Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/16/07 00:40, Chris Bannister wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:17:20AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10 May, Joe Hart wrote: ... I really just wish that Christians would adhere to the lessons that they so firmly believe in. But alas, we have a whole lot of people that seem to do well on Sunday and forget about the rest of the week. Is it a turn the other cheek world we live in or is the eye for an eye world? Joe The two are not mutually exclusive. The traditional interpretation of the eye for an eye verse is that the punishment should fit the crime, but not exceed it, i.e. an eye for an eye, not two eyes or a life. This was a somewhat radical concept at the time. Ahh ... interesting! So the an eye for an eye concept is actually closer to the turn the other cheek concept -- a compromise? Absolutely not a compromise. With that phrase, Israel's Eevil jealous monotheistic deity (well, the priests who wrote it, since There Is No God) changed the bedrock of jurisprudence from *vengeance* to *reciprocity*. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGSr63S9HxQb37XmcRArVgAKDKTj4apTUaEhSRL/ZCHuizXZQUJgCeO0PO BbVnK/pL5dNHPjRuHMiEQOs= =EcVs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/16/07 00:41, Chris Bannister wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 06:09:36AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: By definition, the natural man is *not* a spritiual man, and hence not bron again, and hence not a Christian. So if you are not a Christian you are not spiritual? Follow the thread and you will see Roberto clarify his statement. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGSsBsS9HxQb37XmcRAucmAKDsEgvYlyeeJ+VrpVsiN2bKzRO10wCeLFr7 JrT8Up9A4gOGuPpy2815VFs= =Piit -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/16/07 00:39, Chris Bannister wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 03:09:06AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: Sure, but the Hindus aren't doing it in the name of God, Allah, Shiva or whatever. Hinduism has other problems but claiming an exclusive franchise on truth is not one of them. And Christianity teaches love your neighbor as yourself. That doesn't mean that the humans who purport to believe in it actually follow it correctly. Thats because they will be forgiven for their sins. You can do what you like and God will forgive you. :-( Only if you sincerely ask him, and *try* to turn away from that sin. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGSsCzS9HxQb37XmcRAqeVAKDOrLnCTlqPGWembjkVc02ruRV0zwCg5Q5i PbXb26YUpV8wq1lA+Z4vWI0= =mosJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 14:53 -0400, Celejar wrote: My point is simply that the Bible clearly views sacrifice as religiously valuable, and whatever the value may be, there's no a priori reason to assume it's less legitimate than nourishment. The only possible basis to attack the bible as condoning immorality is if one denies the basic premise that sacrifice is valuable. The concept of sacrifice is significantly broader that the act of animal sacrifice. It's certainly possible to find value (religious or otherwise) in the notion of personal sacrifice while nonetheless condemning the practice of animal sacrifice. The religious types can sort out what's moral or immoral; personally, I think animal sacrifice is distasteful, disrespectful, and just one of many unappealing aspects of the Christian bible. -- Michael M. ++ Portland, OR ++ USA No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream. --S. Jackson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Tue, 15 May 2007 04:47:29 -0700 Michael M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 14:53 -0400, Celejar wrote: My point is simply that the Bible clearly views sacrifice as religiously valuable, and whatever the value may be, there's no a priori reason to assume it's less legitimate than nourishment. The only possible basis to attack the bible as condoning immorality is if one denies the basic premise that sacrifice is valuable. The concept of sacrifice is significantly broader that the act of animal sacrifice. It's certainly possible to find value (religious or Of course it is, but that's not relevant to my point that the Bible clearly approves of *animal* sacrifice, in addition to other sorts of sacrifices (The sacrifices of the Lord are a broken spirit). otherwise) in the notion of personal sacrifice while nonetheless condemning the practice of animal sacrifice. The religious types can That's fine, but again, we were discussing the Bible's morality or lack thereof, not mine or yours. sort out what's moral or immoral; personally, I think animal sacrifice is distasteful, disrespectful, and just one of many unappealing aspects of the Christian bible. It's a free country [see the other recent OT thread], but I disagree with your choice of criteria; I consider morality the paramount criterion. But then again, I'm religious ... [snip] Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/15/07 06:47, Michael M. wrote: [snip] sort out what's moral or immoral; personally, I think animal sacrifice is distasteful, disrespectful, You're a vegetarian? and just one of many unappealing aspects of the Christian bible. You must mean the *Jewish* bible, aka the *Old* Testament. And not know much about Christianity. The bedrock of Christianity is that Jesus was the *final* sacrifice, washing all sin away so that animal sacrifice is no longer needed or wanted by YHWH. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGSfcYS9HxQb37XmcRAno+AJ9as7lPxbWGC+dh0ZkFazzD+88qgACguBwn uv74pE31noaoh0Oiv//isYg= =WPNN -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10 May, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: I guess that depends on whether you consider the authorship of the Bible to rest with God, or with the men who transcribed His words. I MAINTAINER THE FORMER, you apparently the latter. I BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE WAS INSPIRED BY GOD, but not dictated word for word. So apparently I do give more consideration to the contributions of the human authors of the manuscripts than you do. Any justification/founded reason for believing this?
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 03:09:06AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: Sure, but the Hindus aren't doing it in the name of God, Allah, Shiva or whatever. Hinduism has other problems but claiming an exclusive franchise on truth is not one of them. And Christianity teaches love your neighbor as yourself. That doesn't mean that the humans who purport to believe in it actually follow it correctly. Thats because they will be forgiven for their sins. You can do what you like and God will forgive you. :-( -- Chris. == -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 07:08:42PM +1000, SB wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/09/07 04:02, Jochen Schulz wrote: Ron Johnson: And Christianity teaches love your neighbor as yourself. That doesn't mean that the humans who purport to believe in it actually follow it correctly. In a religion that constantly reminds everyone that the natural man is an enemy to God, You haven't read the Bible lately, have you? Does it get updated on a regular basis ? Not regularly, but yes. That is why you have different versions. -- Chris. == -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 10:54:17PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote: (I am currently in a hotel with a time-limited internet connection and it will run out in a few minutes. Therefore I cannot provide the actual citations right now. I will be back online on Friday, but by then this thread will probably have gone to hell anyway.) So? The context will be kept, right? Some people are on dial-up where other people need to use the phone so getting on to the net is not always feasable in a timely manner. Anyway, who says email has to be responded to in 24, 36, or 48hrs? [Can see the problem if you have the luxury of broadband] -- Chris. == -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:58:24AM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: [Please trim unnecessary quotes] I will quote my own message: qoute The difference is that the person dressing the lamb is preparing it for use, usually to eat. That serves a purpose in at least nourishing the body. I suppose sacrificing the lamb could be said to be nourishing the spirit, but I don't think a court of law would see it that way. /quote So, what I am saying is that to some people it may seem justified to slaughter an animal to feed their spirit. I just don't think that the authorities, if they found out about it would accept this excuse as cause for committing an illegal act. That being said, if you want to do it, go right ahead. I have no problem with you doing whatever ritual you feel is appropriate to your faith, as long as it doesn't involve me. And when it does it will be too late to do anything about it. -- Chris. == -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:17:20AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10 May, Joe Hart wrote: ... I really just wish that Christians would adhere to the lessons that they so firmly believe in. But alas, we have a whole lot of people that seem to do well on Sunday and forget about the rest of the week. Is it a turn the other cheek world we live in or is the eye for an eye world? Joe The two are not mutually exclusive. The traditional interpretation of the eye for an eye verse is that the punishment should fit the crime, but not exceed it, i.e. an eye for an eye, not two eyes or a life. This was a somewhat radical concept at the time. Ahh ... interesting! So the an eye for an eye concept is actually closer to the turn the other cheek concept -- a compromise? -- Chris. == -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 06:09:36AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: By definition, the natural man is *not* a spritiual man, and hence not bron again, and hence not a Christian. So if you are not a Christian you are not spiritual? -- Chris. ==
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Sat, 12 May 2007 09:58:24 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Celejar wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:40:20 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Celejar wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:40:01 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] I am playing the Devil's advocate here. So I might as well fulfill my role. So, you're saying God was merciful on Isaac because a lamb was sacrificed instead. Fine. So God demanded cruelty to an animal, which is also against our modern laws. Cruelty? Where does that come from? Or are you a vegan? No, but I don't think it is right to kill an animal for any purpose than to eat it, or perhaps to end it's suffering. But, that's where we can What possible logical / moral justification do you have for that distinction? If one believes that there's some purpose to animal sacrifice, and the Bible clearly does, than how on earth can you conclude that that purpose is any less of a legitimate one than nourishment? Well, just try it. Go out and sacrifice a few dogs or cats and watch the Humane Society step in. Do it in front of the police headquarter I don't particularly care what they think. You are attacking the Bible as advocating immoral behavior because the Humane Society disagrees with biblical morality? building to save a bit of time. Oh wait. We don't eat dogs and cats (well in some places they do) go sacrifice a little lamb. Make sure you steal it from Mary. ;) To me, animal sacrifice is immoral. To the law it is too. That is my logical justification. I asked you for a logical justification for a distinction between killing an animal for food and killing it for religious ritual, and you're responding that the distinction is that that's how you and the law feel. Surely you can do better than that! Joe Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator I did, in another message in this thread. I will quote my own message: qoute The difference is that the person dressing the lamb is preparing it for use, usually to eat. That serves a purpose in at least nourishing the body. I suppose sacrificing the lamb could be said to be nourishing the spirit, but I don't think a court of law would see it that way. /quote So, what I am saying is that to some people it may seem justified to slaughter an animal to feed their spirit. I just don't think that the authorities, if they found out about it would accept this excuse as cause for committing an illegal act. My point is simply that the Bible clearly views sacrifice as religiously valuable, and whatever the value may be, there's no a priori reason to assume it's less legitimate than nourishment. The only possible basis to attack the bible as condoning immorality is if one denies the basic premise that sacrifice is valuable. That being said, if you want to do it, go right ahead. I have no problem with you doing whatever ritual you feel is appropriate to your faith, as long as it doesn't involve me. Joe Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Roberto � wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 06:04:09PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: The same can be said about package managers. While we all most likely agree that apt is a superior package manager, there are those that think RPM is by far better, and others that think the only real way to run a GNU/Linux system is to compile everything yourself. We can't all be right. To nitpick, rpm is on the same level as dpkg. They are only package managers on the lowest level. As in, they let you install directly from a file on disk, list the contents of packages, and so on. At least, generally when people talk about package managers, they usually mean something like synaptic, aptitude or even apt-get. Regards, -Roberto Right you are. I mean yum or up2date, or whatever other higher level commands that Red Hat and their offshoots are using. I know of at least one RPM based distro using apt-get. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRWgFiXBCVWpc5J4RAptDAJ9DLZXk5cH94UBwRmR5D7AM+rxbrwCfRsxB 09C5j5APl7e7Qi02kgXITyM= =Epiz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Celejar wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 18:13:59 +0200
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Celejar wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 19:59:56 +0200
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Faith is by definition believing in something that cannot be proven, and
that is what religion usually is. It is not wrong to believe in a
faith, and Roberto and Celejar do a good job of defending their religion.
Thanks.
I fall more into Greg's camp.
Into what camp does Greg fall?
Surely you know this answer already. It has been made clear that he is
an atheist who believes in evil.
