, as you have
> repeatedly pointed out in great detail. You simply want Christians to be
> as uncertain as yourself. Sorry. :-)
No, I find a *great deal* convincing of a Christian life.
I don't happen to believe that if someone publically states that anyone who
doesn't agree with your conclusions about "faith alone" (or "grace alone" or
"scripture alone", for that matter), as you deem them clearly and explicitly
declared in scripture in so many words is therefore deprived of the right to
consider himself a "true Christian" and is therefore condemned forever, such
a person is clearly demonstrating a "Christian life" in those actions!
What gives you the right to describe me as "uncertain"? Have I *ever*
indicated agnosticism, or anything other than a firm acceptance of Jesus as
Messiah/Christos, as Son of God, as part of the traditional Trinity, as
Savior? Why is it that my disagreements with you over what the Bible
actually *says* directly lead you to the presumption that I must therefore
be "uncertain"?
> The fact is, when a person is willing to submit their will, their very
> life, to God, that is a very clear indication of humility, at least in
> that respect.
It may demonstrate humility to *oneself*, and it might even be taken as
humility *to God*. It is not clear that "You're wrong and I'm RIGHT, you're
condemned and I'm SAVED!" is a demonstration *to anyone else* of that
humility.
Take your own inventory before taking mine. *Verify* that there are no
rafters sticking out of *your* eyes before worrying abut the splinters in my
eyes!
> Being certain about God has no relationship whatever to hubris.
Who said I was uncertain about God? Have you decided that despite my
protestations to the contrary I'm one of the self-proclaimed atheists or
agnostics (or deists or theists) who have posted to this group? I don't
think *I've* included myself among them!
> But taking upon yourself the decision to reject your Creator from your
> life, *that* is hubris. :-)
OK, Mr. McClendon. You've made this assertion about me and my life. Please
point out to me, and to everyone else, the message in which I have written
such a thing. Please point out to me, and to everyone else, where I have
*done* such a thing.
I deny that I have made such a decision, I deny that I make such a decision
today, I deny that I have described such a decision anywhere in this forum.
For you to state or intimate in a public forum that I have rejected my
Creator (to say nothing of Christianity as *I* understand it) from my life
qualifies as libel, slander, and calumny.
And I contend libel, slander and calumny do not represent behavior patterns
one would reasonably accept as admirable Christian behavior. I believe a
Christian would take the time to verify any such characterization before
making it, and therefore a person who claimed to be Christian and
demonstrated such behavior would be behaving in an *unChristian* manner.
I have studied the same Scriptures you have studied. I have come to
different conclusions, based on that careful study (and specifically
including the languages in which those Scriptures were originally written)
over decades, from those to which you seem to have come. That I disagree
with your opinions on certain matters of what the text actually says does
not mean that I have rejected my Creator, or my Savior. *Or yours*, if you
insist that they differ (which I don't!).
>
> Sorry, I can't help that.
Why not? If your behavior reflects badly, why is it inappropriate for you
to change it? You're the one that declared Catholicism a Christian belief
*solely* on the basis of "sola fide", which tenet they explicitly and
vehemently reject!
> Sorry. If you don't believe the evidence Creation, if you don't believe
> the evidence of the Bible, and you don't believe the witness of millions
> who have met Jesus, then there's nothing I can do for you, except pray for
> you. I've been doing that. :-)
Why would you suggest that belief in Jesus as Messiah and as Savior
*requires* belief, for example, that the universe was created -- more or
less -- on the nightfall before Sunday, October 23, 4004BC? I *personally*
don't share the opinion that that's a particularly vital part of what being
a Christian is about, particularly since I don't think the original *Hebrew*
text requires that interpretation!
I don't mind people praying for me; in fact, I encourage that. But I would
s to discourage you from praying that I be raised to the high level of
understanding that you, praise God! have managed to reach.
