Home > Archive > Cobol > June 2006 > Newbie Question
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]
|
|
| the_tragic_hip@yahoo.com 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| Hello all,
I had this small cobol routine dropped on my desk and need to convert
it into a vb app, but I am not all that familiar with most of cobol. I
can read most of it and decipher what is going on, but having trouble
with this move.
var1 pic 9 comp.
var2 pic 9(10)
If var2 had the value of 138755482 and
MOVE VAR2 TO VAR1 is executed, what is actually stored in var1.
I apologize if this is a no brainer.
Thanks in advance.
Peace.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| On 31 May 2006 08:27:26 -0700, the_tragic_hip@yahoo.com wrote:
>I had this small cobol routine dropped on my desk and need to convert
>it into a vb app, but I am not all that familiar with most of cobol. I
>can read most of it and decipher what is going on, but having trouble
>with this move.
>
>var1 pic 9 comp.
>var2 pic 9(10)
>
>If var2 had the value of 138755482 and
>
>MOVE VAR2 TO VAR1 is executed, what is actually stored in var1.
>
>I apologize if this is a no brainer.
>
>Thanks in advance.
What is stored is 2, but it is stored in binary. This seems like a
weird thing to do, truncated a value but stored as binary. How is
VAR1 used?
What version of CoBOL are you using? Compiler and OS.
| |
| theHip 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| > What is stored is 2, but it is stored in binary. This seems like a
> weird thing to do, truncated a value but stored as binary. How is
> VAR1 used?
>
> What version of CoBOL are you using? Compiler and OS.
I thought that that was what was stored there, but I couldn't make
sense of it. This routine is a check to make sure an account number is
valid. It goes through a whole bunch of multipys and divides and such,
and then the outcome of all this must match var2.
Unfortunately, all I was handed was a piece of paper with the code, no
clue what version of CoBOL was being used or compiler. I do have an
exe of the routine that I can run on XP.
Let me see if I have this part correct.
01 JB-WORK
03 VAR1 PIC 9(10)
03 VAR1-R REDEFINES VAR1
05 VAR9 PIC9(9).
05 VARLST PIC 9.
I am assuming that if 138755482 is moved to var1 then var9 would be
138755482 ... is that correct?
Thanks so much for the quick reply.
Peace.
| |
| Binyamin Dissen 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| On 31 May 2006 08:27:26 -0700 the_tragic_hip@yahoo.com wrote:
:>I had this small cobol routine dropped on my desk and need to convert
:>it into a vb app, but I am not all that familiar with most of cobol. I
:>can read most of it and decipher what is going on, but having trouble
:>with this move.
:>var1 pic 9 comp.
:>var2 pic 9(10)
:>If var2 had the value of 138755482 and
:>MOVE VAR2 TO VAR1 is executed, what is actually stored in var1.
Probably depends on your COBOL and various compiler options.
A PIC 9 comp will probably be stored in a halfword (I don't know how much the
COBOL standard allows the size of a COMP to be implementer defined).
It may take the last digit and store it as binary.
It may take the whole number, convert it to binary, truncate to halfword and
store that (IBM TRUNC option).
The best thing is too look at the generated code or try it out with the same
compiler options and see what happens.
:>I apologize if this is a no brainer.
Not at all.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
| |
| Donald Tees 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| theHip wrote:
>
>
> I thought that that was what was stored there, but I couldn't make
> sense of it. This routine is a check to make sure an account number is
> valid. It goes through a whole bunch of multipys and divides and such,
> and then the outcome of all this must match var2.
>
> Unfortunately, all I was handed was a piece of paper with the code, no
> clue what version of CoBOL was being used or compiler. I do have an
> exe of the routine that I can run on XP.
>
> Let me see if I have this part correct.
>
> 01 JB-WORK
> 03 VAR1 PIC 9(10)
> 03 VAR1-R REDEFINES VAR1
> 05 VAR9 PIC9(9).
> 05 VARLST PIC 9.
>
> I am assuming that if 138755482 is moved to var1 then var9 would be
> 138755482 ... is that correct?
>
> Thanks so much for the quick reply.
>
> Peace.
>
No. Var1 is a ten (decimal)digit number. Var9 redefines the first 9
digits as a 9 digit number, and Varlst redfines the low order digit as a
single digit number. So moving 138775842 to var1 moves 1387784 to var9,
and 2 to varlst. I would suspect that the routine uses the low order
digit in some sort of checksum routine.
Donald
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| On 31 May 2006 08:52:52 -0700, "theHip" <the_tragic_hip@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>I thought that that was what was stored there, but I couldn't make
>sense of it. This routine is a check to make sure an account number is
>valid. It goes through a whole bunch of multipys and divides and such,
>and then the outcome of all this must match var2.
I've come across that kind of validation code. The last digit of the
account was created by a bank or somebody using the same calculation
and is used like a parity bit. If you don't get the same result, the
number is corrupt.
So don't try to make sense of it quite yet, just translate it. The
number doesn't have to be COMP though, all you're doing is arithmetic
and truncating until you get a digit to match with the digit they got.
Test it with supplied numbers and with hand-made corrupt numbers.
| |
| Binyamin Dissen 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| On 31 May 2006 08:52:52 -0700 "theHip" <the_tragic_hip@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>Let me see if I have this part correct.
:>01 JB-WORK
:> 03 VAR1 PIC 9(10)
:> 03 VAR1-R REDEFINES VAR1
:> 05 VAR9 PIC9(9).
:> 05 VARLST PIC 9.
:>I am assuming that if 138755482 is moved to var1 then var9 would be
:>138755482 ... is that correct?
A completely different story. You are now using an overlay and you aren't
using COMP.
VAR9 = 013875548
VARLST = 2
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
| |
| Michael Mattias 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| > I had this small cobol routine dropped on my desk and need to convert
> it into a vb app, but I am not all that familiar with most of cobol. I
> can read most of it and decipher what is going on, but having trouble
> with this move.
>
> var1 pic 9 comp.
> var2 pic 9(10)
>
> If var2 had the value of 138755482 and
>
> MOVE VAR2 TO VAR1 is executed, what is actually stored in var1.
>
> I apologize if this is a no brainer.
MOVE= assignment
MOVE A TO B (cobol) ===> [ LET] B = A (BASIC)
DIM VAR1 AS LONG, VAR2 AS LONG
VAR1 = VAR2
WARNING: a long integer will not hold Var2, where PIC 9(10) specifies a
numeric data item with ten digits before the decimal. You may need to go to
a SINGLE or DOUBLE here.
I say "may" because.......
WARNING 2: the MOVE statement shown is also invalid, since a PIC 9 COMP (1
digit integer) won't hold it either. If this is the actual code and not
just an example you made up for posting purposes, it looks as though someone
has done something "cute" and if you don't know COBOL you are in for a VERY
long day.
BUT.... if you want to learn about COBOL datatypes, download my free text
and graphics tutorial at http://www.flexus.com/download.html, get file
COBDATA.ZIP
If you want to learn more specifically about using COBOL-created data in
non-COBOL programs, read the free tutorial on my web site at
http://www.talsystems.com, click on "Tech Corner" and then select file
"C2IEEE.HTML"
Of course, there's always the option to engage outside assistance from
someone who knows both BASIC and COBOL....
--
Michael Mattias
Tal Systems, Inc.
Racine WI
mmattias@talsystems.com
| |
|
| In article <1149090772.312634.210890@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
theHip <the_tragic_hip@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I thought that that was what was stored there, but I couldn't make
>sense of it. This routine is a check to make sure an account number is
>valid. It goes through a whole bunch of multipys and divides and such,
>and then the outcome of all this must match var2.