Do you mean Ron? I know that's his position; I just don't recall Greg
weighing in here.
[snip]
Joe
Celejar
--
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator
Yes. {pulls foot from mouth} Sorry Greg, I meant Ron. For some reason
I seem to confuse the two. Maybe because they are both very good at
helping people and have a similar sense of humor. I will try to be more
careful.
If I could withdraw that statement I would. It is not my place on this
list, or anywhere else for that matter to place my ideas in other
people's heads, except perhaps when it comes to their using very poor
operating systems that cause them loads of grief.
Joe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGRWmDiXBCVWpc5J4RAl+2AJ46D80vEZc37dclgqs3CCkCNUJRdwCcDEim
QqiF1d0P1W1sJwCNDtXgc7Y=
=d73I
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Celejar wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:40:20 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Celejar wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:40:01 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] I am playing the Devil's advocate here. So I might as well fulfill my role. So, you're saying God was merciful on Isaac because a lamb was sacrificed instead. Fine. So God demanded cruelty to an animal, which is also against our modern laws. Cruelty? Where does that come from? Or are you a vegan? No, but I don't think it is right to kill an animal for any purpose than to eat it, or perhaps to end it's suffering. But, that's where we can What possible logical / moral justification do you have for that distinction? If one believes that there's some purpose to animal sacrifice, and the Bible clearly does, than how on earth can you conclude that that purpose is any less of a legitimate one than nourishment? Well, just try it. Go out and sacrifice a few dogs or cats and watch the Humane Society step in. Do it in front of the police headquarter I don't particularly care what they think. You are attacking the Bible as advocating immoral behavior because the Humane Society disagrees with biblical morality? building to save a bit of time. Oh wait. We don't eat dogs and cats (well in some places they do) go sacrifice a little lamb. Make sure you steal it from Mary. ;) To me, animal sacrifice is immoral. To the law it is too. That is my logical justification. I asked you for a logical justification for a distinction between killing an animal for food and killing it for religious ritual, and you're responding that the distinction is that that's how you and the law feel. Surely you can do better than that! Joe Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator I did, in another message in this thread. I will quote my own message: qoute The difference is that the person dressing the lamb is preparing it for use, usually to eat. That serves a purpose in at least nourishing the body. I suppose sacrificing the lamb could be said to be nourishing the spirit, but I don't think a court of law would see it that way. /quote So, what I am saying is that to some people it may seem justified to slaughter an animal to feed their spirit. I just don't think that the authorities, if they found out about it would accept this excuse as cause for committing an illegal act. That being said, if you want to do it, go right ahead. I have no problem with you doing whatever ritual you feel is appropriate to your faith, as long as it doesn't involve me. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRXOgiXBCVWpc5J4RAj5tAJ94ixjgNJSH71pj0PQJjajj2PgyygCgxzbR AxHS3XhHs+92qVPG941RASg= =+qXq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 16:55:07 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/09/07 15:54, Florian Kulzer wrote: [...] It always struck me as odd that the gospels could not agree on whether Josef and Maria had to go Bethlehem for a census or if they had been ^ ^ Interesting how I slipped back into childhood there without even noticing... living there already. Which canon Gospel is that in? Both Matthew and Luke say that the couple traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Only Luke has the taxation/census story. Matthew states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem without mentioning any preceding journey (Mt 2:1). He has the family settling in Nazareth once they return from Egypt, but it sounds like that is the first time that Joseph comes to that city (Mt 2:22-23). The contradiction is not as clear as I remembered it, though. -- Regards,| http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer Florian | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/12/07 03:48, Florian Kulzer wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 16:55:07 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/09/07 15:54, Florian Kulzer wrote: [...] It always struck me as odd that the gospels could not agree on whether Josef and Maria had to go Bethlehem for a census or if they had been ^ ^ Interesting how I slipped back into childhood there without even noticing... :) living there already. Which canon Gospel is that in? Both Matthew and Luke say that the couple traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Only Luke has the taxation/census story. Matthew states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem without mentioning any preceding journey (Mt 2:1). He has the family settling in Nazareth once they return from Egypt, but it sounds like that is the first time that Joseph comes to that city (Mt 2:22-23). The contradiction is not as clear as I remembered it, though. Each gospel is only telling the part of the story that he sees as relevant to his audience. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGRZHYS9HxQb37XmcRAtxxAJ9OqtRlWK5kzgyv4sXAkTpHy49lvQCeP7fo 2lHv1CCZIXNTzXfmMsHLj7o= =8lkf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/12/07 02:58, Joe Hart wrote: Celejar wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:40:20 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Celejar wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:40:01 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] I am playing the Devil's advocate here. So I might as well fulfill my role. So, you're saying God was merciful on Isaac because a lamb was sacrificed instead. Fine. So God demanded cruelty to an animal, which is also against our modern laws. Cruelty? Where does that come from? Or are you a vegan? No, but I don't think it is right to kill an animal for any purpose than to eat it, or perhaps to end it's suffering. But, that's where we can What possible logical / moral justification do you have for that distinction? If one believes that there's some purpose to animal sacrifice, and the Bible clearly does, than how on earth can you conclude that that purpose is any less of a legitimate one than nourishment? Well, just try it. Go out and sacrifice a few dogs or cats and watch the Humane Society step in. Do it in front of the police headquarter I don't particularly care what they think. You are attacking the Bible as advocating immoral behavior because the Humane Society disagrees with biblical morality? building to save a bit of time. Oh wait. We don't eat dogs and cats (well in some places they do) go sacrifice a little lamb. Make sure you steal it from Mary. ;) To me, animal sacrifice is immoral. To the law it is too. That is my logical justification. I asked you for a logical justification for a distinction between killing an animal for food and killing it for religious ritual, and you're responding that the distinction is that that's how you and the law feel. Surely you can do better than that! Joe Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator I did, in another message in this thread. I will quote my own message: qoute The difference is that the person dressing the lamb is preparing it for use, usually to eat. That serves a purpose in at least nourishing the body. I suppose sacrificing the lamb could be said to be nourishing the spirit, but I don't think a court of law would see it that way. /quote So, what I am saying is that to some people it may seem justified to slaughter an animal to feed their spirit. I just don't think that the authorities, if they found out about it would accept this excuse as cause for committing an illegal act. That being said, if you want to do it, go right ahead. I have no problem with you doing whatever ritual you feel is appropriate to your faith, as long as it doesn't involve me. It's my lamb and the church I belong to has given me permission to kill this livestock animal. As long as we're not in the city limits (where livestock aren't allowed), I don't see how the authorities could have any legal issues with such a sacrifice. No, I take that back: they might be concerned if the blood were left on the alter. It would attract more flies than you could shake a stick at, and they'd lay eggs and thus create maggots and then more flies. So yes, the government probably would create certain minimal health regulations, but I'm sure that the SCOTUS would allow it on 1st Amendment grounds. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGRZQXS9HxQb37XmcRAp2pAJ9XFTR93djrm1lCcjV0QjUV6kyhgwCfQXY4 Hd3Mxe/24cJ81z2cL3o5/as= =iWfm -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 05:07:20AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: Each gospel is only telling the part of the story that he sees as relevant to his audience. I like to think of the Gospels as akin to getting the same news story from CNN, the NYT, FoxNews and the BBC (and I don't mean when they all publish the same AP or Reuters article). That is, they will focus on the things that are important to their particular audiences. An omission of one fact from one story does not indicate a mistake/inconsistency. Rather, it means that that author/editor felt it was not important enough to their particular audience. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 23:02:11 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 04:01:39AM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote: [...] Actually, sort of. The issue was that someone pointed out that the Bible redefined pi to be 3. My point was that if people want to criticize the Bible for not being scientific enough, they need to also evaluate the context in a scientific light. If we are speaking in a scientific context, then the numbers thirty and ten, without any further evidence to the contrary, need to be assumed to be only significant to one digit. This is what I was (and I imagine many students were) taught. That is, you cannot assume greater precision for your measurements than your instruments allow. In this case, have words recorded on paper. The point is we don't know. If it is that important for you to argue for the technical correctness of 1king7:23 then you can even concede two significant digits in ten and apply the usual error propagation to get from a diameter of 10±0.5 to a circumference of 31.4±1.6, which is better written as 31±2. (I hope the plus/minus signs are reproduced correctly). This range obviously includes thirty. Whether that is good enough if one assumes that the bible is literally the word of the all-powerful and all-knowing creator of the universe is probably just as much a matter of faith as is believing in this creator in the first place. Therefore I will shut up about this now. -- Regards,| http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer Florian |
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: My point is that God, if She exists, is beyond our comprehension. We have to have faith in Her existence. A valid point, except that God is in fact a He. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Celejar wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:40:01 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] I am playing the Devil's advocate here. So I might as well fulfill my role. So, you're saying God was merciful on Isaac because a lamb was sacrificed instead. Fine. So God demanded cruelty to an animal, which is also against our modern laws. Cruelty? Where does that come from? Or are you a vegan? No, but I don't think it is right to kill an animal for any purpose than to eat it, or perhaps to end it's suffering. But, that's where we can What possible logical / moral justification do you have for that distinction? If one believes that there's some purpose to animal sacrifice, and the Bible clearly does, than how on earth can you conclude that that purpose is any less of a legitimate one than nourishment? Well, just try it. Go out and sacrifice a few dogs or cats and watch the Humane Society step in. Do it in front of the police headquarter building to save a bit of time. Oh wait. We don't eat dogs and cats (well in some places they do) go sacrifice a little lamb. Make sure you steal it from Mary. ;) To me, animal sacrifice is immoral. To the law it is too. That is my logical justification. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRDoEiXBCVWpc5J4RArUKAKDNtDTyn5xeHEfbSZBViVoJVdsrxACfYmL9 wF5zS5tzoS9iee1iwcCnyiI= =TkjS -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/10/07 05:59, Joe Hart wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: Suicide should be legal, but euthanasia is someone else killing you, and I see that as a great slippery slope towards total government control over life. Well, it isn't. Neither is euthanasia there, but the government does find it perfectly moral to put criminals to death, and not to protect unborn children. I don't see very much consistency in the policies. and not to protect unborn children?? To me, that appears to be an anti-abortion position. Am I misunderstanding you? I can debate both sides of that issue. Personally, I am pro choice. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRDgfiXBCVWpc5J4RAgAIAJ9DqeG5OJNz2KE7/A6og0K83ADIfwCfRHet ZJ0PVMHRueJqBNzZYHHax+o= =EmSn -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Roberto � wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 07:59:56PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: Faith is by definition believing in something that cannot be proven, and that is what religion usually is. It is not wrong to believe in a faith, and Roberto and Celejar do a good job of defending their religion. Your definition is slightly off: Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Regards, -Roberto Fine, I will alter it to fit in line with the above: Faith is hoping that something is true while not being able to prove it. or There is proof, fact, truth. Faith does not fall in this category because it cannot be substantiated. But, then where is the One True God? My point is that God, if She exists, is beyond our comprehension. We have to have faith in Her existence. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRDfoiXBCVWpc5J4RArqdAJ9fc5xUUayU+l3g+r4gHEp4zBhYoQCdFzo4 6PeeAk9L3KQOY670xg0cf7I= =djkO -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Roberto � wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: My point is that God, if She exists, is beyond our comprehension. We have to have faith in Her existence. A valid point, except that God is in fact a He. Regards, -Roberto Now it is you that missed my point. I am saying that nobody really *knows* what God is. I am sure there are many females that would disagree with you on this point. Personally, I would better define God at as It. Let us just agree that to you, God is a He. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRFLqiXBCVWpc5J4RArYjAKDH8+geClBsgaV5+mwCbV+KNV1N+gCeLnXR Tis7xlMnvIsajnNs5polgxY= =64RL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/11/07 04:40, Joe Hart wrote: Celejar wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:40:01 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] I am playing the Devil's advocate here. So I might as well fulfill my role. So, you're saying God was merciful on Isaac because a lamb was sacrificed instead. Fine. So God demanded cruelty to an animal, which is also against our modern laws. Cruelty? Where does that come from? Or are you a vegan? No, but I don't think it is right to kill an animal for any purpose than to eat it, or perhaps to end it's suffering. But, that's where we can What possible logical / moral justification do you have for that distinction? If one believes that there's some purpose to animal sacrifice, and the Bible clearly does, than how on earth can you conclude that that purpose is any less of a legitimate one than nourishment? Well, just try it. Go out and sacrifice a few dogs or cats and watch the Humane Society step in. Do it in front of the police headquarter building to save a bit of time. Oh wait. We don't eat dogs and cats (well in some places they do) go sacrifice a little lamb. Make sure you steal it from Mary. ;) To me, animal sacrifice is immoral. To the law it is too. That is my logical justification. There's not a whole lot of difference between a person killing a lamb on an alter, then hanging it on a hook to dress it than what a slaughterhouse or farmer does with a lamb. - From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]: 4. To adjust; to put in good order; to arrange; specifically: (a) To prepare for use; to fit for any use; to render suitable for an intended purpose; to get ready; as, to dress a slain animal; to dress meat; to dress leather or cloth; to dress or trim a lamp; to dress a garden; to dress a horse, by currying and rubbing; to dress grain, by cleansing it; in mining and metallurgy, to dress ores, by sorting and separating them. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGRGnYS9HxQb37XmcRAqiNAKCATZ+/gZjS7xWH6Qz6Enn0SLyHywCeJnhB ZGA9NnIwuJBvKZt8d7HfAF8= =kTp5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On 10 May, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:25:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you on this. My point was that some American
evangelical churches put a lot of emphasis on each person having a
specific, identifiable conversion event in their life, which I don't
feel is soundly based in scripture. I wasn't sure if your use of
the term rebirth referred to this type of event or the more general
usage.
