OT: Religion (WAS: Making money from Java)

"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
news:43A1B044.A2694988@mts.net...
> Actually, there is no point at all in continuing this thread.  Judson
> has opened his veins once too often in public.  I quote from his post of
> Dec. 10 at 6:48a.m.:
>
> "Even though I >>believe<< the Bible is God's inspired Word, >>>>>>the
> Bible doesn't give us all the answers<<<<".
>
> (>><< added for emphasis).
>
> Judson's belief is of no factual value; it applies only to him and to
> no-one else.  The Bible may  be God's inspired word, but Judson
> believing it to be so doesn't make it so: nor does anyone else's
> belief.  There is, of course, no objective way of verifying his belief.

well, there MAY be a way, we (human-kind) just haven't figured out how
yet. Of course, the chances that we (the posters on comp.lang.cobol) figure
it out *now* is probably slim, but it's note a zero probability. And perhaps
we can have fun slash learn something along the way (I learned not to mix up
christianity and catholicism, for example).

>
> But far more important is the rest of his statement.  We may now
> legitimately ask him to specify which answers the Bible actually does
> give, and why; otherwise we may reply to any claim he makes upon the
> Bible's authority by reminding him of this little faux pas.
>
> I haven't yet searched Judson's other messages to see if he's also
> claimed that the Bible does have all the answers.  I think he has but
> I'll have to find the example.  If I find just one such  .......

We gotta be careful here and remind ourselves of why we're all posting
on here in the first place. Is it to mine the archives for any mistake
Judson may have made, and them jump on them and laugh at him? Sometimes I
will say something which is not precisely what I meant. In the context in
which I made it, perhaps the statement was clear, but after a few days,
ws or months, the discussion might have progressed to a point where we
have to become much more precise about terms.

It's happened to me before: I made a post on a Java newsgroup calling
something an object, when actually it's a *reference* to an object. At the
time, the distinction didn't really matter, but when we start talking about
the difference between passing parameters by value versus passing parameters
by reference, it does.

Things are probably a bit tough for Judson, because it seems that there
are more people who do not believe the same things as Judson does, than
there are who do. He has to keep track of so many different threads, and has
so many minds ganging up and "working against him", so to speak. If I were
in his position, I'd probably find the whole ordeal quite exhausting. I
might have ended up withdrawing, not because I "lost the argument" or
anything like that, but because I have more important things to do (like my
job!)

I don't agree with everything Judson believes. If he's willing to
discuss it, I'm willing to tell him why I don't agree. But my goal here is
not to make this group a hostile environment in which he no longer wishes to
continue posting.

- Oliver

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:16:03 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
wrote:

>    Things are probably a bit tough for Judson, because it seems that there
>are more people who do not believe the same things as Judson does, than
>there are who do. He has to keep track of so many different threads, and ha
s
>so many minds ganging up and "working against him", so to speak. If I were
>in his position, I'd probably find the whole ordeal quite exhausting. I
>might have ended up withdrawing, not because I "lost the argument" or
>anything like that, but because I have more important things to do (like my
>job!)

If I were him, I'd be constantly terribly depressed, knowing that not
only the vast majority of people are going to be tortured, but people
I love dearly will be tortured.

Oliver Wong wrote:
>
> "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
> news:43A1B044.A2694988@mts.net... 
<snip>
 
>
>     We gotta be careful here and remind ourselves of why we're all posting
> on here in the first place. Is it to mine the archives for any mistake
> Judson may have made, and them jump on them and laugh at him?

Not at all!  Judson has stated in the post I referred to that the Bible
does not have all the answers.  If in some other post he says that the
Bible DOES have all the answers - he's contradicting himself.  He can't
have it both ways.  He has quoted the Bible at me and everyone; if he
can't even agree with himself on its authority he should not be quoting
it at all.

I have previously stated on-line that it is not my intent to attack
Judson personally, but that by questioning a person's beliefs it may
well sound like attacking the person.  I've also stated that if it
sounds like I am then I apologize as I don't mean to.

I'll point out, in case anyone hasn't got the point, that my intent is
to argue about the authority of the  Bible.  There is no way of proving
that it is God's word; nor is there any way of proving that it's
consistent with "ordinary" logic or even with itself.  As well, there
are so many examples of things it states that don't even make sense -
like why it should upset anyone that Noah was naked in his tent, or how
a calf made of gold can be burned, or why it's a good thing to blast fig
trees for not bearing fruit, when it's not the season - and my
favourite, poor Pharoah - that a reader who goes through it without
preconceptions  - a Jain, perhaps? - will excounter inunmerable things
that make him/her say "Hmmmm....".

I doubt if anybody's posts are all perfectly consistent, as you state;
but contradicting oneself?

Judson has already stated that he doesn't enjoy getting slagged from all
sides; I can sympathize; I've endured it in other contexts, in real
life, anyway; but he can drop out at any time, with or without an
explanation.  As long as he continues to post he will have to endure the
calumny.

PL

In article <n2lof.1789$lv3.1049@clgrps12>,
Oliver Wong <owong@castortech.com> wrote:

[snip]

>    We gotta be careful here and remind ourselves of why we're all posting
>on here in the first place. Is it to mine the archives for any mistake
>Judson may have made, and them jump on them and laugh at him?

Not my reason, nope... I'd be happy just to get a direct response to the
suggestions about separation of Church and State that I've posted three,
four times now.... but Mr McClendon cannot be exptected to respond to
*everything*, you know.