>
>Unfortunately, all I was handed was a piece of paper with the code, no
>clue what version of CoBOL was being used or compiler.
So let me get this straight... you don't know COBOL, you don't have a
compiler so you cannot test your results... and someone expects a valid
answer out of you?
Based on the amount of attention and resources being paid to this problem
there is no money involved in it... good thing, too!
DD
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
|
"Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote in message
news:qPjfg.2694$VE1.1338@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> MOVE= assignment
>
> MOVE A TO B (cobol) ===> [ LET] B = A (BASIC)
>
> DIM VAR1 AS LONG, VAR2 AS LONG
>
> VAR1 = VAR2
>
> WARNING: a long integer will not hold Var2, where PIC 9(10) specifies a
> numeric data item with ten digits before the decimal. You may need to go
> to
> a SINGLE or DOUBLE here.
It takes 34 bits to store an unsigned 10 digit number, and 35 bits to
store a signed 10 digit number, so you're right that LONG INTEGER (32 bit
signed) won't be enough to store all values of the PIC 9(10). However, if
you move to floating point numbers (e.g. SINGLE or DOUBLE), you're opening
yourself up to problems with rounding, which may also yield big headaches.
In such a case, you'll want to use a "Big Integer" package, such as the
one which can be downloaded from
http://www.codeproject.com/com/BigInteger.asp
- Oliver
| |
| theHip 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
|
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> So let me get this straight... you don't know COBOL, you don't have a
> compiler so you cannot test your results... and someone expects a valid
> answer out of you?
>
> Based on the amount of attention and resources being paid to this problem
> there is no money involved in it... good thing, too!
>
> DD
Thanks all for the great help, I definitely have enough to go on. I
really appreciate it.
As for not having a CoBOL compiler or not having lots of knowledge
about the language, I don't need to get the CoBOL program to work, it
already does and I have an exe of it, I just have to make a VB module
of it so it is automated, the CoBOL version needs a user to enter in a
number.
Thanks again all.
Peace.
| |
| Binyamin Dissen 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 31 May 2006 16:50:30 GMT "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net>
wrote:
:>WARNING 2: the MOVE statement shown is also invalid, since a PIC 9 COMP (1
:>digit integer) won't hold it either.
It is certainly valid to move a big number to a small one.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
| |
| Michael Mattias 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
news:S1kfg.223$I61.46@clgrps13...
>
> It takes 34 bits to store an unsigned 10 digit number, and 35 bits to
> store a signed 10 digit number, so you're right that LONG INTEGER (32 bit
> signed) won't be enough to store all values of the PIC 9(10). However, if
> you move to floating point numbers (e.g. SINGLE or DOUBLE), you're opening
> yourself up to problems with rounding, which may also yield big headaches.
What additional problems could there be ..considering this application was
already MOVEing a PIC 9(10) field to a PIC 9(1) field.... seems to me any
rounding problems introduced with floating point numbers are kind of
immaterial .....
(Besides, a DOUBLE has 16 decimal digits of precision).
MCM
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
|
"Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote in message
news:chkfg.2708$VE1.1350@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
> news:S1kfg.223$I61.46@clgrps13...
>
> What additional problems could there be ..considering this application was
> already MOVEing a PIC 9(10) field to a PIC 9(1) field.... seems to me any
> rounding problems introduced with floating point numbers are kind of
> immaterial .....
Perhaps the code in which the MOVE occurs never gets executed (e.g. it's
dead code after a lot of maintenance has happened). Hard to say without
seeing the rest of the program. IMHO, the VB code that you produce should
behave EXACTLY the same as the COBOL code. If you spot a bug in the COBOL
code, make a note of it, but replicate that bug in your VB code as well.
During the translation process is NOT the time to be making bug fixes. Only
later, once your code has been translated, can you start using tools from
your target language (e.g. adding unit tests or whatever) and fixing bugs,
AFTER you've ensured that your resulting VB code is exactly equivalent to
the original COBOL code.
>
> (Besides, a DOUBLE has 16 decimal digits of precision).
I think the following pair of 16 digit numbers have the same represensation
in IEEE 64 bit double: 9'007'199'254'740'992 and 9'007'199'254'740'993. I'll
concede that double has at least 15 digits of precision, and the OP only
needs 10, but...
IMHO, using double would obfuscate what's going on here and confuse the
maintance programmer, especially if exact comparisons between doubles are
performed later on:
<code>
DIM var1, var2 AS DOUBLE
.... some code which assigns to var ...
IF var1 == var2 THEN
do something
END IF
</code>
a maintenance programmer might see this as a bug and be tempted to refactor
it to
<code>
DIM var1, var2 AS DOUBLE
.... some code which assigns to var ...
CONST EPSILON = 0.001
IF Math.ABS(var1 - var2) < EPSILON THEN
do something
END IF
</code>
And then there's that whole abusing-the-type-system issue...
Ideally, the OP would take the BigInteger source code and modify it so
that it limits itself to values which, when expressed in decimal, are 10
digits long (thus mimicking the PIC 9(10) more accurately in the case of
overflow and truncation), but that may be overkill.
- Oliver
| |
| Frank Swarbrick 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| theHip<the_tragic_hip@yahoo.com> 05/31/06 9:52 AM >>>
>
>I thought that that was what was stored there, but I couldn't make
>sense of it. This routine is a check to make sure an account number is
>valid. It goes through a whole bunch of multipys and divides and such,
>and then the outcome of all this must match var2.
>
>Unfortunately, all I was handed was a piece of paper with the code, no
>clue what version of CoBOL was being used or compiler. I do have an
>exe of the routine that I can run on XP.
>
>Let me see if I have this part correct.
>
>01 JB-WORK
> 03 VAR1 PIC 9(10)
> 03 VAR1-R REDEFINES VAR1
> 05 VAR9 PIC9(9).
> 05 VARLST PIC 9.
>
>I am assuming that if 138755482 is moved to var1 then var9 would be
>138755482 ... is that correct?
>
>Thanks so much for the quick reply.
Sounds like a mod-10 or mod-11 check, with the last digit of the number
being the check-digit, so with the above var9 would be 123785548 and varlst
(the check digit) would be 2.
Check out the following:
for mod-11: http://www.augustana.ca/~mohrj/algo...digit.html#isbn
for mod-10: http://www.augustana.ca/~mohrj/algo...kdigit.html#ibm
I think each has variants, so you'll have to look at the code, but this
might help explain it.
Frank
---
Frank Swarbrick
Senior Developer/Analyst - Mainframe Applications
FirstBank Data Corporation - Lakewood, CO USA
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:22:12 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
<postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>:>WARNING 2: the MOVE statement shown is also invalid, since a PIC 9 COMP (1
>:>digit integer) won't hold it either.
>
>It is certainly valid to move a big number to a small one.
And it makes sense for checksum processing.
| |
| Michael Mattias 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| >Perhaps the code in which the MOVE occurs never gets executed (e.g. it's
>dead code after a lot of maintenance has happened).
>Sounds like a mod-10 or mod-11 check, with the last digit of the number
>being the check-digit...
Ok, these two do it for me.
I take back everything I said.
While it's silly to try to convert a program should one or both conditions
above be true, I forgot how *totally* silly it is to even think about a
'word-for-word' conversion from one computer language to another.
My bad.