I see what you are saying. I generally believe that born again
experience should generally be a significant moment in a person's life.
However, I don't think it is always some sort of light shining from
heaven, angels signing type of experience. In my case, it came on
gradually over a period of weeks. But I can identify a definite
before and after. I think that is sufficient, so to speak. More
importantly, however, is whether you feel that you are right with God
in your conversion experience. That is, when God judges you will you
be certain that you *have* at some time in your life accepted Jesus
Christ?
The reason that I mentioned it is that I have some friends who grew up
in churches where everyone was expected to come forward at some time
(usually as a teenager) and make a proclamation about their own rebirth
experience in front of the congregation. Somehow it was not acceptable
to be born into a Christian family and gradually mature in your faith.
There was enormous peer pressure to conform to this model, and several
teens just made up stories to get it over with. It is this emphasis on
some sort of a personal transcendental experience ('light shining from
heaven', as you state), that I object to.
-Chris
| Christopher Judd, Ph. D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On 10 May, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:11:33AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: \ ... Also, one should remember that the bible is not one book but a collection of writings by many authors in different cultures over a span of thousands of years. Many types of literature are included, such as historical accounts, creation myths, poetry, etc. I guess that depends on whether you consider the authorship of the Bible to rest with God, or with the men who transcribed His words. I maintainer the former, you apparently the latter. I believe that the Bible was inspired by God, but not dictated word for word. So apparently I do give more consideration to the contributions of the human authors of the manuscripts than you do. -Chris | Christopher Judd, Ph. D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/11/07 06:26, Joe Hart wrote: Roberto ý wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: My point is that God, if She exists, is beyond our comprehension. We have to have faith in Her existence. A valid point, except that God is in fact a He. Regards, -Roberto Now it is you that missed my point. I am saying that nobody really *knows* what God is. I am sure there are many females that would disagree with you on this point. Personally, I would better define God at as It. Let us just agree that to you, God is a He. Or a computer nebula. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfellas When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. God You should, if you've never seen it, watch Futurama episode 3ACV20. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGRGeAS9HxQb37XmcRAsWCAJ0W0unrIPW/9/uEIKXrtRwTN2WGBwCfVuKp QjLIWZ+l8S4/cIrNEKQqsBM= =Escl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Thu, 10 May 2007 19:59:56 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Faith is by definition believing in something that cannot be proven, and that is what religion usually is. It is not wrong to believe in a faith, and Roberto and Celejar do a good job of defending their religion. Thanks. I fall more into Greg's camp. Into what camp does Greg fall? Joe Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/11/07 08:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10 May, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:25:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I agree with you on this. My point was that some American
evangelical churches put a lot of emphasis on each person
having a specific, identifiable conversion event in their
life, which I don't feel is soundly based in scripture. I
wasn't sure if your use of the term rebirth referred to
this type of event or the more general usage.
I see what you are saying. I generally believe that born
again experience should generally be a significant moment in a
person's life. However, I don't think it is always some sort of
light shining from heaven, angels signing type of experience.
In my case, it came on gradually over a period of weeks. But I
can identify a definite before and after. I think that is
sufficient, so to speak. More importantly, however, is
whether you feel that you are right with God in your conversion
experience. That is, when God judges you will you be certain
that you *have* at some time in your life accepted Jesus
Christ?
The reason that I mentioned it is that I have some friends who
grew up in churches where everyone was expected to come forward
at some time (usually as a teenager) and make a proclamation
about their own rebirth experience in front of the
congregation. Somehow it was not acceptable to be born into a
Christian family and gradually mature in your faith.
Because everyone must make their own choice.
Even if you are born into a Christian family and grow up learning
about evangelical theology, you must eventually make a concious
choice: the wide way of the world, or the narrow path.
There was enormous peer pressure to conform to this model, and
several teens just made up stories to get it over with. It is
this emphasis on some sort of a personal transcendental
experience ('light shining from heaven', as you state), that I
object to.
Being physically born means N months of maturation then a single
point-in-time experience when you actually are born.
Still, that communal pressure is, of course, a gross perversion of
the whole tenor of the New Testament.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGRHHMS9HxQb37XmcRAltbAJ9hs4aM/pLAlaZJgFLPfEaLFNBXawCg3nPS
rd2wX4Y0wTNn9HDg28LSOeA=
=yIEG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Celejar wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2007 19:59:56 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Faith is by definition believing in something that cannot be proven, and that is what religion usually is. It is not wrong to believe in a faith, and Roberto and Celejar do a good job of defending their religion. Thanks. I fall more into Greg's camp. Into what camp does Greg fall? Surely you know this answer already. It has been made clear that he is an atheist who believes in evil. However, I am rational enough to realize if there is evil, then there must be good. Now, whether God is good or not, that is left to interpretation, if there even is one. I think it's time for me to bow out of this discussion. You know my beliefs. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRJZHiXBCVWpc5J4RAt0JAJ9QxyBE21/SQeyNMBOncWOrflm2XwCfc27c vFyUij/ImRpNWjbm4VbFdqY= =Nhfv -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/11/07 04:40, Joe Hart wrote: Celejar wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:40:01 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] I am playing the Devil's advocate here. So I might as well fulfill my role. So, you're saying God was merciful on Isaac because a lamb was sacrificed instead. Fine. So God demanded cruelty to an animal, which is also against our modern laws. Cruelty? Where does that come from? Or are you a vegan? No, but I don't think it is right to kill an animal for any purpose than to eat it, or perhaps to end it's suffering. But, that's where we can What possible logical / moral justification do you have for that distinction? If one believes that there's some purpose to animal sacrifice, and the Bible clearly does, than how on earth can you conclude that that purpose is any less of a legitimate one than nourishment? Well, just try it. Go out and sacrifice a few dogs or cats and watch the Humane Society step in. Do it in front of the police headquarter building to save a bit of time. Oh wait. We don't eat dogs and cats (well in some places they do) go sacrifice a little lamb. Make sure you steal it from Mary. ;) To me, animal sacrifice is immoral. To the law it is too. That is my logical justification. There's not a whole lot of difference between a person killing a lamb on an alter, then hanging it on a hook to dress it than what a slaughterhouse or farmer does with a lamb. - From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]: 4. To adjust; to put in good order; to arrange; specifically: (a) To prepare for use; to fit for any use; to render suitable for an intended purpose; to get ready; as, to dress a slain animal; to dress meat; to dress leather or cloth; to dress or trim a lamp; to dress a garden; to dress a horse, by currying and rubbing; to dress grain, by cleansing it; in mining and metallurgy, to dress ores, by sorting and separating them. The difference is that the person dressing the lamb is preparing it for use, usually to eat. That serves a purpose in at least nourishing the body. I suppose sacrificing the lamb could be said to be nourishing the spirit, but I don't think a court of law would see it that way. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRJcKiXBCVWpc5J4RApwdAJ4kHTNldkd6MRhszERmvo4Ca2rsWwCcCaRh T96XcnR7VDx7JrvJKnQMz4A= =cE0/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/11/07 06:26, Joe Hart wrote: Roberto ý wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: My point is that God, if She exists, is beyond our comprehension. We have to have faith in Her existence. A valid point, except that God is in fact a He. Regards, -Roberto Now it is you that missed my point. I am saying that nobody really *knows* what God is. I am sure there are many females that would disagree with you on this point. Personally, I would better define God at as It. Let us just agree that to you, God is a He. Or a computer nebula. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfellas When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. God You should, if you've never seen it, watch Futurama episode 3ACV20. LOL Now I need to google for Futurama because that is not a series that I have ever heard of. We only get to watch the shows that the people deem worthy of our attention like CSI and many other crime shows. It seems that the television stations like portraying America as a very crime ridden country when I know in fact that only certain places are dangerous, and most, if not all, of the information in those shows is clearly fictional. I can also argue that the Bible is also quite fictional, but that might bring the wrath of others down on me even harder so I will not engage in that argument. Let's let others believe what they want, whether they are correct or we are. The same can be said about package managers. While we all most likely agree that apt is a superior package manager, there are those that think RPM is by far better, and others that think the only real way to run a GNU/Linux system is to compile everything yourself. We can't all be right. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGRJP5iXBCVWpc5J4RAhljAKCTvLliYtmrEtUeDr5NwJkiIlnaZQCfWxi/ EOHtJAfZYHZ889no4g1NRTM= =3xu6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
Joe Hart wrote: The difference is that the person dressing the lamb is preparing it for use, usually to eat. That serves a purpose in at least nourishing the body. I suppose sacrificing the lamb could be said to be nourishing the spirit, but I don't think a court of law would see it that way. As I understand it, in the old days, the sacrificial lambs ended up being what the priests ate. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 18:12:56 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 10:29:55PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote: $ wcalc 10*pi = 31.4159 The god from the bible can create the universe, but he cannot round to the nearest integer correctly? Did Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva have to help him with the delicate balance of the natural constants? You clearly don't understand the concept of significant digits. Actually I understand the concept well enough to know that it cannot be applied stringently if one deals with numbers that are divisible by positive integer powers of ten and which are written down as words. Obviously, ten and thirty fall into this category. Even if you write 30 it is not really clear if you know this value to one or two significant digits. Sometimes people claim that 30 by convention is one significant digit and that you have to write 30. to indicate two significant digits, but this is, as far as I know, not generally accepted in the scientific community. (Scientists and engineers mostly use semi-logarithmic notation anyway, which avoids these ambiguities.) Furthermore, if you want to start patronizing other people about the concept of significant digits then you should probably be more careful yourself not to make statements which could be misconstrued as mix-ups between significant digits and decimals: In your earlier mail you first give the one significant digit argument and then you abruptly and without necessity switch to numbers that have three (5.00) or four (10.00 and 30.00) significant digits. Everything you say is technically correct[1] and it is maybe just a coincidence that these numbers have two decimals, but at the very least this is unnecessarily confusing. What is so special about four significant digits when two significant digits are in fact the threshold for putting ten times pi out of range for thirty? [1] You avoided stating how many significant digits these numbers have in your opinion and, maybe by pure luck, you chose a formulation which left you enough wiggle room to use more significant digits than strictly necessary. Being vague enough so as not to be wrong is not the best way to demonstrate your understanding of a concept, though. -- Regards,| http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer Florian |