On a more-than-daily basis, I pray to turn both my will and my life over to
the care of God (and not take it back). On a more-than-daily basis, I ask
God to remove anything that stands in the way of my ability to serve God and
my fellow man. On a more-than-daily basis, I ask God to help me improve my
conscious contact with Him, to improve my knowledge of His will for me and
to give me the power and the willingness to carry that out. I ask these
things for myself, many times a day, and I have no objection to your praying
for these things for me. I do object to any hint of a prayer that I would
be elevated to your lofty level of spiritual enlightenment.
> I suggest that the question of where your soul will spend eternity is one
> in which you should have more certainty than you express by that language.
I flatly refuse to place myself in a position of stating anything along the
lines of "I'm going to Heaven -- and YOU'RE NOT!!!! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!".
All I can do is the best that I can do.
If I am *certain* about where I will spend eternity, what I do here, how I
behave toward my fellow man, is immaterial, and I therefore have *license*
to commit any sin. I do *not agree* with that premise. I also *do not*
agree with the premise that, by virtue of a person's proclamation of having
been SAVED (or BORN AGAIN) their behavior is forevermore EXEMPLARY of
Christian behavior. That ain't so. And I contend that such behavior
matters *in this life and in the next*. I've already cited C&V on the
subject.
My life will be an open book at the Judgment Bar. I have strengths and I
have weaknesses, I have accomplishments and I have failures. I believe in
Jesus' salvation, and in Jesus' intercession. What happens at the Judgment
Bar with respect to that record is up to God. I'm not willing to say that
I'm *guaranteed* a place in Heaven, nor do I agree that *anyone* can, or
should, say that about himself.
> Would you think it preferable if I were to be a bit more uncertain about
> my own destiny?
So, we're back to "I'm going to Heaven --- and YOU'RE NOT! Nyah! Nyah!
Nyah!"?
> If I expressed lack of certainty in the things in which I place my faith,
> you would simply criticize that as lack of faith in what I believe.
Would I, now?
> You have constructed, by your choice of attitude, a situation in which you
> would feel justified in attacking my position either way. Sorry.
Nope. I don't describe as *wrong* the position that e.g. the universe was
created on the evening before October 23, 4004BC. I state that my reading
of the Hebrew text of the Creation story does not convince me that that's
the only possible interpretation of the text. That's but one example among
many (including "born again" for which I prefer "begotten from above").
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Thanks for the response, Pete!
There's only one piece that I think requires further discussion:
>
> Slight difference here... I won't entertain shame, blame or regret. I see
> them as wasted emotions. When I screw up, I do everything I can to make it
> right. Take responsibility for what I did, do whatever I can to fix it
That's the critical part.
> and that's it. Move on, no grudges held, no recriminations, accusations,
> criticisms. I see no point in regretting what cannot be changed; learn
> from it.
Try not to do it again, though! "We do not regret the past, nor wish to
shut the door on it."
> For the same reason I see no point in assigning blame (and I covered that
> at length in the "Management wars" thread here.) And shame is OK as a
> learning aid, but should not be revelled in... :-))
Yes. I spent many years with that.
> I work to fix things and learn from mistakes because it makes me a better
> person and helps me grow.
I agree. And I think the proof that one is becoming a better person is, as
they say, in the pudding.
> Not because it is what God wants. But I do not dismiss ANY motivation that
> leads to better behaviour from someone.
And I've already cited Scripture supporting the idea that this was what's
important anyhow.
>
> Wow! That is a lot closer to my position than I would expect from a
> committed Christian...:-) My respect for you grows.
"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage
to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." I can't
do better than the best I can do. As long as I strive to do that, the rest
is beyond my control. I can't change other people, places or things. What
I can change is me. And I strive to do that, on a daily basis, in my case,
as I said, praying *only* for the knowledge of His will for me and the power
and the willingness to carry it out.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| James J. Gavan 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Richard wrote:
Not surprisingly I reacted unfavourably to the following. Still that was
what you intended wasn't it ? I see no point in commenting further.
We could have a slagging match which might suit you, and I *really*
could keep going as long as you - but to me the exercise seems pointless.
>
>
> You make it sound so simple. Does that make you an atheist or an
> agnostic in respect of the Hindu religion ?