MCM
| |
| Frank Swarbrick 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| Oliver Wong<owong@castortech.com> 05/31/06 11:05 AM >>>
>
>"Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:qPjfg.2694$VE1.1338@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
[color=darkred]
>
> It takes 34 bits to store an unsigned 10 digit number, and 35 bits to
>store a signed 10 digit number, so you're right that LONG INTEGER (32 bit
>signed) won't be enough to store all values of the PIC 9(10). However, if
>you move to floating point numbers (e.g. SINGLE or DOUBLE), you're opening
>yourself up to problems with rounding, which may also yield big headaches.
>
> In such a case, you'll want to use a "Big Integer" package, such as the
>one which can be downloaded from
>http://www.codeproject.com/com/BigInteger.asp
Seems to me it might make most sense to treat it as a character string and
loop through it digit by digit, doing the proper calculation.
I haven't done BASIC since jr high, but... (And this assumes we're doing a
mod-11 check...)
Loop through the string, converting each character to its corresponding
integerdata type (ASCII 030 becomes 0, ASCII 031 becomes 1, etc - most
likely VB offers some function to perform this conversion). Multiply that
integer by the proper "weight" and add the result to a long integer data
type (which had been initialized to zero prior to entering the loop). When
you're done your "result" will be the long integer, which you will then
"mod" by the modulus value (11 in this case). If the result is zero then
your account number has passed the mod-11 test.
I think that's about right. I glanced through our COBOL code that performs
this, so I hope I've read it correctly.
Frank
---
Frank Swarbrick
Senior Developer/Analyst - Mainframe Applications
FirstBank Data Corporation - Lakewood, CO USA
| |
| HeyBub 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| Michael Mattias wrote:
> ... I forgot how *totally* silly it is to even
> think about a 'word-for-word' conversion from one computer language
> to another.
I dunno. They've done that with the Bible. Whole religions have been built
around mistranslations. For example:
Consonats from "Yaweh" plus vowels from "Adoni" then transliterated from
German into English yields "Jehova."
| |
| Michael Mattias 2006-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:127sc3f13vs263c@news.supernews.com...
> Michael Mattias wrote:
>
> I dunno. They've done that with the Bible. Whole religions have been built
> around mistranslations. For example:
>
> Consonats from "Yaweh" plus vowels from "Adoni" then transliterated from
> German into English yields "Jehova."
I think the source of the Bible's text might be a bit more reliable than the
creators of COBOL and BASIC ...
After all, it is "God Bless Kemeny, Kurtz and Hopper", not the other way
around......
MCM
| |
| Binyamin Dissen 2006-06-01, 7:55 am |
| On Wed, 31 May 2006 19:11:11 -0500 "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
:>Consonats from "Yaweh" plus vowels from "Adoni" then transliterated from
:>German into English yields "Jehova."
Wrong.
The vowels, as commonly used, would come to that.
The word is not pronounced as the vowels show.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
| |
| William M. Klein 2006-06-01, 7:55 am |
| For those interested in reading various "views" of this issue, check out
" Tetragrammaton"
on the web, e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Binyamin Dissen" <postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:f64t725ubor86p90mdm5urvn01k26mr8mb@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 19:11:11 -0500 "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :>Consonats from "Yaweh" plus vowels from "Adoni" then transliterated from
> :>German into English yields "Jehova."
>
> Wrong.
>
> The vowels, as commonly used, would come to that.
>
> The word is not pronounced as the vowels show.
>
> --
> Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
> http://www.dissensoftware.com
>
> Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
>
>
> Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
> you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
>
> I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
> especially those from irresponsible companies.
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-06-01, 7:55 am |
|
"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote in message
news:4e6oshF1dhkbjU1@individual.net...
> Oliver Wong<owong@castortech.com> 05/31/06 11:05 AM >>>
>
>
>
>
> Seems to me it might make most sense to treat it as a character string and
> loop through it digit by digit, doing the proper calculation.
>
> I haven't done BASIC since jr high, but... (And this assumes we're doing
> a
> mod-11 check...)
>
> Loop through the string, converting each character to its corresponding
> integerdata type (ASCII 030 becomes 0, ASCII 031 becomes 1, etc - most
> likely VB offers some function to perform this conversion). Multiply that
> integer by the proper "weight" and add the result to a long integer data
> type (which had been initialized to zero prior to entering the loop).
> When
> you're done your "result" will be the long integer, which you will then
> "mod" by the modulus value (11 in this case). If the result is zero then
> your account number has passed the mod-11 test.
You can use a string instead of BigInt, but the BigInt class is likely
to provide some helper functions to do arithmatic.
Converting the string into a long might get you into problems though.
VB's long is a 32 bit signed integer, which means it can store values
between -2'147'483'648 and 2'147'483'647. Since the OP is working with 10
digit numbers, he might, for example, have to deal with 3'000'000'000 which
won't fit in a long.
- Oliver
| |
| Frank Swarbrick 2006-06-01, 6:55 pm |
| Oliver Wong<owong@castortech.com> 06/01/06 7:52 AM >>>
>
>"Frank Swarbrick" <Frank.Swarbrick@efirstbank.com> wrote in message
>news:4e6oshF1dhkbjU1@individual.net...
and[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
then[color=darkred]
>
> You can use a string instead of BigInt, but the BigInt class is likely
>to provide some helper functions to do arithmatic.
>
> Converting the string into a long might get you into problems though.
>VB's long is a 32 bit signed integer, which means it can store values
>between -2'147'483'648 and 2'147'483'647. Since the OP is working with 10
>digit numbers, he might, for example, have to deal with 3'000'000'000 which
>won't fit in a long.
I didn't say to convert a string to a long. Here's an example of how it
works. Take account 123987456-1.
10 * 1 = 10
9 * 2 = 18
8 * 3 = 24
7 * 9 = 63
6 * 8 = 48
5 * 7 = 35
4 * 4 = 16
3 * 5 = 15
2 * 6 = 12
1 * 1 = 1
10 + 18 + 24 + 63 + 48 + 35 + 16 + 15 + 12 + 1 = 242
242 / 11 = 22 remainder 0
in other words, 242 mod 11 = 0
Therefore 1 is the valid check digit for account 123987456
(If there are less than 10 digits in the account the left pad with zeroes,
ie 000123456-x
Since the largest possible account number would be 9999999999, which would
add up to 495, you don't even need a long integer at all.
Again, this is all assuming that the OP is trying to do a mod-11 check... I
personally wouldn't feel comfortable converting a piece of code when I
didn't even know what it is supposed to do! :-)
Frank
---
Frank Swarbrick
Senior Developer/Analyst - Mainframe Applications
FirstBank Data Corporation - Lakewood, CO USA
| |
| HeyBub 2006-06-03, 6:55 pm |
| Binyamin Dissen wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 19:11:11 -0500 "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Wrong.
No, I was right. (Sorry, but I can't type Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey on this keyboard).
YHWH was given the diacritical vowels for "Adonai" by the Masorites inasmuch
as "Adonai" was the word that was spoken when YHWH was encountered in the
sacred text. Martin Luther did not know this trick (even though he could
have asked any nine-year-old Jewish kid) and created the word "Yahowa" when
he translated the Hebrew into German. When the German text was translated
into English, Y => J and W =>V, yielding "Jehova."
I have no idea what the next two sentences mean.
>
> The vowels, as commonly used, would come to that.
>
> The word is not pronounced as the vowels show.
| |
| William M. Klein 2006-06-03, 6:55 pm |
| What he was trying to say (as I understand it) was that the consonants are never
pronounced with any vowels. The vowels indicate that a DIFFERENT word entirely
is supposed to be used when reading the tetragrammaton.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1283uphj6b5s470@news.supernews.com...