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:26:34 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Roberto � wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: My point is that God, if She exists, is beyond our comprehension. We have to have faith in Her existence. A valid point, except that God is in fact a He. Regards, -Roberto Now it is you that missed my point. I am saying that nobody really *knows* what God is. I am sure there are many females that would disagree with you on this point. Personally, I would better define God at as It. Let us just agree that to you, God is a He. In the mainstream, traditional Western religions, God is described as He. Anyone can believe anything he (or she) wants, but if females choose to believe that God is a she just because that suits their vanity, that's just silly. Joe Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:40:20 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Celejar wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:40:01 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] I am playing the Devil's advocate here. So I might as well fulfill my role. So, you're saying God was merciful on Isaac because a lamb was sacrificed instead. Fine. So God demanded cruelty to an animal, which is also against our modern laws. Cruelty? Where does that come from? Or are you a vegan? No, but I don't think it is right to kill an animal for any purpose than to eat it, or perhaps to end it's suffering. But, that's where we can What possible logical / moral justification do you have for that distinction? If one believes that there's some purpose to animal sacrifice, and the Bible clearly does, than how on earth can you conclude that that purpose is any less of a legitimate one than nourishment? Well, just try it. Go out and sacrifice a few dogs or cats and watch the Humane Society step in. Do it in front of the police headquarter I don't particularly care what they think. You are attacking the Bible as advocating immoral behavior because the Humane Society disagrees with biblical morality? building to save a bit of time. Oh wait. We don't eat dogs and cats (well in some places they do) go sacrifice a little lamb. Make sure you steal it from Mary. ;) To me, animal sacrifice is immoral. To the law it is too. That is my logical justification. I asked you for a logical justification for a distinction between killing an animal for food and killing it for religious ritual, and you're responding that the distinction is that that's how you and the law feel. Surely you can do better than that! Joe Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 04:19:39PM -0400, Celejar wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:26:34 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Roberto � wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: My point is that God, if She exists, is beyond our comprehension. We have to have faith in Her existence. A valid point, except that God is in fact a He. Regards, -Roberto Now it is you that missed my point. I am saying that nobody really *knows* what God is. I am sure there are many females that would disagree with you on this point. Personally, I would better define God at as It. Let us just agree that to you, God is a He. In the mainstream, traditional Western religions, God is described as He. Anyone can believe anything he (or she) wants, but if females choose to believe that God is a she just because that suits their vanity, that's just silly. No more silly than patriarchal religions describing God as He just because that suits *their* vanity (heaven forbid they follow orders from a female, divine or otherwise...). bma signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Fri, 11 May 2007 18:13:59 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Celejar wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2007 19:59:56 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Faith is by definition believing in something that cannot be proven, and that is what religion usually is. It is not wrong to believe in a faith, and Roberto and Celejar do a good job of defending their religion. Thanks. I fall more into Greg's camp. Into what camp does Greg fall? Surely you know this answer already. It has been made clear that he is an atheist who believes in evil. Do you mean Ron? I know that's his position; I just don't recall Greg weighing in here. [snip] Joe Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 01:26:34PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: Roberto � wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:31:20AM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: My point is that God, if She exists, is beyond our comprehension. We have to have faith in Her existence. A valid point, except that God is in fact a He. Regards, -Roberto Now it is you that missed my point. I am saying that nobody really *knows* what God is. I am sure there are many females that would disagree with you on this point. Personally, I would better define God at as It. Let us just agree that to you, God is a He. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Let us agree that to every Christian and Jew (at least) God is a He. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 08:48:28AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10 May, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: I guess that depends on whether you consider the authorship of the Bible to rest with God, or with the men who transcribed His words. I maintainer the former, you apparently the latter. I believe that the Bible was inspired by God, but not dictated word for word. So apparently I do give more consideration to the contributions of the human authors of the manuscripts than you do. True. If humans had as much to do with authoring the Bible as you seem to give them credit for, then I too would believe that they Bible is riddled with errors. As it is, I believe that God inspired every word. Which is why the Bible is without error. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 06:04:09PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: The same can be said about package managers. While we all most likely agree that apt is a superior package manager, there are those that think RPM is by far better, and others that think the only real way to run a GNU/Linux system is to compile everything yourself. We can't all be right. To nitpick, rpm is on the same level as dpkg. They are only package managers on the lowest level. As in, they let you install directly from a file on disk, list the contents of packages, and so on. At least, generally when people talk about package managers, they usually mean something like synaptic, aptitude or even apt-get. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 07:41:10PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote: Actually I understand the concept well enough to know that it cannot be applied stringently if one deals with numbers that are divisible by positive integer powers of ten and which are written down as words. Obviously, ten and thirty fall into this category. Even if you write 30 it is not really clear if you know this value to one or two significant digits. Sometimes people claim that 30 by convention is one significant digit and that you have to write 30. to indicate two significant digits, but this is, as far as I know, not generally accepted in the scientific community. (Scientists and engineers mostly use semi-logarithmic notation anyway, which avoids these ambiguities.) Writing 30 to mean one significant digit and 30. to mean two significant digits is how I was taught. Of course, that may be a deficiency in my public education. Furthermore, if you want to start patronizing other people about the concept of significant digits then you should probably be more careful yourself not to make statements which could be misconstrued as mix-ups between significant digits and decimals: In your earlier mail you first give the one significant digit argument and then you abruptly and without necessity switch to numbers that have three (5.00) or four (10.00 and 30.00) significant digits. Everything you say is technically correct[1] and it is maybe just a coincidence that these numbers have two decimals, but at the very least this is unnecessarily confusing. What is so special about four significant digits when two significant digits are in fact the threshold for putting ten times pi out of range for thirty? There is nothing special about choosing three or four significant digits. There are, of course, three significant digits in 5.00 and four each in 10.00 and 30.00. It was coincidence that I chose them like that, not intending to be confusing. BTW, I was not patronizing anyone. [1] You avoided stating how many significant digits these numbers have in your opinion and, maybe by pure luck, you chose a formulation which left you enough wiggle room to use more significant digits than strictly necessary. Being vague enough so as not to be wrong is not the best way to demonstrate your understanding of a concept, though. I did not say how many I thought because there is no question about the number of significant digits in a number with a decimal point. It is only when you have trailing zeros to the left of the decimal point when the situation is ambiguous. This comes from people either being taught incorrectly, being taught something different from the common scientific usage or simply forgetting. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/11/07 15:19, Celejar wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:26:34 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Let us just agree that to you, God is a He. In the mainstream, traditional Western religions, God is described as He. How many mainstream, traditional Western religions are there besides Christianity? Anyone can believe anything he (or she) wants, but if females choose to believe that God is a she just because that suits their vanity, that's just silly. Females acting silly and vain??? Say it ain't so!!! - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGRPPTS9HxQb37XmcRAoQdAJ9ADCnuf6g4Nu3hsIl7zVxyjhliQgCg2U3q fcaHDmdDdGBUJl4R9i1w0Bk= =Lzww -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/11/07 16:02, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: [snip] 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Let us agree that to every Christian and Jew (at least) God is a He. I'm sure that there are open minded Christians that refer to God as a Her. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGRPQmS9HxQb37XmcRAr4ZAKCY4pXyemhzm41G8qPtu1Lo/A33mACgk6LU 3z9ytyN5wvhhoftVAEA3hqw= =WehI -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?]
Ron Johnson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/11/07 15:19, Celejar wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:26:34 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Let us just agree that to you, God is a He. In the mainstream, traditional Western religions, God is described as He. How many mainstream, traditional Western religions are there besides Christianity? Judaism. Arguably, Unitarian-Universalism is also mainstream, but not Christian. (Both Unitarianism and Universalism started out as Christian denominations, but are now non-credal). Miles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/11/07 12:10, Miles Fidelman wrote: Joe Hart wrote: The difference is that the person dressing the lamb is preparing it for use, usually to eat. That serves a purpose in at least nourishing the body. I suppose sacrificing the lamb could be said to be nourishing the spirit, but I don't think a court of law would see it that way. As I understand it, in the old days, the sacrificial lambs ended up being what the priests ate. And in the Greek/Roman cities, the temples would cook and serve the meat as fast food to raise money. This is discussed in Romans 14:14-15 (NASB) I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. The background of this passage is that some Christians thought it was OK to eat pagan temple meat (because they knew that pagan gods were false) and some Christians did not want to (or see other Christians) eat pagan temple meat because it reminded them of their pre-Christian lives and might draw them back into that lifestyle. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGRPbLS9HxQb37XmcRAgDTAJsFn72eALpQCvLhPFnCiZYwEJh+5ACgz0aF NBE7pUQjRXOxzzKYfkLTLFo= =uIPc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
Ron Johnson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/11/07 16:02, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: [snip] 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Let us agree that to every Christian and Jew (at least) God is a He. No. In Judaism, there are multiple aspects/faces of God, some of which are feminine. Try googling the word Shekhinah, for example. Hebrew is one of those languages that doesn't have a neutral tense, and many of the words for God are masculine, but they're also used in the plural, which has feminine declinations (it's a very bizarre language). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/11/07 18:04, Miles Fidelman wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/11/07 15:19, Celejar wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:26:34 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Let us just agree that to you, God is a He. In the mainstream, traditional Western religions, God is described as He. How many mainstream, traditional Western religions are there besides Christianity? Judaism. With all the hatred that has been cast upon Judaism over the past 2000 years, calling it mainstream is, sadly, debatable. Arguably, Unitarian-Universalism is also mainstream, Really? but not Christian. (Both Unitarianism and Universalism started out as Christian denominations, but are now non-credal). - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGRPjrS9HxQb37XmcRAvdBAJwM92G5mE9mtWX2j2MoVogrqDseBACgmLYS 89y4p3wSFnPyLeGx6ZIFuhU= =XYRm -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/11/07 16:02, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: [snip] 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Let us agree that to every Christian and Jew (at least) God is a He. I'm sure that there are open minded Christians that refer to God as a Her. If by open minded you mean don't believe the Bible, in which case I doubt their faith. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?]
