[OT] USA solar eclipse Aug.21.2017

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I had a chance to drive from Indianapolis, IN to Princeton, KY
and see the solar eclipse in the band of full totality. We wound
up about 5 miles away from the center-most area of the darkness
band, about 10 miles south-southwest of Pendleton.

We were at a little church called Eddy Creek Baptist Church, and
there were about 25 people from all over the mid-western US there.
We were all strangers who gathered together at a local place to
witness this incredible event.

I can't describe what it was like to see the sun fully obscured
by the moon. The brilliant white light hair halo which went out
was beyond anything I've ever seen in pictures of a full solar
eclipse. It was so much more white, and almost alive.

The Earth went from having quite a bit of light where everything
was normally visible to our eyesight, to being in the levels of
full eclipse light in only about 10 seconds ... and the change
was astounding.

It wasn't as dark as I expected, but there was still a lot of
light being given from the streaks of hair extending out from
the fully eclipsed sun, and the light on the horizon gave some
light. I would describe it as when it's nighttime and getting
dark and you can't make out details on things any longer, but
you can still see they're there. It was much much brighter
than the strongest fullest moon I've ever seen.

The air cooled quite a bit during the last half of the eclipse,
but when it was fully eclipsed it cooled rapidly, to the point
where even a slight breeze picked up and it even began to feel
a little damp like the start of dew.

Crickets began to chirp. A rooster from a nearby farm house
begin to crow several times. And there was a full 360 degree
sunset-like appearance on the horizon, where every bit of the
horizon sky was red and pink. Several people in our group
took full 360 panoramic views of that horizon.

As the eclipse was approaching, and after it was leaving, the
trees left eclipse shaped sun areas on the ground. A lot of
people here in Indiana reported seeing that as they were not
in the band of totality, but only saw a partial eclipse of
about 85% or so.

It all went by so quick. We each stood there at the church
in full amazement at the moment, what we were seeing, and also
what we were feeling. It brought us all to elation, like the
biggest smiles and happiest faces. We all commented on how
there was so much going on that it was overwhelming. We really
needed to hit the rewind button and go back and experience it
over again and again to take it all in.

-----
I've never experienced anything like it. I went to England in
1996, and I drive through western Canada and Alaska in 2002.
Apart from some other driving trips those are the big ones I
can remember.

This event surpasses the England trip, and is on par with the
Alaska trip, though the Alaska trip was ~20 days and we saw so
much more, and this was only a two-day event to drive down,
witness the eclipse, and drive back.

There's another solar eclipse in the USA on Apr.08.2024. It
will extend from Texas through to Maine. It passes right
through Indianapolis and I live about as close to the center
band of eclipse totality for this next eclipse trek as we were
there near Princeton, KY on this one.

It's nearly seven years away, but I would suggest reserving plans
in the back of your mind to witness this event. And if you live
in another nation and have the opportunity, go and see your local
eclipse in the band of totality. It's an experience you'll never
forget, and it is deeply moving on so many levels (its raw beauty,
the sense of awe it inspires, and there are emotional and spiritual
components as you look up and see this massive thing in the uni-
verse where, for a moment, you are able to realize how small you
truly are, and how big God's creation truly is).

I recommend it for everybody from young kids to aged adults.
The range of ages we saw there was around retirement, and down
to probably six years old with the grandkids.

My son was 13 years old when he saw this one. He'll be 20 on
the next one (James 4:15 "Lord willing"). If we're able to see
it, it will be exciting for him to see how the two compare with
two different sets of age-group eyes and understandings.

Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Tue, 2017-08-22, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I had a chance to drive from Indianapolis, IN to Princeton, KY
> and see the solar eclipse in the band of full totality.

[...]

Completely offtopic, but that hasn't stopped you before, and it was
well written. Thanks, I think.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 8/22/2017 1:57 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-22, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> I had a chance to drive from Indianapolis, IN to Princeton, KY
>> and see the solar eclipse in the band of full totality.
> [...]
>
> Completely offtopic, but that hasn't stopped you before, and it was
> well written. Thanks, I think.

I'm still moved by it today. It's occupied my thinking. I keep
reflecting back on moments. The one that stands out the most was
seeing the sun like this:


https://i.cbc.ca/1.3084197.1432321306!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/solar-eclipse.jpg

Of all the images I saw on the first page of Google Images,
that's about the most accurate to what I saw in real life.
I wasn't in snow though, the view from where I saw it was
almost directly overhead. It occurred at 1:20pm or so local
time, and the sky was completely clear.

The sky looked like this. You could see some stars, but not
all. And the horizon went around a lot like this, though it
was somewhat different:


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/63/a9/94/63a994fd0126f3357bdf4a2e0b50b38f.jpg

Maybe a little more like this because the sun was directly
overhead and not low on the horizon, so the effect was the
same all the way around:


https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/170626-alaska-eclipse-630x447.jpg

And this final link is where we were. You can look at the
Google Street View to see the view I had. It's quite accurate.
Those trees in the front of the church had their eclipsed-sun-
shaped shadows cast not only onto the ground and sidewalk, but
also onto the bricks on the church building, where their effect
was elongated and very pronounced.

When the eclipse reached about 95%, the light on the church
sign turned on. :-)

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0352837,-87.9074522,439m/data=!3m1!1e3

I just can't over how impressive it was. It's left a real
mark on my family.

[Mr Flibble]

On 22/08/2017 17:17, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
[snip]

> eclipse in the band of totality.  It's an experience you'll never
> forget, and it is deeply moving on so many levels (its raw beauty,
> the sense of awe it inspires, and there are emotional and spiritual
> components as you look up and see this massive thing in the uni-
> verse where, for a moment, you are able to realize how small you
> truly are, and how big God's creation truly is).

[snip]
But the world is flat according to the Bible yes? Rick, fuck off; until
you stop posting religious shite I am not interested in your
non-religious posts including those about C++.

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 8/22/2017 4:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 22/08/2017 17:17, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> [snip]
>> eclipse in the band of totality.  It's an experience you'll never
>> forget, and it is deeply moving on so many levels (its raw beauty,
>> the sense of awe it inspires, and there are emotional and spiritual
>> components as you look up and see this massive thing in the uni-
>> verse where, for a moment, you are able to realize how small you
>> truly are, and how big God's creation truly is).
> [snip]
> But the world is flat according to the Bible yes?

No. Not even close. Your ignorance of God, of truth, of the
true teachings of the Bible (those supplanted in your mind by
the lies of the devil who presents his twists and falsenesses
to you as though they are truth), will be your undoing, Leigh.

It is not God who will condemn you. You will condemn you,
because you would not hear the truth.

I love you, Leigh. I teach you the way out of condemnation.
It is not a shameful thing to come to God and say, "I need help.
I need to be forgiven." We are all in the same filled-with-sin
boat, and that is why Jesus came in to the world. He came to
save us from Hell fire. He came to save us from our sin. He
came to forgive all who will come to Him and acknowledge before
Him the truth: that you are a sinner, that you have done wrong,
and that you need to be forgiven.

He invites you to be with Him in eternity, Leigh. All you
have to do is acknowledge the truth, and ask forgiveness for
your sin. He could not have made it any easier and still
given you a choice.

[Mr Flibble]

On 22/08/2017 21:37, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On 8/22/2017 4:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 22/08/2017 17:17, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> eclipse in the band of totality.  It's an experience you'll never
>>> forget, and it is deeply moving on so many levels (its raw beauty,
>>> the sense of awe it inspires, and there are emotional and spiritual
>>> components as you look up and see this massive thing in the uni-
>>> verse where, for a moment, you are able to realize how small you
>>> truly are, and how big God's creation truly is).
>> [snip]
>> But the world is flat according to the Bible yes?
>
> No.  Not even close.  Your ignorance of God, of truth, of the
> true teachings of the Bible (those supplanted in your mind by
> the lies of the devil who presents his twists and falsenesses
> to you as though they are truth), will be your undoing, Leigh.
>
> It is not God who will condemn you.  You will condemn you,
> because you would not hear the truth.

Everything you say is predicated on your belief that the Bible is true.

Well consider this:

Assumption #1: Genesis creation story is a myth/allegory and Adam and
Eve are a fiction.
Assumption #2: Jesus Christ (either biblical or historical) existed.

The Bible (Old and New Testaments) describe the genealogy of Jesus
Christ all the way from Joseph and Mary back to Adam and Eve. Given our
two assumptions at what point does this 50-generation genealogy
transition from fact to fiction and what is the proof of this transition?