> Binyamin Dissen wrote:
>
> No, I was right. (Sorry, but I can't type Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey on this keyboard).
> YHWH was given the diacritical vowels for "Adonai" by the Masorites inasmuch
> as "Adonai" was the word that was spoken when YHWH was encountered in the
> sacred text. Martin Luther did not know this trick (even though he could have
> asked any nine-year-old Jewish kid) and created the word "Yahowa" when he
> translated the Hebrew into German. When the German text was translated into
> English, Y => J and W =>V, yielding "Jehova."
>
> I have no idea what the next two sentences mean.
>
>
>
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-06-03, 6:55 pm |
|
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1283uphj6b5s470@news.supernews.com...
> Binyamin Dissen wrote:
>
> No, I was right. (Sorry, but I can't type Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey on this
> keyboard). YHWH was given the diacritical vowels for "Adonai" by the
> Masorites inasmuch as "Adonai" was the word that was spoken when YHWH was
> encountered in the sacred text. Martin Luther did not know this trick
> (even though he could have asked any nine-year-old Jewish kid) and created
> the word "Yahowa" when he translated the Hebrew into German. When the
> German text was translated into English, Y => J and W =>V, yielding
> "Jehova."
>
> I have no idea what the next two sentences mean.
>
>
It has always amused me the way that the "Name of God" is such a touchy
subject with most believers, irrespective of their particular denomination.
Why is it important?
Because it is so unbelievably holy?
Yet, as far as I can tell from examination of the Old Testament, the only
human who actually got to interview God, on asking politely (and indirectly)
what God's name was, was told that it was simply "I AM".
It would have been a lot more interesting if He had said "I WANNABE"...there
isn't much chance of discussion with an entity that is SO in your face, but
I guess that goes with being God... (Besides, if He had said: "I WANNABE" He
wouldn't have been on the mountain, He would've been living in some trendy
suburb of some trendy city somewhere..)
Pointing out to Moses that He had absolute self awareness and therefore
didn't need a name, is something that seems to have been missed by the
religious scholars, and for thousands of years humans have been playing the
'name game', where true believers are allowed to know the name of God but
nobody is allowed to say (or, in some religions, write...) it, so it has to
be encoded into something quite different. It's a bit like having a name
like 'Tamatawhakatangihangakouaouapokaiwhenua
kitanatahu' and telling people
they can call you 'Tahu'.
I live in hope that someday I'll get to have a conversation with the Creator
of the Universe. When I do, I'll cover this name thing with Him.
Me: "That conversation you had with Moses, where you told him to say that "I
AM" had sent him... Was that because, even though you come across as a
really self-assured and self-aware entity, underneath it all you're just a
little bit shy?"
God (blushing...): "Well, yes... I seem to have this reticence to interact
with Humans. That's why, for the most part I just let them get on with it.
See, it's a bit of a conflict because the Rules say I have to have their
worship, but I'm not supposed to enforce it... It would be pretty easy for
me to threaten destruction of the planet (I did it on a couple of test
cities but it really wasn't that successful in turning people to the paths
of righteousness) if they didn't shape up and worship me, but then I found
there was no satisfaction in that anyway. I created them, but they are so
complex and hard to understand and they keep getting smarter and wanting to
know more, so the old parlour tricks that were pretty impressive a few
thousand years ago, simply don't go down any more. It is very hard to
interact with someone when you require that they worship you.
Me: But didn't You make the rules? Couldn't You change them so that You
don't NEED to be worshipped? Then You could interact pretty normally and not
be shy about it.
God: Yes, I COULD do that, but it's pretty hard to keep yourself amused when
you are Eternal. I was just floating around in darkness for the longest time
and bored rigid. This whole Creation thing was supposed to be an
entertaining diversion. So one of the rules was "Can't change the rules". I
did it deliberately to make sure that everything had to be carefully thought
through before making it happen, and the random elements would get a chance
to influence it without me suppressing them if I didn't like what was
evolving. The hydrogen atom was a work of art and I'm very proud of it.
Humans were kind of a random side effect but once they arrived, I had to
deal with them. And I'm not good at it. Besides, if they knew my name they'd
have no respect for me...
Me: Can you tell me what your name really is?
God: Ok, but you can't tell ANYONE... You will instantly cease to exist if
you do...it's...er... <name of God suppressed to avoid instant annihilation>
Me: Yes... I see what you mean. I'll just tell them I was chatting to I
AM...
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <4 p8F1e6np6U1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1283uphj6b5s470@news.supernews.com...
>
>It has always amused me the way that the "Name of God" is such a touchy
>subject with most believers, irrespective of their particular denomination.
>
>Why is it important?
>
>Because it is so unbelievably holy?
Oh, I *cannot* resist...
.... it might be a simpler process than that. When it comes to
user-defined terms one has to adhere to certain rules... but beyond that
consistency is all that matters; define something as WS-TOT-AMT and you'll
need to refer to it that way.
On the other hand... Reserved Words are Reserved Words.
DD
| |
| Alistair 2006-06-04, 6:55 pm |
|
Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> It has always amused me the way that the "Name of God" is such a touchy
> subject with most believers, irrespective of their particular denomination.
>
> Why is it important?
Because when the True Name of God is known to man, the world will come
to an abrupt end. I remember seeinga documentary about Jewish scholars
who spent their time rearranging the text of a holy document (Talmud or
Old Testament?) to try to discover the true name of God.
>
> Yet, as far as I can tell from examination of the Old Testament, the only
> human who actually got to interview God, on asking politely (and indirectly)
> what God's name was, was told that it was simply "I AM".
I note that M and N are adjacent on the keyboard and maybe, just maybe,
His name is IAN?
>
| |
| HeyBub 2006-06-04, 6:55 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> It has always amused me the way that the "Name of God" is such a
> touchy subject with most believers, irrespective of their particular
> denomination.
> Why is it important?
>
> Because it is so unbelievably holy?
>
> Yet, as far as I can tell from examination of the Old Testament, the
> only human who actually got to interview God, on asking politely (and
> indirectly) what God's name was, was told that it was simply "I AM".
In situations such as yours, when faced with a question, it is appropriate
to inquire of the scholars and not rely on conjecture. In the case of
Judaism, we'll start with the commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of
the Lord, your God, in vain."
That's from the authorative source.
The rabbis promulgated the notion of "building a fence around the Torah."
Where there is a prohibition for a certain activity, other activities that
have a distinct probability of accidentally causing a violation of the
proscribed activity are similarily banned. In the instant case, if one gets
in the habit of NEVER using the name of God, one cannot "take the name in
vain." In civil law we see the same rationale with laws prohibiting one from
driving on the wrong side of the street.
Likewise, one is prohibited from handling tools on the Sabbath (not a
commandment-violation, per se). If you don't have a tool in your hand, you
can't use the tool to do work (which IS prohibited).
Orthodox Jewish couples often sleep in twin beds for reasons, following the
above examples, you can probably work out for yourself.
| |
| Binyamin Dissen 2006-06-04, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 21:26:58 GMT "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
:>What he was trying to say (as I understand it) was that the consonants are never
:>pronounced with any vowels. The vowels indicate that a DIFFERENT word entirely
:>is supposed to be used when reading the tetragrammaton.
More precisely, if one pronounced it using the conventional sounds of the
letters and vowels it would come out sort of like "jehova".