DD

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:53:45 -0600, Peter Lacey <lacey@mts.net> wrote:

>Judson has already stated that he doesn't enjoy getting slagged from all
>sides; I can sympathize; I've endured it in other contexts, in real
>life, anyway; but he can drop out at any time, with or without an
>explanation.  As long as he continues to post he will have to endure the
>calumny.

However, if he truly believes that even one person will be tortured
after death, could he sit back and let that happen without doing
everything he could to stop it?

How could he live with himself if he did that?    How could he live
with himself if he emulated the being he worships in that regard?

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:53:45 -0600, Peter Lacey <lacey@mts.net> wrote:

>Not at all!  Judson has stated in the post I referred to that the Bible
>does not have all the answers.  If in some other post he says that the
>Bible DOES have all the answers - he's contradicting himself.  He can't
>have it both ways.  He has quoted the Bible at me and everyone; if he
>can't even agree with himself on its authority he should not be quoting
>it at all.

He's consistently inconsistent.   That tends to happen with all kinds
of True Believers.

"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
news:43A25669.9A360078@mts.net...
>
> I have previously stated on-line that it is not my intent to attack
> Judson personally, but that by questioning a person's beliefs it may
> well sound like attacking the person.  I've also stated that if it
> sounds like I am then I apologize as I don't mean to.
>
> I'll point out, in case anyone hasn't got the point, that my intent is
> to argue about the authority of the  Bible.  There is no way of proving
> that it is God's word; nor is there any way of proving that it's
> consistent with "ordinary" logic or even with itself.  As well, there
> are so many examples of things it states that don't even make sense -
> like why it should upset anyone that Noah was naked in his tent, or how
> a calf made of gold can be burned, or why it's a good thing to blast fig
> trees for not bearing fruit, when it's not the season - and my
> favourite, poor Pharoah - that a reader who goes through it without
> preconceptions  - a Jain, perhaps? - will excounter inunmerable things
> that make him/her say "Hmmmm....".

I believe that the bible should not be taken literally, and this belief
is compatible with your belief (I'm assuming). So in that sense, we are in
agreement.

However, pointing out that *Judson* has contradicted himself is not
evidence that the Bible should not be taken literally. If you want to show
that the bible is logically inconsistent, you can do that without ever
bringing up anything Judson has ever said.

If you want to point out that Judson's beliefs are inconsistent, then
yes, you probably need to quote things that Judson has said in the past.
That is where, though, I've put the disclaimer that finding a few
inconsistencies across multiple posts might be "mean" tactics.

Out of pure laziness, sometimes things I *say* (or *write* in the case
of Usenet) may contradict each other, despite the fact that the actual
beliefs themselves that I hold in my mind do not contradict. As an example
of this, I often say things like "I believe..." or "I chose..." etc. when
elsewhere, I've also said that I don't think there exists such a thing as
free will. Here it might sound like I'm contradicting myself, so you might
say "Which is it, Oliver? Do you believe in free will or don't you?" and
then I can finally say "I don't. Whenever I write 'I chose to do action A',
it's just out of carelessness; what I mean is that the interactions of the
particles in my mind have caused the neurons to fire a specific sequence of
signals leading me to perform action A".

So if you ever do find a post by Judson saying he believes that the
Bible *does* contain all the answers, it might seem mean-spirited to
conclude "Judson has contradicted himself; therefore he is wrong, QED." What
one might do in such a circumstance is to point out this contradiction to
Judson and ask him to clarify himself as to what he really believes. I think
Judson could respond in one of three ways:

* I believe that the bible does have all the answers.
* I believe the bible does not have all the answers.
* I believe that my belief system does not have to be logically
consistent.

If he choses one of the first two, then we can proceed to look for
arguments which depend on a (now false) statement being true, and
deconstruct those.

Anyway, I'm not (yet) accusing you, Peter, of any of the above. I'm just
saying, let's be careful not to give into the temptation of using the above
mentioned mean-spirited tactics, as the opportunity to do so is starting to
present itself.

- Oliver

In article <QvDof.2072$ic1.552@edtnps90>,
Oliver Wong <owong@castortech.com> wrote:

[snip]

>    Out of pure laziness, sometimes things I *say* (or *write* in the case
>of Usenet) may contradict each other, despite the fact that the actual
>beliefs themselves that I hold in my mind do not contradict.

Well... as was posted in another forum, a few years back:

From
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...
=source&hl=en>

--begin quoted text:

It has been said (Thoreau) that a foolish consistency is the petty
hobgoblin of small minds, that (Nietzsche) 'Whoever said 'Alas! Two souls
dwell within my breast!' fell short... by a goodly number of souls' and
that (Whitman) 'Do I contradict myself?  Very well, I contradict myself; I
am large, I contain multitudes.'

... but what can anyone learn from a back-to-nature nut, a syphillitic
misanthrope or an acknowledged and notorious homosexual, anyhow?

--end quoted text

(note - my error in attribution (Thoreau for Emerson) was corrected)

DD

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:53:45 -0600, Peter Lacey <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
> 
>
> He's consistently inconsistent.   That tends to happen with all kinds
> of True Believers.

I think Judson is consistent and I doubt that finding any slip amidst
his writings would contribute anything. I do wonder if I have been
logically consistent (except when I blew my top) and entirely fair to
JM.

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> Peter Lacey <lacey@mts.net> wrote: 
>
> However, if he truly believes that even one person will be tortured
> after death, could he sit back and let that happen without doing
> everything he could to stop it?
> How could he live with himself if he did that?

I hope I am not giving the impression that I am doing that, Howard. :-)

> How could he live
> with himself if he emulated the being he worships in that regard?

God, not Christians, will judge mankind. Interestingly, the Bible does say
that we will judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3).
--
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."