IMO the entire genealogy is suspect and assumption #2 is bogus. There
is no evidence contemporary to Christ's existence of his existence: it
all came out in the latter part of the first century in writings from
the likes of Josephus and Tacitus a significant time after Jesus's
supposed death. The Gospels themselves are complete hearsay which
wouldn't hold water as evidence in a court of law.

If you now claim that assumption #1 is false despite all the evidence to
the contrary (e.g. weathering of the Grand Canyon, fossils confirming
evolution and evolutionary time scales) then you really are beyond help
as nothing can be done to mitigate such obtuse stupidity.

[snip]
/Flibble

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 23 August 2017 02:42:00 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> Everything you say is predicated on your belief that the Bible is true.

Yes, so it is. Why you drag it out again? Conclusions reached not
using rational logic but something else (like dreams, faith, desires,
fears, doubts and/or dislikes) can't be argued with rational logic.

Try to give some harmless spider to arachnophobe. Whatever you tell
how good and cute and even intelligent the spider is and how it eats
annoying insects and never bites you ... it does not matter.
Aracnophobe is fully convinced that death is near and that you are
holding the spider in you bare hand is some sorcery and no way an
evidence of its harmlessness.

[David Brown]

Look, he wrote a pleasant post about an amazing real-world experience -
watching the eclipse. I have seen one myself, here in Norway, and the
sight is awe-inspiring. It does not matter if you are a dedicated
religious believer marvelling at God's creation, an atheist marvelling
at the beauty of nature, or anything else - if you are human, you will
marvel at a full solar eclipse.

The post was off-topic in all the groups posted, but it was a friendly
post that does no harm. Even the religious content was negligible.

Your ugly, crude, angry and repetitive provocations are /not/ welcome.
They are not helpful, they are not enjoyable, they are not informative,
they are not intelligent, logical or rational. They do nothing but
provoke Rick to post more religious waffle, which nobody wants. They
spoil every thread they touch.

So please take your own advice, and stick to C++.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 8/22/2017 7:41 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 22/08/2017 21:37, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On 8/22/2017 4:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On 22/08/2017 17:17, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> eclipse in the band of totality.  It's an experience you'll never
>>>> forget, and it is deeply moving on so many levels (its raw beauty,
>>>> the sense of awe it inspires, and there are emotional and spiritual
>>>> components as you look up and see this massive thing in the uni-
>>>> verse where, for a moment, you are able to realize how small you
>>>> truly are, and how big God's creation truly is).
>>> [snip]
>>> But the world is flat according to the Bible yes?
>>
>> No.  Not even close.  Your ignorance of God, of truth, of the
>> true teachings of the Bible (those supplanted in your mind by
>> the lies of the devil who presents his twists and falsenesses
>> to you as though they are truth), will be your undoing, Leigh.
>>
>> It is not God who will condemn you.  You will condemn you,
>> because you would not hear the truth.
>
> Everything you say is predicated on your belief that the Bible is true.

Everything I believe is predicated on Jesus Christ being who He
says He is, and a portion of who He is is recorded in the Bible.

The experience every Christian has personally is that our faith
does not resting solely upon the words of Bible, but upon the
application of the One described in the Bible given to us in our
daily lives. I came to faith because I read in the Bible the
truth about God, about sin, about me, about Jesus Christ, but
there is more to God than His written word. There is the full
application of His presence in our daily lives, and it is there,
from withing that relationship He initiates with us and that we
enjoy each day, that the reality of His existence in our lives
is manifest.

We don't hover over a book as our soul source, but we learn
over time that the Bible aligns with God's spirit, and God's
spirit aligns with the Bible, and that there is also another
spirit at work in this world that aligns not with God's spirit
or the teachings of the Bible. It is that anti-Christ spirit,
the exact opposite of Christ, the one who is leading souls to
their destruction, the one who is causing wars and spreading
hate and inflicting disease. He is the one Christ defeated
at the cross, and it is why today we (mankind) has victory
over sin.

-----
The message of salvation is given to all of mankind, Leigh.
Everyone can be saved by believing in Jesus Christ and asking
Him to forgive their sin. But not everybody will be saved.
Many will hear the message, reject it, believe it to be that
which is false, and never accept His offer of salvation, and
will enter into Hellfire for all eternity because of it.

God does not force Himself on people. He calls out to every
soul and says, "Here am I. With everything I possess I stand
before you saying, 'Come, and I will give you eternal life.'"
He calls out to every soul in one way or another, but only
those who answer His call will be saved.

-----
If you can hear His call in your heart, in your inmost core,
in the depths of your soul, from that place where you know
that you are hearing Him, the still small voice inside when
you are at peace, in silence with nothing distracting you,
but then in the stillness, when you are seeking the truth
and being completely honest with yourself ... if you can hear
His call within, then rejoice because it is Him reaching out
to save your eternal soul from judgment, to give you new
life, to restore you to His eternal Kingdom of love, peace,
power, and authority.

The message of the cross is given to all who will be saved.
It is not intended for other people. He doesn't want to
judge us, but He will honor our request. We will either
call upon Him to be our Savior, or call upon Him to be our
judge. The choice is ours, for He has already done every-
thing necessary on both sides. He created Hell to contain
all falseness, and He gave us His Son Jesus Christ to make
a way out of judgment for just the asking.

It's your choice, Leigh. You wanted the power to choose
your own fate? Jesus gives you that choice. Make it a good
one.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 8/23/2017 4:44 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:17:14 -0400
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, don't look
> at God because you'll die by doing so. (Exodus 33:20) Or, is KJV
> implying that God murders you for staring at him? ... Hard to tell.

It's because God is Holy, Holy, Holy, and we are fallen in sin.
No flesh can look upon God and live because the purity of His
holiness would induce judgment and condemnation upon the sin that
lives in us. We would be consumed in an instant.

Because we are born in sin, raised in sin, live in sin, know
the things of this world (which are all in and of sin), we think
we have some kind of handle on the state of reality, and that it
falls within the realm of that which we know.

What the cross teaches us is that there is more, and that we do
not yet know the truth, nor do we have that which we need on our
own. The cross teaches us that there is more, and that all who
will look to the cross will discover this, because God Himself
will lead all who do so to the truth Himself, so that it is not
distorted, not twisted in some way, but for all who will truly
seek the truth, God will ensure personally that they find it.

The truth is it's only when Christ takes our sin away that we
are able to then stand before God again, and look upon Him, and
even then not until we leave this world and receive our new
bodies:


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+15%3A53-55&version=KJV

It's not difficult to understand and know the truth about God.
It just requires an honest, truth-seeking heart. There are many
teachers around who will give you correct information. There
are not many students who are interested in hearing the lessons
of Jesus Christ because they are too focused on the sin they
enjoy in their life to ever look up, step away, and learn it.

> Isn't it an interesting coincidence that the Sun and KJV God are so
> similar? Didn't the Egyptians worship the sun God Ra? ...

They are not similar. There is only one God, though there are
many gods:


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+8&version=KJV

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in
heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords
many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom
are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

We also are God's children. Scripture refers to us as gods:


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A34-38&version=KJV

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I
said, Ye are gods?

This future, this restoration to our true state, the one sin
fully denies of us here in this world, that is what the enemy
of God is trying to keep us from. He wants us to remain in
our sin-induced ignorance, to believe this world we live in,
these minds we possess, this existence is all there is. He
wants us to stay away from God, stay away from the truth, stay
away from salvation, so that he can defeat us in his rebellion
against God. He wants us dead in his battle, not just here in
sin on the Earth, but in eternity in judgment.

But Jesus has made a way out from that for all who will hear.
He's made a way to restore us to His Kingdom of love, power,
and eternity.

-----
God calls out to you, Rod, and to all people. He doesn't do it
as part of a cocktail joke or a punchline. He doesn't do it as
by the mocking of ignorant souls who say that such a call is
only for fools and weak people. He calls out to His creation
in strength, in honor, in a restoration of all right things.
He does so to give us that which we cannot attain on our own.
He does so to give us a second chance, to overcome death, Hell,
and the grave. He does so to restore us to His Kingdom, and
bring us back despite our many runnings in all manner of other
directions, toward other interests, pushing Him away, kicking
at Him like a spoiled child, demanding that He leave us alone.
Despite all of this, He remains faithful to us, a good Father,
a good God.