But the word is special and has a special pronunciation unrelated to the
letters and vowels.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
| |
| Jeff Campbell 2006-06-04, 6:55 pm |
| Alistair wrote:
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Because when the True Name of God is known to man, the world will come
> to an abrupt end.
"And, one by one, the stars started winking out."
IIRC, from the short story "The nine billion names of God". I don't remember the authors name.
> I remember seeinga documentary about Jewish scholars
> who spent their time rearranging the text of a holy document (Talmud or
> Old Testament?) to try to discover the true name of God.
>
>
> I note that M and N are adjacent on the keyboard and maybe, just maybe,
> His name is IAN?
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-06-05, 3:55 am |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1149439955.461324.142770@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Because when the True Name of God is known to man, the world will come
> to an abrupt end. I remember seeinga documentary about Jewish scholars
> who spent their time rearranging the text of a holy document (Talmud or
> Old Testament?) to try to discover the true name of God.
>
>
> I note that M and N are adjacent on the keyboard and maybe, just maybe,
> His name is IAN?
>
Lol! It's a good old Scottish name... you may be right.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-06-05, 3:55 am |
|
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1286h6c77s8qn3d@news.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> In situations such as yours, when faced with a question, it is appropriate
> to inquire of the scholars and not rely on conjecture.
The trouble with scholars is that they disagree. Long ago I learned to
research things for myself and draw my own conlusion, based on what I found.
In some cases, it is OK not to draw any conclusion, recognising that there
is insufficient evidence and more may be found in time. I don't think it is
fair to say the above is 'conjecture'; it is a perfctly valid interpretation
of an account from exactly the same authourity that several of the world's
major religions are based on. Why should my observation be based on
conjecture, and theirs not?
> In the case of Judaism, we'll start with the commandment: "Thou shalt not
> take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain."
>
> That's from the authorative source.
Ok, but what exactly does it mean? If I drop a hammer on my foot and say:
"Jesus Christ!" I can see how that could be considered disrespectful by
believers; If I'm having sex and my partner says: "Oh God! I'm coming!"; I
can't see any reasonable Deity being offended by something that is such a
good thing. So under what circumstances is it actually 'in vain' to use the
name of God? We've already established that it ISN'T His name anyway...
>
> The rabbis promulgated the notion of "building a fence around the Torah."
> Where there is a prohibition for a certain activity, other activities that
> have a distinct probability of accidentally causing a violation of the
> proscribed activity are similarily banned. In the instant case, if one
> gets in the habit of NEVER using the name of God, one cannot "take the
> name in vain." In civil law we see the same rationale with laws
> prohibiting one from driving on the wrong side of the street.
>
> Likewise, one is prohibited from handling tools on the Sabbath (not a
> commandment-violation, per se). If you don't have a tool in your hand, you
> can't use the tool to do work (which IS prohibited).
If you extended that argument, you would never get out of bed in the morning
because there is a fair chance that if you do, you will probably transgress
one of the laws or associations. Where does it stop?
If you are trying to manage a buch of people wandering around in a
wilderness, with their livestock and their families and otherwise limited
resopurces, you probably need to have a bunch of rules and Exodus seems to
devote many pages to them. Fair enough. I have always thought Moses was the
best Project Manager in history (and he wrote the book). But once you settle
down and start living in a stable society, probably many of the 'emergency'
rules could be relaxed. Given that Moses died before they entered the
promised land, it is fairly likely that he never got round to amending the
rules and Joshuh certainly would not take it on himself to do so.
4000 years later, I can say that, for me at least, it is just silly. The
whole thing needs review. In fact, there's a fair argument for saying the
whole Bible could do with an update... :-)
>
> Orthodox Jewish couples often sleep in twin beds for reasons, following
> the above examples, you can probably work out for yourself.
>
Presumably the numbers of Orthodox Jews are diminishing? ;-)
All of the above just strikes me as silly. That is not intended to be
offensive to people who actually and earnestly believe it, and I respect
totally their right to accept it. The views expressed (as in all my posts
here) are personal opinions and just the way I see things.
Pete.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-06-05, 7:55 am |
| On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 17:20:26 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>Ok, but what exactly does it mean? If I drop a hammer on my foot and say:
>"Jesus Christ!" I can see how that could be considered disrespectful by
>believers; If I'm having sex and my partner says: "Oh God! I'm coming!"; I
>can't see any reasonable Deity being offended by something that is such a
>good thing. So under what circumstances is it actually 'in vain' to use the
>name of God? We've already established that it ISN'T His name anyway...
There's a long history in religion where people do *not* want their
gods and demons to notice them, at least not directly. Better to go
through your agent (priest) if you need something. Using the name of
such a being is asking to be noticed.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-06-05, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e5t9b8$nvf$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <4p8F1e6np6U1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>
> ... it might be a simpler process than that. When it comes to
> user-defined terms one has to adhere to certain rules... but beyond that
> consistency is all that matters; define something as WS-TOT-AMT and you'll
> need to refer to it that way.
>
Hmmm... Not necessarily. Have you looked at 66 levels in COBOL? :-)
WS-TOT-AMT can be ws-tot-amt, wsTotAmount, Jahweh, Jehovah, Krishna, Zeus,
Bertie, Millicent, or anything you like really. The rules allow it.
> On the other hand... Reserved Words are Reserved Words.
Ah, I see you noticed God's shyness in the original discourse. While He may
be a little... "reserved", He seems to have no trouble in finding the right
words...The evidence we have of communications which purport to be directly
from Him are certainly pretty clear...
Interesting that we don't find debates going on for hundreds of years about
the meaning and definition of the Ten Commandments, the way we do with ideas
like the number of angels who can stand on a pin head, or why there is evil
in the world...
I think the fuss about His name is simply because it is so Holy. It is part
of the 'unknowable' mystery which God has been shrouded in to prevent the
kind of discussion that occurs here in CLC. If things get a bit warm and the
questions are too hard to answer, the established churches can fall back on
the position that it is unknowable anyway. How could a mere Human s to
know the mind of God?
Ironic, seeing it was they who made it so.
(Esoteric and Pagan belief has always recognised that the name of something
has power, and can give others power over it. See "The Golden Bough" and
similar...)
Humans invented God, then they spent millenia arguing about the name of
their imaginary friend.
These arguments became so heated that people actually died over them.
The only reason you would s to discourage people from questioning, is
because what they are questioning cannot stand such scrutiny. And as
centuries pass away, we get smarter, the questions get more pointed, and the
answers sound more tinny and pathetic.
We are indeed dangerous and complex creatures.
Pete.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-06-05, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 02:04:56 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>Interesting that we don't find debates going on for hundreds of years about
>the meaning and definition of the Ten Commandments, the way we do with ideas
>like the number of angels who can stand on a pin head, or why there is evil
>in the world...
We'd rather not address what "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means, or whether
"No other gods before Me" implies that other gods belong behind Him,
or whether we are properly honoring our parents...
Pin head discussions are for religious gs. Most religious
discussion these days are about how to find Scripture to support our
pre-conceived concepts of "this is right" vs "this is yucky", and
enforcing those on everybody else.
| |
| Michael Mattias 2006-06-05, 6:55 pm |
| "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4eis0dF1elc6oU1@individual.net...
> Humans invented God, then they spent millenia arguing about the name of
> their imaginary friend.
>
> These arguments became so heated that people actually died over them.
Not nearly so many have died over the name as have died over what He said
and what it meant.
MCM
| |
|
| In article <4eis0dF1elc6oU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e5t9b8$nvf$1@reader1.panix.com...