>
> What about believers in Scientology ? As their religion is based on the
> SciFi books of ElRon does this make them Believers or Atheists ?
>
>
>
>
> I find that just as arrogant as Judson's. You are saying that everyone
> else's religion is wrong, but it doesn't matter because _my_ god will
> overlook your ignorence and stupid waste of belief and you will be
> accepted as if you had believed in the _right_ religion all along.
>
>
>
>
> So you say that you "can't know his mind" but you know it anyway.
>
| |
| James J. Gavan 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> "After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had
> sons and daughters." (Genesis 5:4,5)
So he (Adam) had further sons and daughters. Seems to me there was still
a lot of incest going on, at least from the second generation.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:doa0f0$aru$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
<snip>>>
>
> That's the critical part.
>
>
> Try not to do it again, though! "We do not regret the past, nor wish to
> shut the door on it."
>
I thought that was implicit in the phrase "learn from it".
In case it's not, I certainly try NOT to repeat the mistakes of the past.
:-)
>
> Yes. I spent many years with that.
>
>
> I agree. And I think the proof that one is becoming a better person is,
> as they say, in the pudding.
>
.... or even the eating :-)
>
> And I've already cited Scripture supporting the idea that this was what's
> important anyhow.
>
<snip>
> I can't do better than the best I can do.
I think that says it all really.
> As long as I strive to do that, the rest is beyond my control. I can't
> change other people, places or things.
Well, maybe you can... sometimes we don't even know what effect our
thoughts, words, and actions may have on other people.
> What I can change is me.
That is certainly the place for all of us to start... :-)
Pete.
| |
| Richard 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| > Not surprisingly I reacted unfavourably to the following. Still that was
> what you intended wasn't it ?
I had hoped that you would react by being thoughtful, but then the
things said to Judson don't make him thoughtful either.
| |
| charles hottel 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Thnaks for a very resonable and concise response.
Top post no more below.
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:do9cec$30i2$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> "charles hottel" <jghottel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5f3f4$43a77dbe$4f9c629$16961@DIALUP
USA.NET...
>
> Addressee not cited, so I'll jump in with some responses:
>
>
> The word "yowm" (Strong's #03117) in Hebrew can be interpreted as "day",
> and the "evening and morning" part would lend support to that
> interpretation, but it can also be interpreted as "a period of time", "a
> year", or even "an era". Insisting that the Bible says that the period
> before the separation of the sky and the water (the formation of planets)
> was *exactly*, or even *approximately*, 86,400 of what we now call
> "seconds" might just be overstating what the original author intended.
>
> So, no, I for one don't think the wording in the Masoretic Text absolutely
> and unambiguously requires that the only possible time period being
> described as "day" is what we consider "day" now. The original Hebrew
> word is nowhere near that precise.
>
> In addition, there's a whole bunch of form shifts in the verbs in this
> part of Genesis, shifting back and forth from "instantaneous" to
> "continuous" action. I've never seen this fully explored, nor have I seen
> a way to convey the complexity and richness of these shifts in English
> satisfactorily. One translation I know of begins something like "When God
> was beginning to create the heavens and the earth, the earth being without
> form and void, ...", but I'm not sure that covers it completely.
>
>
> Technically, Sunday isn't the Sabbath, it's the Lord's Day. The
> convention of celebrating both Resurrection and Pentecost on the first day
> of each w by "breaking of bread" is covered specifically in Acts 20:7,
> mentioned in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, appears to be implicit in Colossians
> 2:16 (which distinguishes it from the Sabbath), and the term "Lord's day"
> itself is used in Revelation 1:10. I'm not at all convinced we should be
> enjoined from observing *both*.
>
>
> Acts 15 (Council of Jerusalem). It is not necessary for Gentile
> Christians to observe the *Jewish* laws.
>
>
> Most modern translations have "murder", not "kill", and Strong's seems to
> support that distinction.
>
> -Chuck Stevens
>
>
>
>
| |
| Alistair 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
Oliver Wong wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
> news:QLVof.203$RZ6.53@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> Disney (DIS ), which has come under fire from some Christian groups, is now
> cultivating Christians to promote its big new hit, The Chronicles of Narnia.