There was a skit written and performed at Winterfest in Knoxville
Tennessee in 2006 that outlines this path. It shows God creating
everything, sharing all He has with man, and then sin enters in.
Temptations away from God enter in through those evil spirits
which tempt men away from God toward other things. We see the
downfall of man, the despair from the separation, the confusion.
But we then see how God steps in to overcome and defeat that
which we could not defeat ourselves.

It's such a brilliant skit. I literally have watched it more
than 50 times over the years and cannot watch it without
crying when I see what God did to restore us.

He loves us so much that despite our mass and personal
rebellions against Him, yet did He make a way out for all who
would yet believe and repent of their sinful ways:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyheJ480LYA

-----
Eternity and eternal life are given to mankind. It comes to us
through that which Jesus Christ did on the cross. He made a
way out of our sin. He literally saved us from death.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <onj9qm$9uc$1...@dont-email.me>,
David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
...

>Look, he wrote a pleasant post about an amazing real-world experience -

(etc - no need to repost)

Heh heh. Here we have a CLC reg actually defending the undefendable -
namely, the egregious Ricky-from-Indiana nutcase.

It's the Trump effect. People (and I use the term loosly here) like Trump
and Ricky just keep hammering away with their nonsense - bringing down the
level of discourse so that we come to accept whatever they do as (almost)
normal. We (and by "we", I mean us as CLC readers/posters and, in the
larger sense, the US media) end up looking desperately for something to
praise - something that's not quite as awful as the rest of it. And thus
every time the Orange One fails to poop his pants on national TV, the media
starts gushing about how "Presidential" he is. And whenever Rick manages
to post something here that isn't completely stupid, we all want,
instinctively, to say "Well done, sir!".

It is human nature to want to find something to praise - something that
validates the BS we were all taught growing up watching Sesame Street - the
idea that there is good in everyone.

--
The book "1984" used to be a cautionary tale;
Now it is a "how-to" manual.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 8/23/2017 6:25 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> It is human nature to want to find something to praise...

It is a natural part of us from within, because God put that
natural draw within us. What He teaches us though is that
there is the voice of truth, and the voice of falseness. The
voice of truth only speaks with one voice, but the voice of
falseness has an array to choose from.

We know this from our natural thinking: "How old are you?"
If you're like my 13-year old son and a 15-year old were to
answer "15," he'd say, "No you're not. You're not exactly
15. You're 15 and some number of months, days, hours..."
But all things being equal if you're 15 there's one correct
answer: 15. To answer 14, or 16, or 12, or 20 ... they are
all false answers.

The truth speaks with one voice always. It only speaks of
itself, and it is always triumphant over every falsehood
when things are pressed into and examined. The truth is
the foundation God used to construct His entire universe,
and nothing false or embracing falseness will survive this
world.

-----
God's promise to us is this: Seek the truth and you will
find it. That's His promise because He is truth, and He
knows all who are His own by volition, by seeking, by the
right He gives them to pursue Him in seeking the truth.

It's also why you've never found it, Kenny. You're not
looking for it. You're trying to defend your pre-existing
belief against the truth, trying to force the things that
be into the moulds you've constructed. You, like many
many others, have preformed moulds that you're sure are
right. Anything that is therefore also right must fit
into those moulds. You are unwilling to consider the idea
that your moulds are your own construction, and they're not
truly right. You are unwilling to put down your moulds
and go and look into other things and see where the real
truth is, even the one that doesn't look like a shape
your moulds would produce.

If you ever put down that mould set, and then begin that
journey ... on that very day you will find it, because
all it requires is the tiniest inkling of a real pursuit
of truth, and then it is found because the truth comes
running for you, and He prepares you for the banquet
feast made in your honor:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A20-24

-----
Kenny, God loves you. He wants you to be a part of His
eternal Kingdom in the paradise of Heaven. It's why He
went through all He did on Earth, and why He endures all
the ridicule and scorn today, and why He calls on us who
already believe to endure the same types of ridicule and
scorn for His name ... because the soul that is saved is
most valuable, precious and dear in His sight. It's why
He came to the Earth as a suffering Savior ... to literally
save that which was lost. To save sinners like you and me.

[Ivan Shmakov]

... Heard on a Russian TV channel, in the conclusion of a news
report regarding the (then-forthcoming) event:

In Russia, the eclipse can be observed in Chukotka, Alaska, and some
of the Arctic Ocean islands.

Left me quite wondering...

--
FSF associate member #7257 58F8 0F47 53F5 2EB2 F6A5 8916 3013 B6A0 230E 334A

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>>>> On 22/08/2017 21:37, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>>> On 8/22/2017 4:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

>>> But the world is flat according to the Bible yes?

>> No. Not even close.

JFTR, Wikipedia has a whole article [1] on this misconception.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

[...]

> Everything you say is predicated on your belief that the Bible is
> true.

> Well consider this:

> Assumption #1: Genesis creation story is a myth/allegory and Adam and
> Eve are a fiction.

> Assumption #2: Jesus Christ (either biblical or historical) existed.

> The Bible (Old and New Testaments) describe the genealogy of Jesus
> Christ all the way from Joseph and Mary back to Adam and Eve. Given
> our two assumptions at what point does this 50-generation genealogy
> transition from fact to fiction and what is the proof of this
> transition?

> IMO the entire genealogy is suspect and assumption #2 is bogus.
> There is no evidence contemporary to Christ's existence of his
> existence: it all came out in the latter part of the first century in
> writings from the likes of Josephus and Tacitus a significant time
> after Jesus's supposed death. The Gospels themselves are complete
> hearsay which wouldn't hold water as evidence in a court of law.

The Pauline letters are a decent evidence that around 50-60 CE,
the existence of Jesus was not questioned by at least the early
Christians themselves.

It doesn't seem plausible that an entirely fictional person
could become an undisputed historical figure, even in a specific
"subculture," in mere 20 years.

Of course, Wikipedia has this one covered [2], too.

Also of interest could be [2] (which I haven't read yet.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
[2] http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Ehrman-v-Craig.html

> If you now claim that assumption #1 is false despite all the evidence

> to the contrary (e. g. weathering of the Grand Canyon, fossils

> confirming evolution and evolutionary time scales)

I see it could only be "contrary" if we assume that "days" in
the first chapter of Genesis refer to regular "earthly" days.

Frankly, I'm not sure that there's an easy way to say "a billion
years" in either Aramaic or biblical Hebrew, and I'm even less
sure that there would have been any need for such specificity.

Hence, I stand by my point that Genesis does not necessarily
contradict "evolution and evolutionary time scales".

[...]

[Mr Flibble]

On 23/08/2017 18:30, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
[snip]

>
> Hence, I stand by my point that Genesis does not necessarily
> contradict "evolution and evolutionary time scales".

If we ignore the days may or may not be billions of years bullshit
Genesis also says that Adam had no parents but as evolution is true we
know humans evolved so there was no first human. Obviously the number
of such flaws in Genesis is legion.

/Flibble

[Mr Flibble]

Correct me if I am wrong, mate, but this newsgroup doesn't exist for
your personal entertainment and I certainly am not here for your
personal amusement. This newsgroup is for posts about C++ and C++
related projects ONLY; not egregious posts about "God" or similar posts
dressed up as posts about fucking eclipses. I will call out Rick and
other idiots who post OT shite including pointing out, using sound
logical, and rational intelligence why the shite is shite.

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

There appear to be flaws in Genesis because you look at the world's
teachings and viewpoint as though it were true. You accept it based
on what you've been taught as though it were simply true.

There is another examination of that same data, and it is based on
addressing issues which remain in the worldview account.

If you examine the Biblical account, you would see that it is
logical and does account for everything we see in nature through
what we can observe today. It answers questions that remain un-
answered by the worldview account. And it simultaneously validates
the Bible and all Biblical teachings.

The reason why you can so easily believe the worldview point is
because there's an active spiritual enemy leading you toward that
thought in your mind, Leigh. If you would say to that voice, "You
know what? You may be right or wrong, but I'm going to investigate
it for myself," and then really investigate it. You would find the
truth and it would reveal itself to you because of who/what truth
truly is.

[Mr Flibble]

On 23/08/2017 19:43, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On 8/23/2017 2:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 23/08/2017 18:30, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>
>>>     Hence, I stand by my point that Genesis does not necessarily
>>>     contradict "evolution and evolutionary time scales".
>>
>> If we ignore the days may or may not be billions of years bullshit
>> Genesis also says that Adam had no parents but as evolution is true we
>> know humans evolved so there was no first human.  Obviously the number
>> of such flaws in Genesis is legion.
>
> There appear to be flaws in Genesis because you look at the world's
> teachings and viewpoint as though it were true.  You accept it based
> on what you've been taught as though it were simply true.