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>Hmmm... Not necessarily. Have you looked at 66 levels in COBOL? :-)
>
>WS-TOT-AMT can be ws-tot-amt, wsTotAmount, Jahweh, Jehovah, Krishna, Zeus,
>Bertie, Millicent, or anything you like really. The rules allow it.
The rules still require that the referred-to item be defined (or REDEFINED
or RENAMED) before they can be referenced.
>
>
>Ah, I see you noticed God's shyness in the original discourse. While He may
>be a little... "reserved", He seems to have no trouble in finding the right
>words...The evidence we have of communications which purport to be directly
>from Him are certainly pretty clear...
I seem to recall something along the lines of 'clarity is in the mind of
the beholder', Mr Dashwood.
>
>Interesting that we don't find debates going on for hundreds of years about
>the meaning and definition of the Ten Commandments, the way we do with ideas
>like the number of angels who can stand on a pin head, or why there is evil
>in the world...
Beg pardon, Mr Dashwood, but there seems to have been a fair amount of
discussion about such things for a goodly while. Rules have been
formulated, for example, about the use of electricity on the Sabbath in
accordance with the Ex:XX.10... and there wasn't too much harnessed
electricity in use in the days of the Sinai relevation. Likewise with
theft; what constitutes property - and, subsequently, stealing - has been
discussed at great length, likewise with murder... all kinds of discussion
over the centuries about these matters and others.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-06-05, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:38:01 GMT, "Michael Mattias"
<michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
>
>Not nearly so many have died over the name as have died over what He said
>and what it meant.
Most all of these killings are the result of "How do I interpret God's
will so that it supports what I already know is right, and condemns
what I already know is wrong, giving me an excuse to do what I was
going to do anyway".
| |
| Richard 2006-06-05, 6:55 pm |
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> There's a long history in religion where people do *not* want their
> gods and demons to notice them, at least not directly. Better to go
> through your agent (priest) if you need something. Using the name of
> such a being is asking to be noticed.
Or was it the _priests_ who wanted to retain authority and control by
being the intermediaries ?
There is a long history where 'what the people want' is irrelevant,
they get told what to do by the 'gods' via the priests and must also
make their offerings and sacrifices via those same priests.
Conveniently, any lack of response, or wrath, is because the people did
not make enough offerings to please the gods.
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-06-05, 6:55 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:tqb882t7s3riki942skgu0iic9jiakblmg@
4ax.com...
>
> There's a long history in religion where people do *not* want their
> gods and demons to notice them, at least not directly. Better to go
> through your agent (priest) if you need something. Using the name of
> such a being is asking to be noticed.
This is only marginally on-topic, but...
Back in highschool, I used to run a MUD (Multi User Dungeon) server that
I downloaded onto my personal computer. MUDs, for those unfamiliar with
them, are text games where the environment is verbally described to you, and
you type in the action you wish to perform. They are multiplayer, and so the
players can interact with each other.
Anyway, one of the commands was "SAY", and whatever you placed after
that command would be sent to everybody in the same room as you. My in-game
name there was "Nebu", and whenever a player would use the SAY command with
a string that contained "nebu" (case insensitive), the game would not
actually emit the message to everyone in the room. Instead, the player who
issued the command would receive a message saying they cannot speak the name
of God, and if I were online at the time, I'd receive a notification telling
me who said my name, and where they were.
It was actually quite annoying, and I never figured out how to disable
this rule. I'd be minding my own business, when suddenly my screen would
flood with notifications as people tried to figure out how to circumvent the
game's censoring mechanism. Was "nebu-" allowed? "nebu1"? "ne-bu"? They'd
try all sorts of stuff, just to see what the game would and would not allow.
Pretty soon, I was tempted to announce that should anyone ever spam my
screen with more useless notifications like that again, I'd use the SLAY
command to instantly kill their character.
- Oliver
| |
| charles hottel 2006-06-05, 6:55 pm |
|
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4eis0dF1elc6oU1@individual.net...
>
<snip>
> (Esoteric and Pagan belief has always recognised that the name of
> something has power, and can give others power over it. See "The Golden
> Bough" and similar...)
>
Well the latest COBOL standard is esoteric and probably pagan but it doesn't
seem to have much power, although I guess in some circles lack of power is
still a form of (negative) power:-)
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-06-06, 7:55 am |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:vaf882t6jdg3pbijshcgesktjsb2r18683@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 02:04:56 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> We'd rather not address what "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means, or whether
> "No other gods before Me" implies that other gods belong behind Him,
> or whether we are properly honoring our parents...
>
> Pin head discussions are for religious gs. Most religious
> discussion these days are about how to find Scripture to support our
> pre-conceived concepts of "this is right" vs "this is yucky", and
> enforcing those on everybody else.
>
I think you're,  ly, spot on here...:-)
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-06-06, 7:55 am |
|
"Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote in message
news:dlXgg.39076$fb2.2252@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:4eis0dF1elc6oU1@individual.net...
>
> Not nearly so many have died over the name as have died over what He said
> and what it meant.
I understand that, Michael. But surely, that doesn't make it right?
Why should anybody die at all, for or because of a belief?
Even if God really DOES exist (and I don't personally believe this to be
the case), why would He allow such a situation to arise?
(Sorry, I am paraphrasing Emmanuael Kant; I did it unconsciously...Kant
famously argued thus:
1. There is evil in the world.
2. If there is evil in the world it is either because God doesn't care
about it, or God can't do anything about it.
3. If God doesn't care about it, then He isn't benevolent.
4. If God can't do anything about it then He isn't omnipotent.
Conclusion: God is either not benevolent or not omnipotent.
Kant very nearly got himself burned alive for this and it took the Church
several hundred years to come up with a refutation (which, in my opinion at
least, is decidedly dodgy...)
The bottom line is that religion (arguably) causes more harm than it does
good.
Teachings are fine; and I have yet to read any of the great teachers who you
couldn't get something of value from (including Jesus of Nazareth), but as
soon as men start making a business and a living out of it, the whole thing
becomes a travesty.
I believe the only hope is tolerance, until Mankind is mature enough not to
need an imaginary friend, and take responsibility for its own destiiny.
Sadly, that is likely to be a very long time. Meantime, I have no problem
with people practicing their religion as long as they don't require me to do
so, and so long as they do no harm to others who are not of their
persuasion.
Part of the tragedy in Iraq is people killing each other over religion.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-06-06, 7:55 am |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:kjg88297hgi1813j50a6t5dprj4me2se7m@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:38:01 GMT, "Michael Mattias"
> <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
> Most all of these killings are the result of "How do I interpret God's
> will so that it supports what I already know is right, and condemns
> what I already know is wrong, giving me an excuse to do what I was
> going to do anyway".
>
Cynical, but apposite. I wonder if we'll ever learn?
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-06-06, 7:55 am |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e61fo9$5je$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <4eis0dF1elc6oU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> The rules still require that the referred-to item be defined (or REDEFINED
> or RENAMED) before they can be referenced.
Yes, but that isn't what you said, old fruit..."define something as
WS-TOT-AMT and you'll
need to refer to it that way." Never mind, let it pass :-)
>
>
> I seem to recall something along the lines of 'clarity is in the mind of
> the beholder', Mr Dashwood.
>
Yes, a fair and necessary reminder :-)
>
> Beg pardon, Mr Dashwood, but there seems to have been a fair amount of
> discussion about such things for a goodly while.