Cultivating Christians for Narnia can not be that difficult as it is a
thinly disguised Christain parable (sp?) with Aslan as as Christ.
| |
| Alistair 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
Oliver Wong wrote:
On Nov. 11, the League
> called off its boycott of Wal-Mart after the world's largest retailer
> apologized for a statement it gave a customer who had complained that it was
> replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays."
>
> The statement argued that Christmas was "an ancient tradition" with roots in
> pagan cultures. And this month, the Catholic League got Land's End to
> repudiate its earlier explanation of why it no longer mails out catalogs
> wishing customers a "Merry Christmas." The reason: It didn't have any way to
> determine which customers celebrated Christmas.
In the UK we have companies and local government abolishing all mention
of Christmas in favour of Seasons Greetings for fear of offending
Muslims and Hindus.
| |
| Alistair 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
James J. Gavan wrote:
> Peter Lacey wrote:
>
> If she held to her promise then there was ONLY Jesus and she retains
> that special ranking as the 'Virgin Mary', 'Immaculate Conception', and
> 'the Mother of God'.
>
Bearing in mind that all virginal births in modern times have produced
females identical (visually) to their mothers then Mary either was not
a virgin or that that particular birth was an immaculate conception.
The latter does not meanshe did not have any prior children.
| |
| charles hottel 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Chuck,
Way to stick up for yourself. I simply do not get where Judson is coming
from in attacking you this way. It is obvious to me that you have spent a
lot of time thinking these issues through and you have expressed yourself
very well.
Top post no more below.
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:do9v3s$a50$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
> news:IWZpf.16589$k76.7165@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> It offends me that your conviction about your opinions leads you to
> categorize the views of those who disagree with you, not as differences of
> opinion, but as fundamental errors in fact. What emphasis to place on
> which meaning of what words in which passages is a matter of *opinion* and
> of *choice*, not of *fact*.
>
>
> No, I find a *great deal* convincing of a Christian life.
>
> I don't happen to believe that if someone publically states that anyone
> who doesn't agree with your conclusions about "faith alone" (or "grace
> alone" or "scripture alone", for that matter), as you deem them clearly
> and explicitly declared in scripture in so many words is therefore
> deprived of the right to consider himself a "true Christian" and is
> therefore condemned forever, such a person is clearly demonstrating a
> "Christian life" in those actions!
>
> What gives you the right to describe me as "uncertain"? Have I *ever*
> indicated agnosticism, or anything other than a firm acceptance of Jesus
> as Messiah/Christos, as Son of God, as part of the traditional Trinity, as
> Savior? Why is it that my disagreements with you over what the Bible
> actually *says* directly lead you to the presumption that I must therefore
> be "uncertain"?
>
>
> It may demonstrate humility to *oneself*, and it might even be taken as
> humility *to God*. It is not clear that "You're wrong and I'm RIGHT,
> you're condemned and I'm SAVED!" is a demonstration *to anyone else* of
> that humility.
>
> Take your own inventory before taking mine. *Verify* that there are no
> rafters sticking out of *your* eyes before worrying abut the splinters in
> my eyes!
>
>
> Who said I was uncertain about God? Have you decided that despite my
> protestations to the contrary I'm one of the self-proclaimed atheists or
> agnostics (or deists or theists) who have posted to this group? I don't
> think *I've* included myself among them!
>
>
> OK, Mr. McClendon. You've made this assertion about me and my life.
> Please point out to me, and to everyone else, the message in which I have
> written such a thing. Please point out to me, and to everyone else, where
> I have *done* such a thing.
>
> I deny that I have made such a decision, I deny that I make such a
> decision today, I deny that I have described such a decision anywhere in
> this forum.
>
> For you to state or intimate in a public forum that I have rejected my
> Creator (to say nothing of Christianity as *I* understand it) from my life
> qualifies as libel, slander, and calumny.