Everything you say is predicated on your belief that the Bible is true.

Well consider this:

Assumption #1: Genesis creation story is a myth/allegory and Adam and
Eve are a fiction.
Assumption #2: Jesus Christ (either biblical or historical) existed.

The Bible (Old and New Testaments) describe the genealogy of Jesus
Christ all the way from Joseph and Mary back to Adam and Eve. Given our
two assumptions at what point does this 50-generation genealogy
transition from fact to fiction and what is the proof of this transition?

IMO the entire genealogy is suspect and assumption #2 is bogus. There
is no evidence contemporary to Christ's existence of his existence: it
all came out in the latter part of the first century in writings from
the likes of Josephus and Tacitus a significant time after Jesus's
supposed death. The Gospels themselves are complete hearsay which
wouldn't hold water as evidence in a court of law.

If you now claim that assumption #1 is false despite all the evidence to

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 8/23/2017 2:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> [carbon copy reply snipped]

Do you believe you are in pursuit of truth, Leigh? You are not
listening to another who is teaching you there is an account which
validates the Bible and addresses everything we see in nature.

You discount it summarily. Is that really a pursuit of truth?

All who seek the truth will find it. The rest will perish. You
are at the place of perishing right now, Leigh. If that means
anything to you ... pursue the truth.

[Mr Flibble]

Everything you say is predicated on your belief that the Bible is true.

Well consider this:

Assumption #1: Genesis creation story is a myth/allegory and Adam and
Eve are a fiction.
Assumption #2: Jesus Christ (either biblical or historical) existed.

The Bible (Old and New Testaments) describe the genealogy of Jesus
Christ all the way from Joseph and Mary back to Adam and Eve. Given our
two assumptions at what point does this 50-generation genealogy
transition from fact to fiction and what is the proof of this transition?

IMO the entire genealogy is suspect and assumption #2 is bogus. There
is no evidence contemporary to Christ's existence of his existence: it
all came out in the latter part of the first century in writings from
the likes of Josephus and Tacitus a significant time after Jesus's
supposed death. The Gospels themselves are complete hearsay which
wouldn't hold water as evidence in a court of law.

If you now claim that assumption #1 is false despite all the evidence to
the contrary (e.g. weathering of the Grand Canyon, fossils confirming
evolution and evolutionary time scales) then you really are beyond help
as nothing can be done to mitigate such obtuse stupidity.

/Flibble

[Richard Heathfield]

Nor for yours. Rick is in my killfile, so it's entirely your fault that
I'm seeing his drivel. It's also entirely your fault that I'm seeing
/your/ drivel. David Brown is a valued contributor to comp.lang.c
whereas I don't recognise your name at all except in the context of
re-posting Rick's nonsense.

> and I certainly am not here for your
> personal amusement. This newsgroup is for posts about C++ and C++

C++ is not topical in comp.lang.c to which this thread is cross-posted.

> related projects ONLY; not egregious posts about "God" or similar posts
> dressed up as posts about fucking eclipses. I will call out Rick and
> other idiots who post OT shite including pointing out, using sound
> logical, and rational intelligence why the shite is shite.

And thus you spread the shite around so that everyone gets a share, and
that's supposed to be intelligent behaviour, is it?

*PLONK*

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Mr Flibble]

C has no place in modern software development and discourse; it is a
dead language. C++ has subsumed C.

/Flibble

[rickman]

Is this an attempt to return to being on topic?

I suppose you are not a fan of the Forth language either?

--

Rick C

Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998

[Richard Heathfield]

On 23/08/17 21:48, rickman wrote:
> Mr Flibble wrote on 8/23/2017 4:30 PM:
>> On 23/08/2017 20:51, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 23/08/17 19:41, Mr Flibble wrote:

<snip>

>>>> and I certainly am not here for your
>>>> personal amusement. This newsgroup is for posts about C++ and C++
>>>
>>> C++ is not topical in comp.lang.c to which this thread is cross-posted.
>>
>> C has no place in modern software development and discourse; it is a dead
>> language. C++ has subsumed C.
>
> Is this an attempt to return to being on topic?

No, it's an attempt at trolling, and a poor one.

> I suppose you are not a fan of the Forth language either?

Nor indeed the Fith language. Or the Sicth. :-)

[David Brown]

Equally, the newsgroup does not exist for /your/ egregious posts
encouraging the religious posts here. If /you/ stick to posts about C++
only, then I will be happy. I have no hope of stopping Rick from making
off-topic posts - but you claim to be rational and logical, and to be
interested only in C++ here. Please stop your hypocrisy and stop rising
to every off-topic post here. Your posts are as off-topic and
unpleasant as the ones you are responding to.

[Mr Flibble]

On 23/08/2017 22:14, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 23/08/17 21:48, rickman wrote:
>> Mr Flibble wrote on 8/23/2017 4:30 PM:
>>> On 23/08/2017 20:51, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 23/08/17 19:41, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>> and I certainly am not here for your
>>>>> personal amusement.  This newsgroup is for posts about C++ and C++
>>>>
>>>> C++ is not topical in comp.lang.c to which this thread is cross-posted.
>>>
>>> C has no place in modern software development and discourse; it is a
>>> dead
>>> language.  C++ has subsumed C.
>>
>> Is this an attempt to return to being on topic?
>
> No, it's an attempt at trolling, and a poor one.

It might look like a troll but it was in fact an attempt to bypass your
kill file and it looks like I was successful.

/Flibble

[rickman]

Richard Heathfield wrote on 8/23/2017 5:14 PM:
> On 23/08/17 21:48, rickman wrote:
>> Mr Flibble wrote on 8/23/2017 4:30 PM:
>>> On 23/08/2017 20:51, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 23/08/17 19:41, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>> and I certainly am not here for your
>>>>> personal amusement. This newsgroup is for posts about C++ and C++
>>>>
>>>> C++ is not topical in comp.lang.c to which this thread is cross-posted.
>>>
>>> C has no place in modern software development and discourse; it is a dead
>>> language. C++ has subsumed C.
>>
>> Is this an attempt to return to being on topic?
>
> No, it's an attempt at trolling, and a poor one.
>
>> I suppose you are not a fan of the Forth language either?
>
> Nor indeed the Fith language. Or the Sicth. :-)

Looks like I'm adding flibble to my killfile.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 08/23/2017 02:49 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> [snip]
The enemy tries to get us to focus on man's reasoning because he has
victory there. He owns our flesh because our flesh is in sin.

God is spirit and truth. His existence is different than that which
we are familiar with in our flesh. As a result, knowledge of Him
comes a different way than man's reasoning.

-----
It's all I can offer you, Leigh: the truth. I can't make you receive
it or believe it. That's something only God can do from within your
core man, your inmost self.

My job with regards to you is complete, Leigh. I have told you the
truth. It is before you. These messages I've written to you can be
searched and reviewed at your leisure. If you have any questions
I'll be happy to answer them.

Apart from that, the rest is on you.

[Mr Flibble]

On 23/08/2017 23:34, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On 08/23/2017 02:49 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> [snip]
> The enemy tries to get us to focus on man's reasoning because he has
> victory there.  He owns our flesh because our flesh is in sin.
>
> God is spirit and truth.  His existence is different than that which
> we are familiar with in our flesh.  As a result, knowledge of Him
> comes a different way than man's reasoning.

Everything you say is predicated on your belief that the Bible is true.

Well consider this:

Assumption #1: Genesis creation story is a myth/allegory and Adam and
Eve are a fiction.
Assumption #2: Jesus Christ (either biblical or historical) existed.

The Bible (Old and New Testaments) describe the genealogy of Jesus
Christ all the way from Joseph and Mary back to Adam and Eve. Given our
two assumptions at what point does this 50-generation genealogy
transition from fact to fiction and what is the proof of this transition?

IMO the entire genealogy is suspect and assumption #2 is bogus. There
is no evidence contemporary to Christ's existence of his existence: it
all came out in the latter part of the first century in writings from
the likes of Josephus and Tacitus a significant time after Jesus's
supposed death. The Gospels themselves are complete hearsay which
wouldn't hold water as evidence in a court of law.

If you now claim that assumption #1 is false despite all the evidence to
the contrary (e.g. weathering of the Grand Canyon, fossils confirming
evolution and evolutionary time scales) then you really are beyond help
as nothing can be done to mitigate such obtuse stupidity.