Maybe. My point was that the things (purportedly) said by God don't seem to
generate the lasting (sometimes centuries long) debates that the things said
by Humans do. Certainly, there will always be the barroom lawyers who are
looking for loopholes in the 10 commandments, :-) but I don't think that is
the same thing at all.
> Rules have been
> formulated, for example, about the use of electricity on the Sabbath in
> accordance with the Ex:XX.10... and there wasn't too much harnessed
> electricity in use in the days of the Sinai relevation. Likewise with
> theft; what constitutes property - and, subsequently, stealing - has been
> discussed at great length, likewise with murder... all kinds of discussion
> over the centuries about these matters and others.
Fair enough. These are matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture.
They must necessarily be argued and resolved within various faiths.
Perhaps you are right and these arguments are just as tedious as the ones
about angels on pinheads. It didn't seem that way to me when I wrote my
statement, and I drew a distinction.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-06-06, 7:55 am |
|
"charles hottel" <jghottel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e34a$4484c1cd$4f9c64e$12033@DIALUP
USA.NET...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:4eis0dF1elc6oU1@individual.net...
> <snip>
>
> Well the latest COBOL standard is esoteric and probably pagan but it
> doesn't seem to have much power, although I guess in some circles lack of
> power is still a form of (negative) power:-)
Careful...Chuck (who is anything BUT pagan) had a hand in preparing it, and
I would say all those responsible checked it "religiously"... :-)
Maybe it needs an unutterable name to give it the power it should have. :-)
"COBOL 2002" really sounds pretty boring (especially when it should have
been COBOL 98)
I think it should have a really powerful sounding name... something with
"Mega" or "Mighty" or suchlike, perhaps...
What about..."SOLCOB 02" for "SOLID COBOL" ...no...that could also be
interpreted as "SHIT OUT OF LUCK COBOL"...
Ooops, I forgot it needs to be unutterable... OK... "CZXYGZX" a devil of a
compiler...(666)
Anyone?
Pete.
>
>
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-06-06, 7:55 am |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:tqb882t7s3riki942skgu0iic9jiakblmg@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 17:20:26 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> There's a long history in religion where people do *not* want their
> gods and demons to notice them, at least not directly. Better to go
> through your agent (priest) if you need something. Using the name of
> such a being is asking to be noticed.
>
Ah, this is the old "keep your head down and survive" strategy... I'm sure
you're right, and that is one of the benefits provided by the priesthood;
there's an insulating layer betwen the faithful and God. Of course, it
implies absolute trust in the Priesthood and that's wearing a bit thin in
certain quarters...
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <4elbjmF1ej55eU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e61fo9$5je$1@reader1.panix.com...
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>Yes, but that isn't what you said, old fruit..."define something as
>WS-TOT-AMT and you'll
> need to refer to it that way." Never mind, let it pass :-)
Most gracious of you, Mr Dashwood... I'll let it pass and try to rest on a
different stool.
[snip]
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>Fair enough. These are matters of doctrine and interpretation of scripture.
>They must necessarily be argued and resolved within various faiths.
That... and for most human history they just didn't have television and
had to do... *something*, I guess.
>
>Perhaps you are right and these arguments are just as tedious as the ones
>about angels on pinheads. It didn't seem that way to me when I wrote my
>statement, and I drew a distinction.
Perhaps it was just a matter of familiarity, or lack thereof, Mr
Dashwood... I recall doing a bit of research for someone I knew, years on
back, about the various periods of mourning observed by Jews after the
death of a parent; as I recall there were three which I labelled as
'high', 'medium' and 'low'. My memory is, admittedly, porous but the
'high mourning' period is for seven days, the 'medium' for a month and the
'low'... well, I think that one is eleven months... but it was the subject
of a goodly bit of debate, as to whether it should be twelve, thirteen or
eleven months...
.... and this was debated from about the 10th to the 13th centuries
AD/ACE... granted, folks probably chatted about a few other things during
that time but still... it took *three centuries* to settle how long one
should observe a period of 'low mourning' after the death of a parent.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-06-06, 7:55 am |
|
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1149535055.146906.208270@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>
> Or was it the _priests_ who wanted to retain authority and control by
> being the intermediaries ?
>
> There is a long history where 'what the people want' is irrelevant,
> they get told what to do by the 'gods' via the priests and must also
> make their offerings and sacrifices via those same priests.
> Conveniently, any lack of response, or wrath, is because the people did
> not make enough offerings to please the gods.
>
Yeah, seen that one several times... Apparently, (third party hearsay, may
not be true) there are Mullahs in Indonesia who blame the tsunami on the
fact that people didn't give them enough in offerings...Worst part is that
many of the faithful believe them. (I really hope that isn't true, but it
came from someone recently returned after helping clean up the mess.)
Pete
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-06-06, 7:55 am |
|
"Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
news:F51hg.32132$JX1.6718@edtnps82...
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:tqb882t7s3riki942skgu0iic9jiakblmg@
4ax.com...
>
> This is only marginally on-topic, but...
>
> Back in highschool, I used to run a MUD (Multi User Dungeon) server
> that I downloaded onto my personal computer. MUDs, for those unfamiliar
> with them, are text games where the environment is verbally described to
> you, and you type in the action you wish to perform. They are multiplayer,
> and so the players can interact with each other.
>
> Anyway, one of the commands was "SAY", and whatever you placed after
> that command would be sent to everybody in the same room as you. My
> in-game name there was "Nebu", and whenever a player would use the SAY
> command with a string that contained "nebu" (case insensitive), the game
> would not actually emit the message to everyone in the room. Instead, the
> player who issued the command would receive a message saying they cannot
> speak the name of God, and if I were online at the time, I'd receive a
> notification telling me who said my name, and where they were.
>
> It was actually quite annoying, and I never figured out how to disable
> this rule. I'd be minding my own business, when suddenly my screen would
> flood with notifications as people tried to figure out how to circumvent
> the game's censoring mechanism. Was "nebu-" allowed? "nebu1"? "ne-bu"?
> They'd try all sorts of stuff, just to see what the game would and would
> not allow. Pretty soon, I was tempted to announce that should anyone ever
> spam my screen with more useless notifications like that again, I'd use
> the SLAY command to instantly kill their character.
>
How perfectly Godlike of you, Oliver :-) Given an eternity, could God learn
tolerance?
Pete.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-06-06, 7:55 am |
| On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 00:30:45 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>4. If God can't do anything about it then He isn't omnipotent.
>Conclusion: God is either not benevolent or not omnipotent.
I agree strongly - at least when we talk about Everlasting Hell.
>Kant very nearly got himself burned alive for this and it took the Church
>several hundred years to come up with a refutation (which, in my opinion at
>least, is decidedly dodgy...)
>
>The bottom line is that religion (arguably) causes more harm than it does
>good.
I disagree. I believe that most of the harm that is done in the name
of religion would be done in the name of whatever authority is
available. Patriotism works for this. I don't see that religious
cultures are more likely to show hatred nor go to war than secular
cultures in history. Smaller evils are harder to determine (stuff
that makes families unhappy for instance. Is female circumcision
about culture or religion? How about Untouchables?).
On the other hand, I know people who use up their vacation taking
medical aid to impoverished regions of the world - these are almost
always church groups.
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-06-17, 7:55 am |
| "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4p8F1e6np6U1@individual.net...
>
> Me: But didn't You make the rules? Couldn't You change them so that You
> don't NEED to be worshipped? Then You could interact pretty normally and
> not be shy about it.