>
> And I contend libel, slander and calumny do not represent behavior
> patterns one would reasonably accept as admirable Christian behavior. I
> believe a Christian would take the time to verify any such
> characterization before making it, and therefore a person who claimed to
> be Christian and demonstrated such behavior would be behaving in an
> *unChristian* manner.
>
> I have studied the same Scriptures you have studied. I have come to
> different conclusions, based on that careful study (and specifically
> including the languages in which those Scriptures were originally written)
> over decades, from those to which you seem to have come. That I disagree
> with your opinions on certain matters of what the text actually says does
> not mean that I have rejected my Creator, or my Savior. *Or yours*, if
> you insist that they differ (which I don't!).
>
>
> Why not? If your behavior reflects badly, why is it inappropriate for
> you to change it? You're the one that declared Catholicism a Christian
> belief *solely* on the basis of "sola fide", which tenet they explicitly
> and vehemently reject!
>
>
> Why would you suggest that belief in Jesus as Messiah and as Savior
> *requires* belief, for example, that the universe was created -- more or
> less -- on the nightfall before Sunday, October 23, 4004BC? I
> *personally* don't share the opinion that that's a particularly vital part
> of what being a Christian is about, particularly since I don't think the
> original *Hebrew* text requires that interpretation!
>
> I don't mind people praying for me; in fact, I encourage that. But I
> would s to discourage you from praying that I be raised to the high
> level of understanding that you, praise God! have managed to reach.
>
> On a more-than-daily basis, I pray to turn both my will and my life over
> to the care of God (and not take it back). On a more-than-daily basis, I
> ask God to remove anything that stands in the way of my ability to serve
> God and my fellow man. On a more-than-daily basis, I ask God to help me
> improve my conscious contact with Him, to improve my knowledge of His will
> for me and to give me the power and the willingness to carry that out. I
> ask these things for myself, many times a day, and I have no objection to
> your praying for these things for me. I do object to any hint of a
> prayer that I would be elevated to your lofty level of spiritual
> enlightenment.
>
>
> I flatly refuse to place myself in a position of stating anything along
> the lines of "I'm going to Heaven -- and YOU'RE NOT!!!! Nyah! Nyah!
> Nyah!". All I can do is the best that I can do.
>
> If I am *certain* about where I will spend eternity, what I do here, how I
> behave toward my fellow man, is immaterial, and I therefore have *license*
> to commit any sin. I do *not agree* with that premise. I also *do not*
> agree with the premise that, by virtue of a person's proclamation of
> having been SAVED (or BORN AGAIN) their behavior is forevermore EXEMPLARY
> of Christian behavior. That ain't so. And I contend that such behavior
> matters *in this life and in the next*. I've already cited C&V on the
> subject.
>
> My life will be an open book at the Judgment Bar. I have strengths and I
> have weaknesses, I have accomplishments and I have failures. I believe in
> Jesus' salvation, and in Jesus' intercession. What happens at the
> Judgment Bar with respect to that record is up to God. I'm not willing
> to say that I'm *guaranteed* a place in Heaven, nor do I agree that
> *anyone* can, or should, say that about himself.
>
>
> So, we're back to "I'm going to Heaven --- and YOU'RE NOT! Nyah! Nyah!
> Nyah!"?
>
>
> Would I, now?
>
>
> Nope. I don't describe as *wrong* the position that e.g. the universe was
> created on the evening before October 23, 4004BC. I state that my reading
> of the Hebrew text of the Creation story does not convince me that that's
> the only possible interpretation of the text. That's but one example
> among many (including "born again" for which I prefer "begotten from
> above").
>
> -Chuck Stevens
>
| |
| charles hottel 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:40r9uoF1btssgU1@individual.net...
>
>
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:KlFpf.147657$Gd6.48038@pd7tw3no...
> <snip>
>
> I heard something about a fairy who got pregnant from sitting on a
> toadstool...
>
> Pete.
>
>
I once read in a book about sex about a woman who got pregnant from taking a
bath in a tub. Seems the guy who used it just before her left a lively
little deposit behind. Was that some other kind of immaculate conception?
| |
| Alistair 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
Richard wrote:
>
> What about those whose 'atheism' comes from complete ignorence of
> anything that may be theistic ?