[snip]

/Flibble

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>>>> On 23/08/2017 20:51, Richard Heathfield wrote:

[...]

>> C++ is not topical in comp.lang.c to which this thread is
>> cross-posted.

> C has no place in modern software development and discourse; it is a
> dead language. C++ has subsumed C.

Yeah, as dead as Spanish. I mean, who'd need Spanish when we
have Mandarin Chinese?

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Everything you [Rick C. Hodgin] say is predicated on your belief that
> the Bible is true.

I posted this on comp.lang.c. It gives links to real-world evidencee
that confirms the Bible.

-----
On Wednesday, August 23, 2017, Öö Tiib wrote:
> ...I wrote about what there are evidence and about what
> there are none.

This came across my Facebook feed today from a Christian group:

https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/3-evidences-confirm-bible-not-made-up/

It contains this sub-link:

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/incarnation/jesus-did-not-exist/

-----[ Begin ]-----
Josephus (AD 37–c.100, Jewish military leader and historian): Wrote about Jesus on two occasions. The authenticity of one occurrence, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is hotly disputed, but his account of the execution of James is generally accepted, and he mentioned James, “the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.”

Tacitus (AD 56–120, great Roman historian): Reported that after rumors spread about Nero burning Rome, Nero needed scapegoats for the crime and chose “Christians, [who were] hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate.”

Pliny the Younger (AD 61–c.112, Roman senator): Wrote to Emperor Trajan about his experience with Christians.
-----[ End ]-----

It also contains this sub-link:

http://bibleandarchaeology.com

-----
Note: I write these replies because I care about you, Leigh. I want
you to know the truth and be saved. You are valuable, and I would
like to see you in Heaven.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 21:30:50 +0100
Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> wrote:

> C has no place in modern software development and discourse; it is a
> dead language. C++ has subsumed C.

Well, that's clearly wishful thinking:

https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/

The real question is why someone posting from a.o.d. must inform "Mr
Flibble" that C is more widely used than C++.


Rod Pemberton

--
Isn't anti-hate just hate by another name? Isn't
anti-protesting just protesting by another name?
Peace is a choice that both sides rejected.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 05:35:43 -0400

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/23/2017 4:44 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:17:14 -0400
> > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Also, don't look
> > at God because you'll die by doing so. (Exodus 33:20) Or, is KJV
> > implying that God murders you for staring at him? ... Hard to
> > tell.
>
> It's because God is Holy, Holy, Holy, and we are fallen in sin.

How do you know that?

> No flesh can look upon God and live because the purity of His
> holiness would induce judgment and condemnation upon the sin that
> lives in us. We would be consumed in an instant.
>
> Because we are born in sin, raised in sin, live in sin, know
> the things of this world (which are all in and of sin), we think
> we have some kind of handle on the state of reality, and that it
> falls within the realm of that which we know.

Yet, Genesis says that for everything God created, "God saw that it
was good", including man. So, how did he, an omniscient being, manage
to muck us up with sin, without him being aware of this in advance? He
must've known that our state of sin would result. If he knew of
this result in advance, since he is omniscient, how is this any
different from him actually planning for it to happen to all of us?
Clearly, he intended for it to happen. So, why should we be guilty of
his planned corruption of us via sin? It's clear that this act of
original sin was entirely a set up. In which case, we're not guilty of

it.

> > Isn't it an interesting coincidence that the Sun and KJV God are so
> > similar? Didn't the Egyptians worship the sun God Ra? ...
>
> They are not similar. There is only one God, though there are
> many gods:

There is only one God? If you actually believe that, then Ra must be
the one true God for you, as Ra predates the God of all the Abrahamic
religions, e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many other lesser
religions, by over 13 centuries. Ra came first and long before God of
the Bible. As such, a rational man can only conclude that the God of
the Abrahamic religions is an impostor, e.g., Satan or Lucifer or Jesus
Christ, intent on deceiving humanity via the Bible.

> God calls out [...] He doesn't do it as part of a cocktail
> joke or a punchline.

Really? If that was true, he wouldn't have put talking animals into the
Bible. It goes towards his credibility.

talking snake Genesis 3:1
talking donkey Numbers 22:28

If you'd like to learn more about the completely wrong stuff in the
Bible, try this website. It's a website version of an older text
document from the 1990s, but it still archives some of the more bizarre
situations the Bible presents.

https://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm

> He doesn't do it as
> by the mocking of ignorant souls who say that such a call is
> only for fools and weak people. He calls out to His creation
> in strength, in honor, in a restoration of all right things.

Apparently, he was the one who mucked us all up with original sin, as we
didn't have sin when he created us, and he knew exactly what was going
to happen to us in advance. He didn't prevent it. He chose not
to. I.e., he chose not to save us. In legal circles, this is called
"entrapment". So, why must we ask him for forgiveness to fix his
willful intent? ... We're the disease and he's the cure? He infected
us (with sin).

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 8/24/2017 6:02 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 05:35:43 -0400
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/23/2017 4:44 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:17:14 -0400
>>> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Also, don't look
>>> at God because you'll die by doing so. (Exodus 33:20) Or, is KJV
>>> implying that God murders you for staring at him? ... Hard to
>>> tell.
>>
>> It's because God is Holy, Holy, Holy, and we are fallen in sin.
>
> How do you know that?

It is evident when you read the Bible, learn who God is, and see
who man is. It's also personally evident for me when I see the
Rick before asking forgiveness for my sin and being born again,
and the Rick after. I am a new man from the inside out, and it's
not by anything I've done. I'm actually amazed by the change.

>> No flesh can look upon God and live because the purity of His
>> holiness would induce judgment and condemnation upon the sin that
>> lives in us. We would be consumed in an instant.
>>
>> Because we are born in sin, raised in sin, live in sin, know
>> the things of this world (which are all in and of sin), we think
>> we have some kind of handle on the state of reality, and that it
>> falls within the realm of that which we know.
>
> Yet, Genesis says that for everything God created, "God saw that it
> was good", including man. So, how did he, an omniscient being, manage
> to muck us up with sin, without him being aware of this in advance?

He was aware.

> He
> must've known that our state of sin would result. If he knew of
> this result in advance, since he is omniscient, how is this any
> different from him actually planning for it to happen to all of us?

He did plan for it to happen to us. He made a way out of it before
He created the world:


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+13%3A8&version=KJV

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him,
whose names are not written in the book of life of
the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Before the world was created, God had a plan for us for salvation.
It was to take us through school, to establish a baseline for our
creation, to teach us a lesson we could learn no other way.

> Clearly, he intended for it to happen. So, why should we be guilty of
> his planned corruption of us via sin? It's clear that this act of
> original sin was entirely a set up. In which case, we're not guilty of
> it.

He gives each of us our volition. We tell Him what it is we want
by our choices, by our desires, by that which we personally seek
after.

God has created Hell and given us the Lamb of God (Jesus) to take
away our sin. He's made both paths free, meaning we simply choose
which one we desire by what it is we pursue in our lives.

Nobody can actually come to Jesus and ask forgiveness for their
sin unless God draws us, but He searches continually our hearts
and minds and knows fully our real intent on all things. And for
all who will seek the truth, He makes that change within them so
they will come to faith.

>>> Isn't it an interesting coincidence that the Sun and KJV God are so
>>> similar? Didn't the Egyptians worship the sun God Ra? ...
>>
>> They are not similar. There is only one God, though there are
>> many gods:
>
> There is only one God?

One God with a capital-G. I said there are many gods with lower-
case g ... including us, for the Bible teaches that we are God's
children, and that we are literal gods.

> If you actually believe that, then Ra must be
> the one true God for you, as Ra predates the God of all the Abrahamic
> religions, e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many other lesser
> religions, by over 13 centuries. Ra came first and long before God of
> the Bible. As such, a rational man can only conclude that the God of
> the Abrahamic religions is an impostor, e.g., Satan or Lucifer or Jesus
> Christ, intent on deceiving humanity via the Bible.

No. The Bible teaches of God Almighty who exists outside of time
and created all things. The god Ra is a real god. He is a demon
that is seeking worship from others of God's creation. He is as
condemned as Satan, if he is not in fact Satan himself.

>> God calls out [...] He doesn't do it as part of a cocktail
>> joke or a punchline.
>
> Really? If that was true, he wouldn't have put talking animals into the
> Bible. It goes towards his credibility.
>
> talking snake Genesis 3:1

The serpent is recorded in Genesis as being the creature that
spoke to Eve. It is recorded that as punishment for what that
serpent did, he was resigned to crawl on his belly and eat dust
all the days of his life. He did not become the snake we see
today with no arms or legs until sin, and it is a permanent
fixture in our creation to remind us.