>
> God: Yes, I COULD do that, but it's pretty hard to keep yourself amused
> when you are Eternal. I was just floating around in darkness for the
> longest time and bored rigid. This whole Creation thing was supposed to be
> an entertaining diversion. So one of the rules was "Can't change the
> rules".
There's this series of fantasy novels where a supremely powerful being
is trapped in some container for billions and billions of years, and should
the container fall into the wrong hands, and the being released, the entire
universe will be destroyed, etc.
The protagonists starts wondering if this being is so powerful, how did
it end up being trapped in the container in the first place. Later on, we
find out that it intentionally trapped itself there "for fun". It's similar
to how we constrain ourselves when solving Sudoku or crossword puzzles. We
don't *HAVE* to write numbers/letters in the grid. We could write anything
we want. We could tear up the sheet of paper on which the puzzle is written,
or toss it into an open flame, or just neglect the sheet for all eternity.
But instead we force ourselves to obey pretty arbitrary rules, because to do
otherwise would "ruin the fun".
- Oliver
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-06-17, 7:55 am |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:fm0b82lvtm8icugi5cl9feesv2efg6vsc9@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 00:30:45 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> I agree strongly - at least when we talk about Everlasting Hell.
>
>
> I disagree. I believe that most of the harm that is done in the name
> of religion would be done in the name of whatever authority is
> available. Patriotism works for this. I don't see that religious
> cultures are more likely to show hatred nor go to war than secular
> cultures in history. Smaller evils are harder to determine (stuff
> that makes families unhappy for instance. Is female circumcision
> about culture or religion? How about Untouchables?).
>
> On the other hand, I know people who use up their vacation taking
> medical aid to impoverished regions of the world - these are almost
> always church groups.
>
Fair points. That's why I said it is arguable... :-) I still believe, on
balance it does much more harm than good. Religious cultures ARE MUCH more
likely to go to war than secular ones. Just look at History. Jihad, Crue,
Holy war...the list goes on and on. I do take your point that many church
groups do a lot of good. But so do many secular groups.
You don't need religion to do what's right. You DO need religion to
persecute others and kill, maim and torture people who don't share your
belief...
Obviously, I'm biased so there isn't much point in arguing it really :-)
Let's agree to differ on this one...:-)
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <fm0b82lvtm8icugi5cl9feesv2efg6vsc9@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
[snip]
>On the other hand, I know people who use up their vacation taking
>medical aid to impoverished regions of the world - these are almost
>always church groups.
Gah... years ago, when I knew more than I probably do now, I thought that
if there had to be 'shock troops' of society, a sort of Rapid Deployment
Force of Western Culture, they should consist of agricultural specialists
and veterinarians... not doctors... and *definitely* not priests.
DD
| |
| Binyamin Dissen 2006-06-17, 7:55 am |
| On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 08:23:05 -0600 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
:>We'd rather not address what "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means,
Don't, as it is an incorrect translation.
The uttering is "Thou shalt not murder".
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
| |
| James J. Gavan 2006-06-17, 7:55 am |
| Binyamin Dissen wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 08:23:05 -0600 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> :>We'd rather not address what "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means,
>
> Don't, as it is an incorrect translation.
>
> The uttering is "Thou shalt not murder".
And seeing as it is YOUR Book, not ours, a completely unambiguous meaning.
Jimmy
| |
| Richard 2006-06-17, 7:55 am |
|
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> there are Mullahs in Indonesia who blame the tsunami on the
> fact that people didn't give them enough in offerings...Worst part is that
> many of the faithful believe them.
In America and elsewhere there are TV evalgalists who say much the same
thing about their audiences' personal failures and disasters. It works
for them.
| |
| HeyBub 2006-06-17, 7:55 am |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> Fair points. That's why I said it is arguable... :-) I still believe,
> on balance it does much more harm than good. Religious cultures ARE
> MUCH more likely to go to war than secular ones. Just look at
> History. Jihad, Crue, Holy war...the list goes on and on. I do
> take your point that many church groups do a lot of good. But so do
> many secular groups.
Look also at WW1, WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, the Civil War, American Revolution,
Bolsheviks vs Communists, Iran v Iraq, Lybia v Egypt, Sudan vs itself,
Cavalry vs the Indians, and Pepsi against Coke. No, far, far more death and
destruction has been caused by contests other than over religion.
>
> You don't need religion to do what's right. You DO need religion to
> persecute others and kill, maim and torture people who don't share
> your belief...
There are those for whom morality is absolute (i.e., murder is always wrong)
and those for whom morality is situational (i.e., except for my cheating
husband). Of course, this depends, too, on how one defines murder.
| |
| HeyBub 2006-06-17, 7:55 am |
| James J. Gavan wrote:
> Binyamin Dissen wrote:
>
> And seeing as it is YOUR Book, not ours, a completely unambiguous
> meaning.
Well, yeah. Jewish tradition is that Moses spent a good while being tutored
by God on all the ramifications.
You see, it is not really important what the Bible says. It's not even
important what God said. What matters, only, is what God meant. Sometimes
God didn't say what He meant, and sometimes He didn't mean what He said.
For example, if the Bible quotes someone as saying something, what's the
probability the speaker was lying, mistaken, or exaggerating ("Solomon has
treasures without end...")? These kinds of things, plus ambiguity,
conflicts, contradictions, and other confusions are why there are scholars
to interpret or institutions that decide.
| |
| Richard 2006-06-17, 7:55 am |
|
HeyBub wrote:
> You see, it is not really important what the Bible says. It's not even
> important what God said. What matters, only, is what God meant. Sometimes
> God didn't say what He meant, and sometimes He didn't mean what He said.
It is only 'important' what the priests tell you what god meant,
because that is the way that the priests keep their social control over
their followers.
> For example, if the Bible quotes someone as saying something, what's the
> probability the speaker was lying, mistaken, or exaggerating ("Solomon has
> treasures without end...")?
Like the war-lord that rules you is all-knowing (via spies and
confessions) and all-powerful and will smite his enemies and
disbelievers and rule the world. No, wait, that is Bush.
> These kinds of things, plus ambiguity,
> conflicts, contradictions, and other confusions are why there are scholars
> to interpret or institutions that decide.
Yeah, and the Catholics decide one thing and the Jews another and the
Lutherans a third, which is why there are several thousand religions,
and that is just counting the Judao ones.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-06-17, 7:55 am |
| On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:13:15 -0500, Binyamin Dissen
<postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>:>We'd rather not address what "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means,
>
>Don't, as it is an incorrect translation.
>
>The uttering is "Thou shalt not murder".
Does that mean "Don't kill someone in such a manner as to break
secular law"?
And does this mean that following English language scripture might not
be following God's demands?
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
| |
| Binyamin Dissen 2006-06-17, 7:55 am |
| On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 07:20:32 -0600 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
:>On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:13:15 -0500, Binyamin Dissen
:><postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>:>We'd rather not address what "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means,
:>>Don't, as it is an incorrect translation.
:>>The uttering is "Thou shalt not murder".
:>Does that mean "Don't kill someone in such a manner as to break
:>secular law"?
Illegal killing.
What makes it illegal is up to the reader.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdissen@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
| |
|
| In article <ugkd82ln71q74i8iqu043qd0m2e14p2b8n@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:13:15 -0500, Binyamin Dissen
><postingid@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
>
>Does that mean "Don't kill someone in such a manner as to break
>secular law"?
Mr Brazee, given that what is being reported in this instance is purported
to be 'the Word of God' the concept of 'secular law' just might not apply.
DD
|
|
|
|
|