Ron Johnson wrote: In the mainstream, traditional Western religions, God is described as He. How many mainstream, traditional Western religions are there besides Christianity? Judaism. With all the hatred that has been cast upon Judaism over the past 2000 years, calling it mainstream is, sadly, debatable. Gee... I thought Western Civilization was considered Judeo-Christian - the Judeo in there refers to Judaism. Since when did being hated disqualify a religion from being mainstream? The Irish Protestants and Catholics certainly have no love lost between them - but both are considered mainstream. And when you get outside the Western world, there's not a lot of love lost between Hindus and Muslims - but both are pretty mainstream (depending on where you are). Arguably, Unitarian-Universalism is also mainstream, Certainly here in New England, where pretty much all of the original Puritan churches are now either UU or Congregationalist. Probably half the First Parishes in New England are UU. Catholics are comparative newcomers, and let's not get started on the Mormons. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/11/07 18:15, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/11/07 16:02, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: [snip] 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Let us agree that to every Christian and Jew (at least) God is a He. I'm sure that there are open minded Christians that refer to God as a Her. If by open minded you mean don't believe the Bible, Pretty much. in which case I doubt their faith. I'm sure they have faith in the government!!! - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGRPr0S9HxQb37XmcRAowYAJ9tuEtMDIEXCnh0mRTZv4AGOw/3kACfX+zE hBs7BieJq2Kqt0bLObDvGro= =Mz6A -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 06:23:32PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/11/07 18:15, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: If by open minded you mean don't believe the Bible, Pretty much. in which case I doubt their faith. I'm sure they have faith in the government!!! Well, most people need to have faith in *something*. :-) Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Fwd: Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/11/07 18:22, Miles Fidelman wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: In the mainstream, traditional Western religions, God is described as He. How many mainstream, traditional Western religions are there besides Christianity? Judaism. With all the hatred that has been cast upon Judaism over the past 2000 years, calling it mainstream is, sadly, debatable. Gee... I thought Western Civilization was considered Judeo-Christian - the Judeo in there refers to Judaism. It is. Since when did being hated disqualify a religion from being mainstream? The Irish Protestants and Catholics certainly have no love lost between them - but both are considered mainstream. And when you get outside Since they are both part of Christianity. the Western world, there's not a lot of love lost between Hindus and Muslims - but both are pretty mainstream (depending on where you are). I guess it depends on your definition of mainstream. Arguably, Unitarian-Universalism is also mainstream, Certainly here in New England, where pretty much all of the original Puritan churches are now either UU or Congregationalist. Probably half the First Parishes in New England are UU. Catholics are comparative newcomers, and let's not get started on the Mormons. Interesting. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGRQAKS9HxQb37XmcRAl4DAJ4sBC0ABQ/f8HdAKkgB/IGOxtOCBACfSD8J w7QK+zY+gItbFAcOtYesp8E= =AraX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 01:26:34PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: Roberto � wrote: Let us agree that to every Christian and Jew (at least) God is a He. Anyone read Evangelical Feminism - A New Path to Liberalism by Wayne Grudem? Interesting book about interpretation of scripture. It talks about the ways people craft it to suit themselves, i.e. - Saying the Genesis is wrong - Saying that Paul was wrong - Saying that some verses found in every manuscript are not part of the Bible - Later developments trump scripture - Redemptive movement trumps scripture - Is it just a matter of choosing our favorite verses? - Can we just ignore the disputed passages - Does a pastor's authority trump scripture? - Teaching in the parachurch and others Chapters on women include: Disruptive women in Corinth? Women homeowners as elders? Women deacons with authority? Does head mean source Is the Son not subordinate to the Father in the Trinity? And, The Next Step Denial of Anything Uniquely Masculine Another troubling step: God our mother I'm sure some of you would enjoy it! - John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?]
Ron Johnson wrote: the Western world, there's not a lot of love lost between Hindus and Muslims - but both are pretty mainstream (depending on where you are). I guess it depends on your definition of mainstream. Christianity: 33% of world population Islam: 21% Hinduism: 14% Northern Africa and the Mideast: Islam is by far the majority faith India: about 80% Hindu Seems to me that in some pretty populous areas one would be hard pressed to define Christianity as mainstream. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/11/07 19:40, Miles Fidelman wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: the Western world, there's not a lot of love lost between Hindus and Muslims - but both are pretty mainstream (depending on where you are). I guess it depends on your definition of mainstream. Christianity: 33% of world population Islam: 21% Hinduism: 14% Northern Africa and the Mideast: Islam is by far the majority faith India: about 80% Hindu Seems to me that in some pretty populous areas one would be hard pressed to define Christianity as mainstream. Correct. In the Middle East and India, Christianity is definitely *not* mainstream. For some reason, I thought that geo-political West (the Americas and non-Turkik Europe) was also specified. My apologizes if not. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGRSJVS9HxQb37XmcRAnKhAKDGxAIVDQcpeFrivv558f0UDjksKACgn+aN d+Vxw1Tt3nR3byxBN0eqqLM= =FhW0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 17:13:25 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 07:41:10PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote: Actually I understand the concept well enough to know that it cannot be applied stringently if one deals with numbers that are divisible by positive integer powers of ten and which are written down as words. Obviously, ten and thirty fall into this category. Even if you write 30 it is not really clear if you know this value to one or two significant digits. Sometimes people claim that 30 by convention is one significant digit and that you have to write 30. to indicate two significant digits, but this is, as far as I know, not generally accepted in the scientific community. (Scientists and engineers mostly use semi-logarithmic notation anyway, which avoids these ambiguities.) Writing 30 to mean one significant digit and 30. to mean two significant digits is how I was taught. Of course, that may be a deficiency in my public education. My point was that, since the bible uses ten and thirty, there is no justification to force the passage cited by Ron into a one significant digit context. If we assume that the biblical texts were meant to be understood by a general audience, then it seems reasonable to me to interpret all numbers according to general usage rather than scientific/engineering usage. In my experience the majority of people simply round to the nearest integer and they would not think of thirty as signifying the interval from 25 to 35. (I realize that you probably felt that your faith was attacked from a scientific point of view and therefore you considered it justified/prudent/necessary to push the battle into the realm of science.) It seems that I also have to point out explicitly that I did not, at any stage of this discussion, insinuate that the educational background of anyone had any bearing on the validity of their arguments. You started to talk about getting all scientific, so it seemed reasonable to me to refer to what is and is not, to my knowledge, generally accepted practice in the scientific community when it comes to specifying significant digits. Furthermore, if you want to start patronizing other people about the concept of significant digits then you should probably be more careful yourself not to make statements which could be misconstrued as mix-ups between significant digits and decimals: In your earlier mail you first give the one significant digit argument and then you abruptly and without necessity switch to numbers that have three (5.00) or four (10.00 and 30.00) significant digits. Everything you say is technically correct[1] and it is maybe just a coincidence that these numbers have two decimals, but at the very least this is unnecessarily confusing. What is so special about four significant digits when two significant digits are in fact the threshold for putting ten times pi out of range for thirty? There is nothing special about choosing three or four significant digits. There are, of course, three significant digits in 5.00 and four each in 10.00 and 30.00. It was coincidence that I chose them like that, not intending to be confusing. BTW, I was not patronizing anyone. This is now an opportunity to be side-tracked into yet another argument in the course of which I look up the dictionary definition of to patronize and then we fight about whether your earlier claim that I clearly don't understand the concept of significant digits fits this definition. To avoid this I propose the following: If you let me interpret your last statement as it was not my intention to patronize anyone then I am willing to concede that I probably overreacted in my nitpicking about significant digits. It seems that we will have to agree to disagree about almost everything that was discussed in this thread, but maybe we can at least bury this particular hatchet. [1] You avoided stating how many significant digits these numbers have in your opinion and, maybe by pure luck, you chose a formulation which left you enough wiggle room to use more significant digits than strictly necessary. Being vague enough so as not to be wrong is not the best way to demonstrate your understanding of a concept, though. I did not say how many I thought because there is no question about the number of significant digits in a number with a decimal point. It is only when you have trailing zeros to the left of the decimal point when the situation is ambiguous. This comes from people either being taught incorrectly, being taught something different from the common scientific usage or simply forgetting. -- Regards,| http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer Florian |
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 04:01:39AM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote: My point was that, since the bible uses ten and thirty, there is no justification to force the passage cited by Ron into a one significant digit context. If we assume that the biblical texts were meant to be understood by a general audience, then it seems reasonable to me to interpret all numbers according to general usage rather than scientific/engineering usage. In my experience the majority of people simply round to the nearest integer and they would not think of thirty as signifying the interval from 25 to 35. (I realize that you probably felt that your faith was attacked from a scientific point of view and therefore you considered it justified/prudent/necessary to push the battle into the realm of science.) Actually, sort of. The issue was that someone pointed out that the Bible redefined pi to be 3. My point was that if people want to criticize the Bible for not being scientific enough, they need to also evaluate the context in a scientific light. If we are speaking in a scientific context, then the numbers thirty and ten, without any further evidence to the contrary, need to be assumed to be only significant to one digit. This is what I was (and I imagine many students were) taught. That is, you cannot assume greater precision for your measurements than your instruments allow. In this case, have words recorded on paper. The point is we don't know. Now, if you have ever worked with building materials, you will know that many measurements are given as approximations. For example, a 2x4 is really only 1.5x3.5. A 4x4 is only 3.5x3.5. Does that mean that people have redefined the inch? No. It is an approximation. What I was initially getting at is that simply because the Bible does not fit our notion of precision, does not make it wrong. It is *not* a science text. It is a recording of the words of God concerning things He thought were important. It seems that I also have to point out explicitly that I did not, at any stage of this discussion, insinuate that the educational background of anyone had any bearing on the validity of their arguments. You started to talk about getting all scientific, so it seemed reasonable to me to refer to what is and is not, to my knowledge, generally accepted practice in the scientific community when it comes to specifying significant digits. As I was also trying to do. This is now an opportunity to be side-tracked into yet another argument in the course of which I look up the dictionary definition of to patronize and then we fight about whether your earlier claim that I clearly don't understand the concept of significant digits fits this definition. To avoid this I propose the following: If you let me interpret your last statement as it was not my intention to patronize anyone then I am willing to concede that I probably overreacted in my nitpicking about significant digits. It seems that we will have to agree to disagree about almost everything that was discussed in this thread, but maybe we can at least bury this particular hatchet. Ok. Deal. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Raquel wrote: On Wed, 9 May 2007 16:26:31 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It helps to know something of the context when reading the bible. The people who Abraham lived among (Canaanites, IIRC?), practiced sacrificed the first fruits to whatever gods they worshipped. It was not uncommon to include the first born son in this. One of the remarkable parts of the story of Abraham, to a contemporary audience is the fact that the God of Israel does not actually call for his people to sacrifice their children. And Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac. When Abraham showed up, in compliance to the wishes of the God of Israel, God provided a lamb in his place. I am playing the Devil's advocate here. So I might as well fulfill my role. So, you're saying God was merciful on Isaac because a lamb was sacrificed instead. Fine. So God demanded cruelty to an animal, which is also against our modern laws. Either way one looks at it, the Bible is condoning behavior that is no longer accepted as being morally just. Or perhaps it is just telling us what happened, so we can learn from the past. I can't say that seems very evident looking at many of the things that happen today. I really just wish that Christians would adhere to the lessons that they so firmly believe in. But alas, we have a whole lot of people that seem to do well on Sunday and forget about the rest of the week. Is it a turn the other cheek world we live in or is the eye for an eye world? Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQtzuiXBCVWpc5J4RAnk4AKC4ZcZpnNFLJtMCMRtr+YhnZpQTuQCgpQRD rhKzf4WDP352lcs/NAXuxyc= =MuYm -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