> talking donkey Numbers 22:28

I accept that on faith. If you read the passage surrounding
that, and why God did it, then you see it was God reaching out
to save a man from his own folly. God used the resources at
hand to rebuke someone and knock some sense into them.

> If you'd like to learn more about the completely wrong stuff in the
> Bible, try this website. It's a website version of an older text
> document from the 1990s, but it still archives some of the more bizarre
> situations the Bible presents.
>
> https://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm

There are no issues with the Bible. Even God commanding Israel
to slay all men, women, children, and animals, in the Old
Testament, where it seems superficially to be heinous, you have
to remember that all people die, and what God commanded Israel
to do was diminish their negative, anti-God influence upon the
world, so that their false teaching would not exist in the many
generations to come, even out to thousands of years later.

Israel did not obey God, and we see the result in this world
today.

There are no issues with the Bible. Some of its teachings take
a rather substantial amount of knowledge to understand properly,
and some things like a talking donkey we must accept on faith,
but none of it is contradictory or conflicting, neither is it
just a fairy tale.

>> He doesn't do it as
>> by the mocking of ignorant souls who say that such a call is
>> only for fools and weak people. He calls out to His creation
>> in strength, in honor, in a restoration of all right things.
>
> Apparently, he was the one who mucked us all up with original sin, as we
> didn't have sin when he created us, and he knew exactly what was going
> to happen to us in advance. He didn't prevent it. He chose not
> to. I.e., he chose not to save us.

He gave the world Jesus Christ before He created the world. His
plan from day one was to save all who would be saved, but to also
condemn all who would be condemned.

Each of us tells God by our lives what choice we make. We are
living testimonies of our full heart's intent.

> In legal circles, this is called
> "entrapment". So, why must we ask him for forgiveness to fix his
> willful intent? ... We're the disease and he's the cure? He infected
> us (with sin).

God will save all who will seek the truth, Rod. Every man and
woman across the Earth. The only people who will go to Hell are
those who send themselves there by their own choices, and their
own ongoing rebellion against the truth (against God, for He is
literal truth).

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 8/24/2017 7:58 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On 8/24/2017 6:02 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:

>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 05:35:43 Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> Because we are born in sin, raised in sin, live in sin, know
>>> the things of this world (which are all in and of sin), we think
>>> we have some kind of handle on the state of reality, and that it
>>> falls within the realm of that which we know.
>>
>> Yet, Genesis says that for everything God created, "God saw that it
>> was good", including man.  So, how did he, an omniscient being, manage
>> to muck us up with sin, without him being aware of this in advance?
>
> He was aware.
>
>> He
>> must've known that our state of sin would result.  If he knew of
>> this result in advance, since he is omniscient, how is this any
>> different from him actually planning for it to happen to all of us?
>
> He did plan for it to happen to us.  He made a way out of it before
> He created the world:
>
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+13%3A8&version=KJV
>
>     8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him,
>       whose names are not written in the book of life of
>       the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
>
> Before the world was created, God had a plan for us for salvation.
> It was to take us through school, to establish a baseline for our
> creation, to teach us a lesson we could learn no other way.

To expand upon this, look at the entirety of creation. Everything
is built up from things below. We have foundational sub-atomic
particles, which build up to components of atoms, which build up
to atoms, which build up to molecules, which build up to structures,
which build up to assemblies / machines, which build up to factories
of all kinds (biological, mechanical, industrial), which build up
to provide grander constructs.

Our bodies have assemblies. DNA produces proteins which produce
structures which assemble into components which build inner cell
components, which build cells, which build organs, which provide
unique function, which come together to support the body, which
in turn supports our mind and ultimately by God's design also is
driven by spirit.

The goal was the person inhabiting the body, not the body, yet
everything of marvelous design and assembly was put together to
produce that final form which we are able to inhabit and enjoy.

We look at the universe. We see things on our planet comprising
that which is here. Our planet is one of several around a sun.
Our sun is one of many around the galaxy. Our galaxy is one of
many around clusters. Our cluster is one of many in this immense
universe. And the Bible teaches us there is an existence beyond
what we can physically see here in matter, into the realm of the
spiritual world, which the Bible records is not inhabited by the
same decay we see here in the material world.

Even the New Jerusalem that is coming down is a 1500 mile cube!
Why a cube? It has occurred to me that a cube is like a block
or brick, a component of a larger structure. Perhaps there is
a plan for mankind to continue our education beyond this first
existence on the Earth.

We are not taught in scripture what is coming for us after we
leave this Earth, but we do know some interesting things. God
gave man the covenant of circumcision, where the excess flesh
is removed on the 8th day. It is to be an everlasting covenant
between that male child and God in the faith.

We see a similar plan in God's plan of a 7-day creation, and
then the 8th day begins, which is the eternal or everlasting
day. And, it is after the 7th day is complete that the final
judgment occurs, and the "excess flesh' is removed. All who
are judged are cast into the lake of fire, and all who are
saved are given new bodies and they begin the rest of their
eternal existence.

What is coming on that 8th day? We see here on Earth that a
child is given circumcision on the 8th day, but that child then
goes on to grow up and learn the traditions of his family, to
learn whatever trades and skills are of interest to him. He's
able to demonstrate his unique prowess in this world, such as
to create art or poetry or music or whatever...

So if we translate this Earthly pattern to something that
would be in Heavenly terms, we would see our creation here is
an initial sifting, a proving ground, a place where those who
are Hell-bent on destruction are removed. From there, all who
continue on go through additional learning about God's vast
universe where they make their mark as their unique creation
allows them, and in the manner of their interests and form and
function and in working with others, etc., and without limits
as to available tools or resources, but with the fullest of
possible expressions given in Heaven where even the streets
are paved with gold, and there are no limits to what one can
possess and use (remember Moses and the burning bush, fire
without consumption of the fuel, and Jesus who was able to
replicate a few fish and loaves out to thousands ... this
design is also something we in computers can understand as we
can create a file, possess it, use it, and share it with
literally everybody on the Earth, and the sharing does not
diminish our copy, but simply spawns a new one).

God has given us all of these examples in scripture, such that
He has revealed in parts and piecemeal across the totality of
the Bible portions of what may well be His plan for us, even
beyond this Earth. But, He never comes right out and says
categorically, "After the 7th day, then thou shalt do ..."
and so on.

-----
The Bible is a most comprehensive document. I do not claim
to understand all of it, but I have studied it at length, and
gone to Sunday School and listened to sermons instead of
watching new episodes of the latest reality TV show. As a
result, I am constantly learning with regards to its teachings,
and there is an internal confirmation which I get when I hear
things which are significant.

I am also convinced that the baptism we go through in Jesus'
command in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18+ is not just
a water baptism, but it is to be an immersion in our lives in
the teachings of God, because it is framed before and after
by the command to teach and make disciples.

We must hold all things before God, such that we are then re-
examining all aspects of our lives in light of His guidance.
It helps us trim away that which harms us, and enhance that
which aids us, much the way a botanist would do to their
plants, to maximize the fullness of it all.

It's all there, Rod. It is evident and complete and really
astounding beyond words. The Bible is not just a book of
stories. It is a real teaching of God, of man, of sin, of
salvation, and it provides hints at things which we can see
here on Earth, which may translate into Heaven, as there
are known correlations, such as we have horses here, and
there are horses in Heaven, we have streets here, and there
are streets in Heaven, etc.

Seek the truth in your considering, Rod. It's all God asks.
Seek the whole truth, and He will do the rest in your life.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

This is a post that appeared on comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++, and
alt.os.development, but was not cc'd here.

I include it here as it contains a good teachings worth reading.

-----[ Begin ]----

-----[ End ]----

Please consider these words. Read them with scrutiny. And
please ask any questions or add any comments.

The goal here is to educate you in things regarding God and
the Bible you may not know. There is a real enemy at work
in this world to teach people wrong things. What I offer
you here is an honest teaching and conveyance of that which
God has given us through the Bible. It is to give you the
account accurately from the source. It allows you to then
go and examine the claims made for yourself.