>
Would it be possible to claim to be an atheist much in the same manner
of Br=ertrand Russells' refutation of set logic? Somethingalong the
lines of " I believe in that universal set which contains all sets not
members of the universal set"? It is my birthday so I am a little worse
for alcohol poisoning.
> In any case I believe in more gods than you do, though I am a
> non-deifier.
| |
| Alistair 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
|
James J. Gavan wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
>
> I think that is an excellent observation Alistair. We do need colour,
> spectacle and 'magic' in our lives (Not the sort of space-pixie magic
> that that other guy refers to :-) ).
>
I was brought up as Church of Scotland (slightly liberal compared to
Puritan). We only had a little bit of fire and brimstone in the sermons
but no colour, no incense, no magic and nothing to fire the
imagination. In pre-reformation times, British churches were full of
colour (paint everywhere, even on pillars), animals (and probably dung
too) and at a guess music too. Not at all like the modern white-washed
drab walls we see today.
> I referred to the 'pull' of the Latin rite to young seminarians in the
> States. I'm no monarchist but I think the UK would lose a lot of
> fascinating tradition without a monarchy.
We would probably make a lot out of tourists if we beheaded the
monarchy and aristocracy though.
Doesn't occur too often, and I
> was in the RAF in Egypt at the time of the last coronation; so much
> historical content in the symbolism of the Abbey ceremony.
>
> We had a couple here at the time of Diana's death. Didn't particularly
> like the lady, but she remarked from watching the TV coverage, with a
> pleasing smirk, "We do it so well. Don't we ?".
>
I watched the funeral cortege moving out of London. I found it quite a
moving experience. Not bad for someone who supports Cromwell and all
that he tried to achieve.
> Jimmy
| |
| James J. Gavan 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Oliver Wong wrote:
>
> If instead you meant "We're all human, so there is a very high
> probability that at some point in your life, you've commited at least one
> sin", then is it not conceivable that there could exists someone who
> coincidentally happened not to commit any Christian sin, and yet chose not
> believe in the Christian God? I'm assuming here that not believing in God is
> not considered a sin, otherwise the posibility is zero by definition.
Well I don't know whether or not it is part of Judson's dogma, but we
Catholics as part of our Seven Sacraments have Confession. Go checking
that CE if you want specifics. Even given you have any form of 'sin' a
simple, "Oh my God I'm sorry for ....", suffices - providing you mean
it. Obviously if we believe in an Omnipotent God then he already *knows*
whether or not we mean it.
Two extreme examples :
Josef Stalin - with his horrendous record of killings, died a natural
death. If just for the merest point in time before his final breath he
thought or said "I'm sorry", then he is forgiven.
Adolf Hitler - committed suicide - which is a real No-No. "Faith, Hope
and Charity and the greatest of these is Charity". Never studied it but
I think that word 'Hope' is in relation to having a 'positive'; by
comparison suicide is giving up all Hope - the 'negative'.
Nevertheless even Adolf, even microseconds before he pulled the trigger,
had he thought or said "I'm sorry....", then he is forgiven also.
Not unnaturally there are many Ukrainian and Jewish dead and their
respective living descendants who would claim, "That's not fair". My
heart goes out to them, but that is our belief. We could of course have
it completely wrong but that's what Catholics believe their particular
God to be about. And although they may not have Confession as a
sacrament, I believe many other Christian groups feel the same.
Jimmy
| |
| James J. Gavan 2006-01-09, 6:58 pm |
| Oliver Wong wrote:
>
> If instead you meant "We're all human, so there is a very high
> probability that at some point in your life, you've commited at least one
> sin", then is it not conceivable that there could exists someone who
> coincidentally happened not to commit any Christian sin, and yet chose not
> believe in the Christian God? I'm assuming here that not believing in God is
> not considered a sin, otherwise the posibility is zero by definition.
Well I don't know whether or not it is part of Judson's dogma, but we
Catholics as part of our Seven Sacraments have Confession. Go checking
that CE if yo | | |