Joe Hart wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Raquel wrote: On Wed, 9 May 2007 16:26:31 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It helps to know something of the context when reading the bible. The people who Abraham lived among (Canaanites, IIRC?), practiced sacrificed the first fruits to whatever gods they worshipped. It was not uncommon to include the first born son in this. One of the remarkable parts of the story of Abraham, to a contemporary audience is the fact that the God of Israel does not actually call for his people to sacrifice their children. And Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac. When Abraham showed up, in compliance to the wishes of the God of Israel, God provided a lamb in his place. I am playing the Devil's advocate here. So I might as well fulfill my role. So, you're saying God was merciful on Isaac because a lamb was sacrificed instead. Fine. So God demanded cruelty to an animal, which is also against our modern laws. Either way one looks at it, the Bible is condoning behavior that is no longer accepted as being morally just. Or perhaps it is just telling us what happened, so we can learn from the past. I can't say that seems very evident looking at many of the things that happen today. I really just wish that Christians would adhere to the lessons that they so firmly believe in. But alas, we have a whole lot of people that seem to do well on Sunday and forget about the rest of the week. Is it a turn the other cheek world we live in or is the eye for an eye world? Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQtzuiXBCVWpc5J4RAnk4AKC4ZcZpnNFLJtMCMRtr+YhnZpQTuQCgpQRD rhKzf4WDP352lcs/NAXuxyc= =MuYm -END PGP SIGNATURE- nice talking, joe. i have a question: what do you think of the thesis: 'where belief begins reason ends' ?? regards, steef -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/10/07 03:50, Joe Hart wrote: Raquel wrote: On Wed, 9 May 2007 16:26:31 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It helps to know something of the context when reading the bible. The people who Abraham lived among (Canaanites, IIRC?), practiced sacrificed the first fruits to whatever gods they worshipped. It was not uncommon to include the first born son in this. One of the remarkable parts of the story of Abraham, to a contemporary audience is the fact that the God of Israel does not actually call for his people to sacrifice their children. And Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac. When Abraham showed up, in compliance to the wishes of the God of Israel, God provided a lamb in his place. I am playing the Devil's advocate here. So I might as well fulfill my role. So, you're saying God was merciful on Isaac because a lamb was sacrificed instead. Fine. So God demanded cruelty to an animal, which is also against our modern laws. Cruelty? Where does that come from? Or are you a vegan? Either way one looks at it, the Bible is condoning behavior that is no longer accepted as being morally just. Or perhaps it is just telling us what happened, so we can learn from the past. I can't say that seems very evident looking at many of the things that happen today. Shedding the blood of animals to *cover* human sin was what YHWH demanded. Jesus' death and the shedding of His blood permanently *washed* away all human sin. Note the different words I used: *cover*, which is temporary and why Jews had to make yearly sacrifices, and *washed* which is permanent. The Law is now fulfilled, and now all that is left is for man to believe. That, at least, is the way I was taught it by the Assemblies of God. I really just wish that Christians would adhere to the lessons that they so firmly believe in. But alas, we have a whole lot of people that seem to do well on Sunday and forget about the rest of the week. Is it a turn the other cheek world we live in or is the eye for an eye world? - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQuGjS9HxQb37XmcRAsjkAKDJfdkOW2C7c+POKYbyy1DfXGn+RQCePkiK a6Bajbp3IOxGANYAAcUfuv8= =z5gb -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/10/07 04:09, steef wrote: [snip] nice talking, joe. i have a question: what do you think of the thesis: 'where belief begins reason ends' ?? String theory? - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQuccS9HxQb37XmcRArMnAKCJq+2uaTnUlOQEzSoBRInczOhUIgCgyl+x l2ra3Z0zCJ8R6tOm5JLg0zw= =CA2M -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 steef wrote: I really just wish that Christians would adhere to the lessons that they so firmly believe in. But alas, we have a whole lot of people that seem to do well on Sunday and forget about the rest of the week. Is it a turn the other cheek world we live in or is the eye for an eye world? Joe nice talking, joe. i have a question: what do you think of the thesis: 'where belief begins reason ends' ?? I assume you're referring to the above. As for the thesis, it is intriguing, but I would think that a devout person would pick it to pieces. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQucriXBCVWpc5J4RAteqAJ9Dss7LQK9by+AOJSxbPAxWYUtXfgCgrfSH AgdnL4GlqX9FuilhBjp+4xA= =v4CC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] I am playing the Devil's advocate here. So I might as well fulfill my role. So, you're saying God was merciful on Isaac because a lamb was sacrificed instead. Fine. So God demanded cruelty to an animal, which is also against our modern laws. Cruelty? Where does that come from? Or are you a vegan? No, but I don't think it is right to kill an animal for any purpose than to eat it, or perhaps to end it's suffering. But, that's where we can come in and say: Ah, but to kill it does relieve its suffering because by definition living is suffering if one does not have the intelligence of a human being. Actually that brings us also to the point of euthanasia and it not being legal in your free country. Either way one looks at it, the Bible is condoning behavior that is no longer accepted as being morally just. Or perhaps it is just telling us what happened, so we can learn from the past. I can't say that seems very evident looking at many of the things that happen today. Shedding the blood of animals to *cover* human sin was what YHWH demanded. I just don't get how killing something else can atone for your sins. penitence must occur to oneself, not to another being. Jesus' death and the shedding of His blood permanently *washed* away all human sin. Note the different words I used: *cover*, which is temporary and why Jews had to make yearly sacrifices, and *washed* which is permanent. The Law is now fulfilled, and now all that is left is for man to believe. That, at least, is the way I was taught it by the Assemblies of God. I really just wish that Christians would adhere to the lessons that they so firmly believe in. But alas, we have a whole lot of people that seem to do well on Sunday and forget about the rest of the week. Is it a turn the other cheek world we live in or is the eye for an eye world? So which world do you think we live in? Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQuhxiXBCVWpc5J4RAi2cAKDC700iTubIR/EdYAGBdaYvlG4yUgCfYDo9 ejRb+7L8/HcFQJYMpYvRL5U= =DJFl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/10/07 04:40, Joe Hart wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] I am playing the Devil's advocate here. So I might as well fulfill my role. So, you're saying God was merciful on Isaac because a lamb was sacrificed instead. Fine. So God demanded cruelty to an animal, which is also against our modern laws. Cruelty? Where does that come from? Or are you a vegan? No, but I don't think it is right to kill an animal for any purpose than to eat it, or perhaps to end it's suffering. But, that's where we can come in and say: Ah, but to kill it does relieve its suffering because by definition living is suffering if one does not have the intelligence of a human being. Actually that brings us also to the point of euthanasia and it not being legal in your free country. Suicide should be legal, but euthanasia is someone else killing you, and I see that as a great slippery slope towards total government control over life. Either way one looks at it, the Bible is condoning behavior that is no longer accepted as being morally just. Or perhaps it is just telling us what happened, so we can learn from the past. I can't say that seems very evident looking at many of the things that happen today. Shedding the blood of animals to *cover* human sin was what YHWH demanded. I just don't get how killing something else can atone for your sins. penitence must occur to oneself, not to another being. And I don't think there is sin, since I'm an atheist. Although I do believe that there is evil. Is that contradictory? Jesus' death and the shedding of His blood permanently *washed* away all human sin. Note the different words I used: *cover*, which is temporary and why Jews had to make yearly sacrifices, and *washed* which is permanent. The Law is now fulfilled, and now all that is left is for man to believe. That, at least, is the way I was taught it by the Assemblies of God. I really just wish that Christians would adhere to the lessons that they so firmly believe in. But alas, we have a whole lot of people that seem to do well on Sunday and forget about the rest of the week. Is it a turn the other cheek world we live in or is the eye for an eye world? So which world do you think we live in? In a hypocritical world. And I believe that a little hypocrisy is a good thing, and needed for the smooth functioning of society. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQuziS9HxQb37XmcRAsahAKDAb8tEYdWB+aSkEEFHF2e46QMRpACcDJ/7 zm7dzHZHyYfpOQC9aUPK0So= =Rnp6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: Suicide should be legal, but euthanasia is someone else killing you, and I see that as a great slippery slope towards total government control over life. Well, it isn't. Neither is euthanasia there, but the government does find it perfectly moral to put criminals to death, and not to protect unborn children. I don't see very much consistency in the policies. Either way one looks at it, the Bible is condoning behavior that is no longer accepted as being morally just. Or perhaps it is just telling us what happened, so we can learn from the past. I can't say that seems very evident looking at many of the things that happen today. Shedding the blood of animals to *cover* human sin was what YHWH demanded. I just don't get how killing something else can atone for your sins. penitence must occur to oneself, not to another being. And I don't think there is sin, since I'm an atheist. Although I do believe that there is evil. Is that contradictory? I would think that it is, yes, a bit contradictory. But, you live in a free country that lets you believe what you want. So do I. Jesus' death and the shedding of His blood permanently *washed* away all human sin. Note the different words I used: *cover*, which is temporary and why Jews had to make yearly sacrifices, and *washed* which is permanent. The Law is now fulfilled, and now all that is left is for man to believe. That, at least, is the way I was taught it by the Assemblies of God. I really just wish that Christians would adhere to the lessons that they so firmly believe in. But alas, we have a whole lot of people that seem to do well on Sunday and forget about the rest of the week. Is it a turn the other cheek world we live in or is the eye for an eye world? So which world do you think we live in? In a hypocritical world. And I believe that a little hypocrisy is a good thing, and needed for the smooth functioning of society. Yes, it is a hypocritical world, and it seems that many in power are hypocrites. The idea being: company president says to Preiest, You keep them stupid and I will keep them poor Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQvsjiXBCVWpc5J4RAodmAJ40FhHBcxCcbd9zbcwO1RqxskDB+wCeJ9Rd 4tC8nJ+x/kQxuXFExcMcCpY= =PBT/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On 10 May, Joe Hart wrote: ... I really just wish that Christians would adhere to the lessons that they so firmly believe in. But alas, we have a whole lot of people that seem to do well on Sunday and forget about the rest of the week. Is it a turn the other cheek world we live in or is the eye for an eye world? Joe The two are not mutually exclusive. The traditional interpretation of the eye for an eye verse is that the punishment should fit the crime, but not exceed it, i.e. an eye for an eye, not two eyes or a life. This was a somewhat radical concept at the time. -Chris | Christopher Judd, Ph. D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Wed, 9 May 2007 10:19:12 -0500 Gnu_Raiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please point one out. Please don't! It's like trying to explain why some people like vanila while others like chocolate. To some the very belief in a supreme being is a contradiction. I strongly disagree; traditional religious belief of the sort that Roberto and I are defending (and which Ron understands, and to which he doesn't condescend, even though he's a self proclaimed atheist) makes factual assertions. Either we're right and our atheist opponents err, or they are and we err. [I have no use for the post-modern idiocy of requiring irony quotes around any use of the word 'fact'.] I personally believe that we are all aliens, derived from some super soup left over from the planets which were created when the galaxy was formed. I thought from physics and the conservation of energy that nothing was formed from