[Mr Flibble]

On 24/08/2017 10:48, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> Everything you [Rick C. Hodgin] say is predicated on your belief that
>> the Bible is true.
>
> I posted this on comp.lang.c. It gives links to real-world evidencee
> that confirms the Bible.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:58:34 -0400

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/24/2017 6:02 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 05:35:43 -0400
> > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/23/2017 4:44 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:17:14 -0400
> >>> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > He
> > must've known that our state of sin would result. If he knew of
> > this result in advance, since he is omniscient, how is this any
> > different from him actually planning for it to happen to all of
> > us?
>
> He did plan for it to happen to us. He made a way out of it before
> He created the world:
>

> 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him,
> whose names are not written in the book of life of
> the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
>
> Before the world was created, God had a plan for us for salvation.
> It was to take us through school, to establish a baseline for our
> creation, to teach us a lesson we could learn no other way.

Why does God, who gave you and us life and free will according the
Bible, need you to worship him? Why does an omnipotent entity need to
be worshiped at all? Shouldn't an omnipotent entity need nothing from
no one? Unless, his power is not inherent within his being, but comes
from your worship of him. ... In which case, he's more likely Satan or
Lucifer, or some lesser deity, or fallen angel, than God.

> > If you'd like to learn more about the completely wrong stuff in the
> > Bible, try this website. It's a website version of an older text
> > document from the 1990s, but it still archives some of the more
> > bizarre situations the Bible presents.
> >
>

> There are no issues with the Bible. Even God commanding Israel
> to slay all men, women, children, and animals, in the Old
> Testament, where it seems superficially to be heinous, you have
> to remember that all people die, and what God commanded Israel
> to do was diminish their negative, anti-God influence upon the
> world, so that their false teaching would not exist in the many
> generations to come, even out to thousands of years later.

So, it's acceptable for God to give people permission to murder others,
but it's unacceptable for humans, whom God gave free will to, to chose
to murder others on their own using their free will, simply because God
commanded men to follow the Ten Commandments? What was the point of
having free will again, if we must obey God's commands and arbitrary
laws, or be punished? That's not exactly free will is it? This is not
only contradictory, but self-defeating for God. Did an omniscient being
make a mistake by giving man free will? It's clear that he back
tracked away from free will with the Ten Commandments. ...

Man must follow the Ten Commandments or be punished, but God can give
you permission to violate those same commandments on a whim. ... It
would seem like God is making up this shit as he goes along. Doesn't
it? One day, he tells people to follow the rules. The next day, he
tells people to violate the rules. Is he Schizophrenic?
Manic-Depressive? Alzheimer's? It's clear that there is no consistency
in his commands, which would imply he's wishy-washy, indecisive, amoral,
and/or a lunatic. Inconsistency prevents people from following
leaders. An omniscient being would know this and wouldn't be
inconsistent, unless the being was a child, or retarded, or
unconcerned. If God is unconcerned, i.e., doesn't give a shit, then why
bother to command us to worship him?

> >> He doesn't do it as
> >> by the mocking of ignorant souls who say that such a call is
> >> only for fools and weak people. He calls out to His creation
> >> in strength, in honor, in a restoration of all right things.
> >
> > Apparently, he was the one who mucked us all up with original sin,
> > as we didn't have sin when he created us, and he knew exactly what
> > was going to happen to us in advance. He didn't prevent it. He
> > chose not to. I.e., he chose not to save us.
>
> He gave the world Jesus Christ before He created the world.

Did he? It's rather odd that Jews and Muslims don't believe that, but
yet, they worship the EXACT SAME God as you. Now, how is that
possible? If each major religion received the exact same Word of God
from God, then why the extreme discrepancy? They don't even believe
that Jesus Christ existed. Jesus Christ is not a part of their Word
of God. ...

[Rod Pemberton]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:20:30 -0400

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> To expand upon this, look at the entirety of creation. Everything
> is built up from things below. We have foundational sub-atomic
> particles, which build up to components of atoms, which build up
> to atoms, which build up to molecules, which build up to structures,
> which build up to assemblies / machines, which build up to factories
> of all kinds (biological, mechanical, industrial), which build up
> to provide grander constructs.

What makes you believe that a supreme entity is required to do this?
I.e., why is it that you don't believe that complicated systems can
build up naturally from the interaction of dynamic processes? You
probably accept the scientific idea that planets were built up from
smaller celestial objects moving about dynamically and colliding. Why
you can't accept the same concept on the smaller scale of atoms or DNA
without the need for God seems odd.

> Our bodies have assemblies. DNA produces proteins which produce
> structures which assemble into components which build inner cell
> components, which build cells, which build organs, which provide
> unique function, which come together to support the body, which
> in turn supports our mind and ultimately by God's design also is
> driven by spirit.

Yes. I was staying away from science, since I doubted that you
believed in it, at all, from your strong religious stance. However,
you brought up DNA and atoms and the implications of Science thereupon.

So, since you apparently believe that God is the source of DNA, let's
some discuss DNA facts and contrast that with what the Bible says. Our
DNA is 96% the same as a chimp. Did God recycle the chimpanzee's DNA
from us? That would create a contradiction with Genesis, i.e., invalid
time order since beasts were created before man. Did God recycle our
DNA from the chimp? That too would create a contradiction with
Genesis. In this contradiction, God would've lied about how he created
us, i.e., not from scratch, not pure, not in his image, nor from mud,
etc. Our intestinal tract matches that of a deep-sea worm. In fact,
70% of our DNA comes from that worm. Did God recycle us from a worm
too or is evolution involved? Our mitochondrial DNA is not even part
of our DNA, but comes from an ancient bacteria. How did it become a
part of us? Do you believe that God put it there? Or, did Satan or
Lucifer put it there to convince us that evolution is real? If
that's true, why didn't God correct the evil manipulations? ...

> The goal was the person inhabiting the body, not the body, yet
> everything of marvelous design and assembly was put together to
> produce that final form which we are able to inhabit and enjoy.

It seems like that when your religious beliefs fail you, that you fall
back to alternate explanations or ideologies that perhaps intertwine
them with science, e.g., Creationism.

> We look at the universe. We see things on our planet comprising
> that which is here. Our planet is one of several around a sun.
> Our sun is one of many around the galaxy. Our galaxy is one of
> many around clusters. Our cluster is one of many in this immense
> universe.

...

> And the Bible teaches us there is an existence beyond
> what we can physically see here in matter, into the realm of the
> spiritual world, which the Bible records is not inhabited by the
> same decay we see here in the material world.

That could be true, if we're a part of a computer simulation. That
might also be true in a multidimensional universe. What does this have
to do with God? Both of those could exist without the existence of
God.

Since you brought up science, how would God survive the Big Bang? I.e.,
Einstein's E=MC^2 prohibits the existence of anything in our universe
which is neither energy or matter. This means that God would have to
be made out of energy or matter. How did God survive the Big Bang
without being destroyed? The massive conversion of energy into matter
and vice-versa during the Big Bang would've even destroyed God as
everything in this universe is subject to E=MC^2. Our universe is a
closed system, at least presently. The only way God could continue to
exist after the Big Bang is if he exists OUTSIDE our universe and is
looking in, like a snow-globe or ant-farm.

> Even the New Jerusalem that is coming down is a 1500 mile cube!
> Why a cube? It has occurred to me that a cube is like a block
> or brick, a component of a larger structure. Perhaps there is
> a plan for mankind to continue our education beyond this first
> existence on the Earth.

1500 mile cube? Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Googled 1500 mile cube.

If Wikipedia is correct, biblical authors for different parts of the
Bible record wildly different sizes for New Jerusalem, anywhere from
about 70 feet to 1500 miles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem#Description
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem#Geometry

> The Bible is a most comprehensive document. I do not claim
> to understand all of it, but I have studied it at length, and
> gone to Sunday School and listened to sermons instead of
> watching new episodes of the latest reality TV show. As a
> result, I am constantly learning with regards to its teachings,
> and there is an internal confirmation which I get when I hear
> things which are significant.

That's called confirmation bias. It's one of many flaws in the ability
of the human mind to reason logically. There's an entire page for it on
Wikipedia. There are numerous cognitive biases, 103 logical fallacies,
at least 57 behaviorial biases, etc. But, as a religious man, you
probably don't believe in psychology either.

> Seek the truth in your considering, Rod. It's all God asks.
> Seek the whole truth, and He will do the rest in your life.

Unfortunately, those who seek the Truth, usually find science which
proves things, not religion which takes things on Faith, as the logical
contradictions, inconsistency, and lunacy of the events and parables in
the Bible can't be rationalized by the truly rational.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 4:53:26 AM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> [snip]

Rod, the message of the cross is given for those who are being
saved. It's not for other people.