nothing. Circular reasoning; believers maintain that the Creator made the laws of physics and certainly isn't bound by them. [snip] Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On 9 May, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 04:28:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 May, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:49:41PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote: ... I seem to remember that there are also a fair number of contradictions and race conditions between various parts of it. Please point one out. Regards, -Roberto One example - the gospels (Luke and Mark, IIRC) differ on the day that Jesus was crucified. Could you be a little more specific? I don't recall such a disgreement among the Gospels. Regards, -Roberto This is a well known contradiction to biblical scholars. I don't remember the exact verses, but the gospels state in some places that the last supper was the passover meal and in other places state that passover was the day after the crucifiction. If you can wait until Mon., I'll look into it further. Or you can read the passages carefully yourself. FWIW, there are many contradictions in the bible. And historical inaccuracies, etc. I don't consider that to be a barrier to faith, but it appears to be for some people who insist that the current versions of the bible are totally without error as a basic tenet of their belief. Also, one should remember that the bible is not one book but a collection of writings by many authors in different cultures over a span of thousands of years. Many types of literature are included, such as historical accounts, creation myths, poetry, etc. -Chris | Christopher Judd, Ph. D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:17:20AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The two are not mutually exclusive. The traditional interpretation of the eye for an eye verse is that the punishment should fit the crime, but not exceed it, i.e. an eye for an eye, not two eyes or a life. This was a somewhat radical concept at the time. Well, in Romania the punishment for stealing an apple or milions of euros is pretty similar. So not even *that* concept is correctly applied. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion
Amy Templeton wrote: Wackojacko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: Well, since we are getting all scientific, the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is in fact 3, if all you have is one significant digit, which it appears is all we have from the text. Now, if it said ten point zero zero cubits and five point zero zero cubits and thirty point zero zero cubits then there might be a point in there. Regards, -Roberto Ah but is it. 30 could be 2 significant digits, in that case it is incorrect as it should be 31 :) Actually, this is not the case. It would only be two significant digits if it were written with a three followed by a 0 with a bar over it; the bar indicates that it really is *exactly* thirty, not just rounding from 28 or 31 or something. So no, as written it is not two significant digits. My point was the original reference stated 'thirty' so who knows how many significant figures this is when written in words. Also what you have written is a contradiction. Either the bar means it is exactly 30 or it means it is 30 to 2 significant figures, in which case it might be 30.4, not the same. But I know what you meant. Wackojacko -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
Ron Johnson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/10/07 04:09, steef wrote: [snip] nice talking, joe. i have a question: what do you think of the thesis: 'where belief begins reason ends' ?? String theory? - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQuccS9HxQb37XmcRArMnAKCJq+2uaTnUlOQEzSoBRInczOhUIgCgyl+x l2ra3Z0zCJ8R6tOm5JLg0zw= =CA2M -END PGP SIGNATURE- that's one of the possible aspects. steef -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
Joe Hart wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 steef wrote: I really just wish that Christians would adhere to the lessons that they so firmly believe in. But alas, we have a whole lot of people that seem to do well on Sunday and forget about the rest of the week. Is it a turn the other cheek world we live in or is the eye for an eye world? Joe nice talking, joe. i have a question: what do you think of the thesis: 'where belief begins reason ends' ?? I assume you're referring to the above. As for the thesis, it is intriguing, but I would think that a devout person would pick it to pieces. Joe well that is a suggestive answer. but not an answer with too much content?!? steef -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQucriXBCVWpc5J4RAteqAJ9Dss7LQK9by+AOJSxbPAxWYUtXfgCgrfSH AgdnL4GlqX9FuilhBjp+4xA= =v4CC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On 9 May, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 04:12:03PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 May, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:02:24AM +0200, Jochen Schulz wrote: Ron Johnson: By definition, the natural man is *not* a spritiual man, and hence not By no means a universally held Christian belief. For example, read C.S. Lewis or Huston Smith. 1 Corinthains 2 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. Universally held or not, it appears that the Bible is very clear. One passage is not the equivalent of the Bible. This text should certainly be considered, in the context in which it was written. My point is that many Christian writers believe that all people are naturally able to comprehend the works of God, and I'm sure that they base that conclusion at least partly on scripture. The born again conversion experience is deemed much more important in American evangelical congregations than in mainline protestant or catholic ones. John 3: 1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. Considering that Jesus called it a *must*, I'd say it should be very important to *every* Christian. I don't tend to place importance on things based on whether one group or another says that it is important. I place importance on things based on what the Bible says is important. Regards, -Roberto I agree with you on this. My point was that some American evangelical churches put a lot of emphasis on each person having a specific, identifiable conversion event in their life, which I don't feel is soundly based in scripture. I wasn't sure if your use of the term rebirth referred to this type of event or the more general usage. -Chris | Christopher Judd, Ph. D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 steef wrote: Joe Hart wrote: steef wrote: I really just wish that Christians would adhere to the lessons that they so firmly believe in. But alas, we have a whole lot of people that seem to do well on Sunday and forget about the rest of the week. Is it a turn the other cheek world we live in or is the eye for an eye world? Joe nice talking, joe. i have a question: what do you think of the thesis: 'where belief begins reason ends' ?? I assume you're referring to the above. As for the thesis, it is intriguing, but I would think that a devout person would pick it to pieces. Joe well that is a suggestive answer. but not an answer with too much content?!? Well, it's an empty thesis. ;) Actaully, I think it would be better stated where reason ends belief begins, but that is not very accurate. A better way to phase it would be Where reason ends, faith begins. The problem might stem from the fact that geloof means both believe and faith in Dutch, but in English there is a distinctions between the two. Faith is by definition believing in something that cannot be proven, and that is what religion usually is. It is not wrong to believe in a faith, and Roberto and Celejar do a good job of defending their religion. I fall more into Greg's camp. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQ12ciXBCVWpc5J4RAgdDAJ4rKuOlNeGnrom71lycp6yI0X5QJwCfeSoO Sr5OMvcFAQOgY90uZmPdu3Q= =fylY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
Joe Hart wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 steef wrote: Joe Hart wrote: steef wrote: I really just wish that Christians would adhere to the lessons that they so firmly believe in. But alas, we have a whole lot of people that seem to do well on Sunday and forget about the rest of the week. Is it a turn the other cheek world we live in or is the eye for an eye world? Joe nice talking, joe. i have a question: what do you think of the thesis: 'where belief begins reason ends' ?? I assume you're referring to the above. As for the thesis, it is intriguing, but I would think that a devout person would pick it to pieces. Joe well that is a suggestive answer. but not an answer with too much content?!? Well, it's an empty thesis. ;) Actaully, I think it would be better stated where reason ends belief begins, but that is not very accurate. A better way to phase it would be Where reason ends, faith begins. so the question is now: where ends reason. is there an end to reason? The problem might stem from the fact that geloof means both believe and faith in Dutch, but in English there is a distinctions between the two. being a dutchman too i do agree to that as a matter of 'of course'. so: is there an end to reason, or looked at from a different angle: a beginning to a belief/faith? historically many times reasoning as a 'product' of reason ended beliefs embedded in faith (with due respect to 'believers' like roberto and celejar) Faith is by definition believing in something that cannot be proven, and that is what religion usually is. It is not wrong to believe in a faith, and Roberto and Celejar do a good job of defending their religion. m. typically dutch: this knotting of these 'two ropes'. of course it is not up to me to decide what is right or wrong to believe in, i.c. a faith, for somebody else. i distance myself from these value-judgements. I fall more into Greg's camp. yes joe, so do i. ps: read an old book: the wu-li dancing masters or/and the ancient work of paul feyerabend. cheers, steef Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQ12ciXBCVWpc5J4RAgdDAJ4rKuOlNeGnrom71lycp6yI0X5QJwCfeSoO Sr5OMvcFAQOgY90uZmPdu3Q= =fylY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Wed, 9 May 2007 11:38:11 -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 09:08:28AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: Or better Biblical scholarship. By using the KJV, you are saying that Biblical scholars have not learned any more Greek or Hebrew in the past 400 years. Actually, what I am saying by using the KJV is that no one was come up with what I believe is a better translation (in English, at least). Robert Alter's is supposed to be quite good. [snip] -Roberto Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:40:01 +0200 Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] I am playing the Devil's advocate here. So I might as well fulfill my role. So, you're saying God was merciful on Isaac because a lamb was sacrificed instead. Fine. So God demanded cruelty to an animal, which is also against our modern laws. Cruelty? Where does that come from? Or are you a vegan? No, but I don't think it is right to kill an animal for any purpose than to eat it, or perhaps to end it's suffering. But, that's where we can What possible logical / moral justification do you have for that distinction? If one believes that there's some purpose to animal sacrifice, and the Bible clearly does, than how on earth can you conclude that that purpose is any less of a legitimate one than nourishment? [snip] Joe Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Thu, 10 May 2007 04:58:59 -0500 Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] And I believe that a little hypocrisy is a good thing, and needed for the smooth functioning of society. Well, hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, and I've always understood that as a positive thing, that evil concedes the superiority of good, and doesn't justify itself by brazenly denying the very possibility and desirability of good. Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 07:59:56PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: Faith is by definition believing in something that cannot be proven, and that is what religion usually is. It is not wrong to believe in a faith, and Roberto and Celejar do a good job of defending their religion. Your definition is slightly off: Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:11:33AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a well known contradiction to biblical scholars. I don't remember the exact verses, but the gospels state in some places that the last supper was the passover meal and in other places state that passover was the day after the crucifiction. If you can wait until Mon., I'll look into it further. Or you can read the passages carefully yourself. I'll try and look at it before the weekend. Either way, I'd be interested in any more details you have on the subject. FWIW, there are many contradictions in the bible. And historical inaccuracies, etc. I don't consider that to be a barrier to faith, but it appears to be for some people who insist that the current versions of the bible are totally without error as a basic tenet of their belief. I respectfully disagree. Also, one should remember that the bible is not one book but a collection of writings by many authors in different cultures over a span of thousands of years. Many types of literature are included, such as historical accounts, creation myths, poetry, etc. I guess that depends on whether you consider the authorship of the Bible to rest with God, or with the men who transcribed His words. I maintainer the former, you apparently the latter. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
Joe Hart wrote: Faith is by definition believing in something that cannot be proven, and that is what religion usually is. It is not wrong to believe in a faith, and Roberto and Celejar do a good job of defending their religion. I expect anybody who's religion includes a meditative practice might argue that one can experience the ultimate directly - not just take it on faith. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:25:43PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 May, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: 1 Corinthains 2 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. Universally held or not, it appears that the Bible is very clear. One passage is not the equivalent of the Bible. This text should certainly be considered, in the context in which it was written. My point is that many Christian writers believe that all people are naturally able to comprehend the works of God, and I'm sure that they base that conclusion at least partly on scripture. I think we have a slight disconnect here. I think that we are both right. Your statemtent that all people are able to comprehend the works of God is 100% true. For example: Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. These are things that everyone can plainly see. I'm sure that there are more examples. As far as my statement, the things of the Spirit of God refers clearly to the blessings of God. That is, the natural man is able to know the existence of God (how else can he choose to leave behind his carnal ways and follow God?), but is not able to count on the promises of God (except that God will save him if repents and accepts Jesus Christ). John 3: 1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. Considering that Jesus called it a *must*, I'd say it should be very important to *every* Christian. I don't tend to place importance on things based on whether one group or another says that it is important. I place importance on things based on what the Bible says is important. Regards, -Roberto I agree with you on this. My point was that some American evangelical churches put a lot of emphasis on each person having a specific, identifiable conversion event in their life, which I don't feel is soundly based in scripture. I wasn't sure if your use of the term rebirth referred to this type of event or the more general usage. I see what you are saying. I generally believe that born again experience should generally be a significant moment in a person's life. However, I don't think it is always some sort of light shining from heaven, angels signing type of experience. In my case, it came on gradually over a period of weeks. But I can identify a definite before and after. I think that is sufficient, so to speak. More importantly, however, is whether you feel that you are right with God in your conversion experience. That is, when God judges you will you be certain that you *have* at some time in your life accepted Jesus Christ? Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On 5/9/07, Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:45:49PM +0200, Joe Hart wrote: 2) The bible that you refer to is full of contradictions. If one is not to commit murder, based in the Ten Commandments, then how can a god request that one sacrifice one's son? That is murder. There are many more examples, but that stands out to me. Well, there are a few fallacies in your argument. 1) The Ten Commandments and in fact the whole law, were given *after* Abraham's test. 2) It was quite clearly a test from God. 3) Anything God does is, by definition, right. 4) The argument can be made based on Abraham's recorded words that he knew God would resurrect his son. Since God is above the time defention there is no before or after for it/him/her above Time definition : one interpretation for God name (one of them ) יהוה Johava is : he was in the past היה he will be in the futere יהיה there for the is a contrediction cause it itself gives us laws and also is command's his follower to do some thing against his laws However, I will agree that Christianity does preach moral goodness, but historically, that has seldom been the practice. Well, anything involving people inherently gets fouled up. 3) If the Bible didn't need updates, then why are new versions created? Because of any number of reasons: - people want to intentionally change The Word to fit their own views (the Jehova's Witnesses are probably the best known example, but there are plenty of others) - people are prideful (they think that previous translations are inferior and that they can do better) - many are the work of the devil - there are plenty of other reasons you can look on the bible as extremely affective ASM code : it is simple, it works gr8, the orignal creator is out of reach, the documenation isn't so good, since the creator may though that many of code lines are understandable he didn't gave any more explenation (like with ferme X^n + Y^n = Z^n) after some time ppl start creating there own implementation and compilers the hardware it self changed (People today _theoretically_ evolved) since only few know the original ideas / language / systems some people could mislead groups or individuals to their one beliefs and understandings Ah, differences in interpretation from the original. Can one really know what the authors' meant with certain metaphorical phraseology? I believe yes. When there is no known speaker of the original language because it was written so many hundreds of years ago and languages evolve it makes it Really? Ancient Hebrew and modern Hebrew are essentially the same language (in terms of spoken word, written is a different story). At least, this is what I am told by friends are fluent in Hebrew. Now Koine Greek and modern Greek are a different story. since the bible wasn't written in one period of time (search for canonization of the bible ) the orignal lang was ancient hebrew that is call Armic that is close to hebrew like italian to latin you may understand few words but you proboably not. quite difficult to define precisely what ancient text means. Not to mention people can quibble over what the definition if is is. (Clinton) Sure, people can quibble over the meaning of words. But, for example, the King James Version (the one that I use) was translated by a committee of imminent scholars and men of God. While they may not have been in absolute perfect unanimous agreement over every single thing, every single disagreement was discussed until a general consensus was reached on each. Note that I am not against Christianity. I am also not against any other religion. All I am saying is that what is written in the holy book(s) is open for interpretation. See, and I look at it as it says what it says. If you go in there looking for open interpretation and whatever else you want, you will likely find it. If, OTOH, you go in there looking for harmony and perfection, then you will certainly find it. (I am speaking of course of the Bible, since I cannot intelligently speak on the scriptures or holy books of most other religions). Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQcuN1snWssAFC08RAqNcAJ97KMVSIBjU9isP+FROszaP96BAagCgkhBg ofDT4eQ+47g7Ro4dS6StCno= =aUz8 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/10/07 05:59, Joe Hart wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: Suicide should be legal, but euthanasia is someone else killing you, and I see that as a great slippery slope towards total government control over life. Well, it isn't. Neither is euthanasia there, but the government does find it perfectly moral to put criminals to death, and not to protect unborn children. I don't see very much consistency in the policies. and not to protect unborn children?? To me, that appears to be an anti-abortion position. Am I misunderstanding you? - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQ5k0S9HxQb37XmcRAmS9AKCX8YpI3jy5NYWGlRKLzNsKzjKhdgCZAbbn mpMAbAfylDiTaAFTw+Okhnc= =PSLe -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/09/07 00:04, SB wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/08/07 19:55, SB wrote: [snip] It's the claim of an exclusive franchise on truth by some (mainly Judaism, Christianity and Islam) closely related religions that has compelled them to justify all manner of cruelty, in the name of god. It's this claim that has caused and is causing all sorts of problems for the rest of us Heathens/Kaffirs. Or the fundamentalist Hindus who occasionally go on rampages, killing Muslims or burning people in effigy. Sure, but the Hindus aren't doing it in the name of God, Allah, Shiva or whatever. Hinduism has other problems but claiming an exclusive franchise on truth is not one of them. And Christianity teaches love your neighbor as yourself. That doesn't mean that the humans who purport to believe in it actually follow it correctly. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQYGiS9HxQb37XmcRAki/AJ4lcVbqPpw1ZIzBQ4mUXMzJKVQwzACfVwvS B6u4Vd1wWBVb074UX7SGQqA= =FJ9w -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
Ron Johnson: And Christianity teaches love your neighbor as yourself. That doesn't mean that the humans who purport to believe in it actually follow it correctly. In a religion that constantly reminds everyone that the natural man is an enemy to God, most people don't love themselves anyway (heck, they don't even know themselves). Following the advice above in this context sounds like a cruel joke to me. J. -- Tony Blair is a hypnotised self-seeking scarecrow just like all the rest. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/09/07 04:02, Jochen Schulz wrote: Ron Johnson: And Christianity teaches love your neighbor as yourself. That doesn't mean that the humans who purport to believe in it actually follow it correctly. In a religion that constantly reminds everyone that the natural man is an enemy to God, You haven't read the Bible lately, have you? most people don't love themselves anyway (heck, they don't even know themselves). Following the advice above in this context sounds like a cruel joke to me. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQY8JS9HxQb37XmcRAh1QAJ9eVEptEgx2MNIQlsFYTg4lhN0f1gCbBEP4 XCphSKCdjn0ZEB1D9PAJXas= =spDC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/09/07 00:04, SB wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/08/07 19:55, SB wrote: [snip] It's the claim of an exclusive franchise on truth by some (mainly Judaism, Christianity and Islam) closely related religions that has compelled them to justify all manner of cruelty, in the name of god. It's this claim that has caused and is causing all sorts of problems for the rest of us Heathens/Kaffirs. Or the fundamentalist Hindus who occasionally go on rampages, killing Muslims or burning people in effigy. Sure, but the Hindus aren't doing it in the name of God, Allah, Shiva or whatever. Hinduism has other problems but claiming an exclusive franchise on truth is not one of them. And Christianity teaches love your neighbor as yourself. If Christianity stopped there it would really help, unfortunately it doesn't. Secondly, I'd hate to leave next door to a Christian masochist. Cheers, /SB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
Ron Johnson: On 05/09/07 04:02, Jochen Schulz wrote: Ron Johnson: And Christianity teaches love your neighbor as yourself. That doesn't mean that the humans who purport to believe in it actually follow it correctly. In a religion that constantly reminds everyone that the natural man is an enemy to God, I am very sorry, this remark was written for an entirely other readership. I didn't notice I was reading d-u until my mail was already gone. You haven't read the Bible lately, have you? No, actually I haven't. But what I qouted is from another scripture considered to be the word of God by some people. This was the group my comment was targeted at. Sorry again for aiming so bad. J. -- I can tell a Whopper[tm] from a BigMac[tm] and Coke[tm] from Pepsi[tm]. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/09/07 04:02, Jochen Schulz wrote: Ron Johnson: And Christianity teaches love your neighbor as yourself. That doesn't mean that the humans who purport to believe in it actually follow it correctly. In a religion that constantly reminds everyone that the natural man is an enemy to God, You haven't read the Bible lately, have you? Does it get updated on a regular basis ? Cheers, /SB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/09/07 03:56, SB wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] And Christianity teaches love your neighbor as yourself. If Christianity stopped there it would really help, unfortunately it doesn't. That's the difference between what the Holy Book says and how people pretend to be true believers. Secondly, I'd hate to leave next door to a Christian masochist. Huh? - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQZfNS9HxQb37XmcRAmmIAKCtwrIHgGQ+j9p0/qEZGH/Kiqk+RgCgsFFB VOJR+GKn0Q+C4Mqokkga41I= =ytgW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/09/07 04:08, SB wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/09/07 04:02, Jochen Schulz wrote: Ron Johnson: And Christianity teaches love your neighbor as yourself. That doesn't mean that the humans who purport to believe in it actually follow it correctly. In a religion that constantly reminds everyone that the natural man is an enemy to God, You haven't read the Bible lately, have you? Does it get updated on a regular basis ? No, but people tend to forget what it actually says, and substitute what they want it to say. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQZgYS9HxQb37XmcRAuGLAJ0YDl5MxUeL9YHNS/xFEKOJBJ7+cQCgn8Gg FhgT2CNQGD67Z7VfWj8AZ9U= =t9BR -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 06:56:58PM +1000, SB wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: And Christianity teaches love your neighbor as yourself. If Christianity stopped there it would really help, unfortunately it doesn't. Secondly, I'd hate to leave next door to a Christian masochist. I think you missed Ron's point, which is that Christianity's teachings are good, it is just that the people who sometimes claim to follow them obviously don't. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 11:02:24AM +0200, Jochen Schulz wrote: Ron Johnson: And Christianity teaches love your neighbor as yourself. That doesn't mean that the humans who purport to believe in it actually follow it correctly. In a religion that constantly reminds everyone that the natural man is an enemy to God, most people don't love themselves anyway (heck, they don't even know themselves). Following the advice above in this context sounds like a cruel joke to me. By definition, the natural man is *not* a spritiual man, and hence not bron again, and hence not a Christian. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Good, evil and religion [WAS] Re: A way to compile 3rd party modules into deb system?
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 07:08:42PM +1000, SB wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/09/07 04:02, Jochen Schulz wrote: Ron Johnson: And Christianity teaches love your neighbor as yourself. That doesn't mean that the humans who purport to believe in it actually follow it correctly. In a religion that constantly reminds everyone that the natural man is an enemy to God, You haven't read the Bible lately, have you? Does it get updated on a regular basis ? It is feature complete and bug-free. No need for updates. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