You will never be able to hear the message of the cross until God
changes you from within. And that will never happen until you are
willing to seek out the truth where it is, and move yourself to it,
rather than demanding it come to you where you are, remaining un-
movable in your thinking.

God has to tweak a person on the inside (John 6:44) to even be able
to receive Him or His message, and to be able to understand how it
is reasonable because it's not able to be understood by our natural
faculties. God is spirit, and it requires a new ability added on to
us so we can understand it. It's the same ability lost in sin, which
is what makes sin so harmful.

That change won't ever happen until God reaches in and supernaturally
changes that person from within. That won't happen until a person
sets their sight on knowing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, even if it takes them away from their current beliefs,
or it affirms them, but the person must be willing to go to where
the truth is, and then it is found.

-----
On the day you're willing to move to where truth is, even if it
takes you away from where you are today, on that day it will be
found.

[Ralf Goertz]

Am Fri, 25 Aug 2017 04:54:36 -0400
schrieb Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem>:

[Your pointing out of the logical flaws in religious beliefs is quite
refreshing although I guess it's fruitless in Rick's case.]

> Our DNA is 96% the same as a chimp.

One often hears/reads that. But what exactly does it mean? Genetics
teaches us that siblings or a mother and her child share 50% of their
DNA. Does that mean I am genetically closer to a chimp than to my own
mother? Of course not. So what do the 96% above refer to? Chromosoms,
genes, triplets, nukleotides?

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Ralf Goertz <m...@myprovider.invalid> writes:

>>>>> Am Fri, 25 Aug 2017 04:54:36 -0400 schrieb Rod Pemberton:

> [Your pointing out of the logical flaws in religious beliefs is quite
> refreshing although I guess it's fruitless in Rick's case.]

Usenet discussions are not about convincing one's opponent(s);
they're about informing the audience, so the undecided can make
their choice.

(I mean, we do have audience, right? I'm sure we aren't all
killfiled just yet!)

>> Our DNA is 96% the same as a chimp.

> One often hears/reads that. But what exactly does it mean? Genetics
> teaches us that siblings or a mother and her child share 50% of their
> DNA. Does that mean I am genetically closer to a chimp than to my own
> mother? Of course not.

Yes; it means that about 50% comes from one parent, and the rest
from another, while both of parents share about 99% of their
respective DNA by the virtue of belonging to the same species.

> So what do the 96% above refer to? Chromosoms, genes, triplets,
> nukleotides?

Chromosomes are too large; triplets are to small; genes sound
about right. (And speaking of nucleotides does make about as
much sense in this context as a "152.3 byte" file would in the
context of C.)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:20:49 AM UTC-4, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> >>>>> Ralf Goertz <m...@myprovider.invalid> writes:
> >>>>> Am Fri, 25 Aug 2017 04:54:36 -0400 schrieb Rod Pemberton:
>
> > [Your pointing out of the logical flaws in religious beliefs is quite
> > refreshing although I guess it's fruitless in Rick's case.]
>
> Usenet discussions are not about convincing one's opponent(s);
> they're about informing the audience, so the undecided can make
> their choice.

There are no people coming to faith in Jesus Christ who will be
convinced through man's reasoning or arguments. As such, Christians
do not put out information so the undecided can make their choice.
They are teaching people the things of Jesus Christ so that those
who have been changed by Him on the inside will hear the truth in
their teachings, and then come out from their former ways and have
a place to go, and a resource to continue their new thirst for a
deep knowledge of learning God's ways can be had.

Christians are teachers ... at least they're supposed to be. We
still operate in these fallen-in-sin bodies, and it's hard for
many people to separate the flesh-pulls from the spirit-pulls,
so they follow the flesh and not the spirit, and it diminishes
their walk and harms many people.

But those following after God in spirit and in truth will teach
people about His ways, and won't argue, and won't debate, but
will simply teach.

Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin

PS - Look at the complexity of DNA, and this video is a few years
out of date. The author (Don Johnson) continues to educate
others through talks and seminars across the country. If
you are interested in learning more of the newer findings
then please contact him:

"Programming of Life"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

Note: How it operates is so complex it'll boggle your mind.

[Ralf Goertz]

Am Fri, 25 Aug 2017 13:20:44 +0000
schrieb Ivan Shmakov <iv...@siamics.net>:

> Ralf Goertz <m...@myprovider.invalid> writes:


> > One often hears/reads that. But what exactly does it mean?
> > Genetics teaches us that siblings or a mother and her child share
> > 50% of their DNA. Does that mean I am genetically closer to a chimp
> > than to my own mother? Of course not.

> Yes; it means that about 50% comes from one parent, and the rest
> from another, while both of parents share about 99% of their
> respective DNA by the virtue of belonging to the same species.

But that is the point. Then I share 99.5% of my DNA with my mother
which make the 96% a lot less impressive.

>
> > So what do the 96% above refer to? Chromosoms, genes, triplets,
> > nukleotides?
>
> Chromosomes are too large; triplets are to small; genes sound about
> right.

If genes is correct, how can we be sure that a gene in a human codes the
same thing as in a chimp? The latter have 48 genes and humans 46.
Therefore, a one-to-one correspondence is difficult. And the same amino
acid in two different proteins doesn't need to perform the same task in
both places, right?

> (And speaking of nucleotides does make about as much sense in this
> context as a "152.3 byte" file would in the context of C.)

I agree that nucleotides doesn't make much sense since one nucleotide
alone doesn't code anything. But that doesn't necessarily stop people
from having it in mind when they say something like that. There are many
people reiterating the (in my view) nonsensical statement that Einstein
used 20% of his brain capacity whereas we lesser mortals use only 10%
of ours. I would really like to know what 100% refers to in that case.

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Ralf Goertz <m...@myprovider.invalid> writes:

>>>>> Am Fri, 25 Aug 2017 13:20:44 +0000 schrieb Ivan Shmakov:
>>>>> Ralf Goertz <m...@myprovider.invalid> writes:

>>> One often hears/reads that. But what exactly does it mean?
>>> Genetics teaches us that siblings or a mother and her child share
>>> 50% of their DNA. Does that mean I am genetically closer to a
>>> chimp than to my own mother? Of course not.

>> Yes; it means that about 50% comes from one parent, and the rest
>> from another, while both of parents share about 99% of their
>> respective DNA by the virtue of belonging to the same species.

> But that is the point. Then I share 99.5% of my DNA with my mother
> which make the 96% a lot less impressive.

Perhaps. Then again, science is boring.

(In a way.)

For perspective, you may want to compare human DNA to that of
other species, such as dogs, rodents, lizards, fishes, etc. I'm
pretty sure I saw such comparisons, although I won't necessarily
vouch for their veracity.

>>> So what do the 96% above refer to? Chromosomes, genes, triplets,
>>> nucleotides?

>> Chromosomes are too large; triplets are to small; genes sound about
>> right.

> If genes is correct, how can we be sure that a gene in a human codes
> the same thing as in a chimp? The latter have 48 genes

Chromosomes; each comprised of up to about a thousand of
individual genes (AIUI.)

> and humans 46. Therefore, a one-to-one correspondence is difficult.

Basically, you get the whole sequence, and look for
similarities. Or, rather, you let the computer do it for you.

The point is that a specific sequence of triplets is bound to
result in the same protein. And a specific protein nearly
always is bound, by its very design, to serve the same or
similar function. (Such as keratin being the principal
component of human hair and fingernails, and also fur and claws
and hooves of other mammals, etc.)

The good part is that once you've established that locus 13 of
chromosome ChA of species X maps to locus 37 of ChB of Y, it
more or less stays the same across the individual specimens.
(Or so I think.) And for sufficiently close species, nearby
loci in one species tend to correspond to nearby ones in
another.

> And the same amino acid in two different proteins doesn't need to
> perform the same task in both places, right?

Neither is the same function call required to perform the same
"task" in C. But when you see two mostly identical pieces of
code, wouldn't you note the similarity?

>> (And speaking of nucleotides does make about as much sense in this
>> context as a "152.3 byte" file would in the context of C.)

> I agree that nucleotides doesn't make much sense since one nucleotide
> alone doesn't code anything. But that doesn't necessarily stop
> people from having it in mind when they say something like that.
> There are many people reiterating the (in my view) nonsensical
> statement that Einstein used 20% of his brain capacity whereas we
> lesser mortals use only 10% of ours. I would really like to know
> what 100% refers to in that case.

Having a seizure? [1]

[1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NinetyPercentOfYourBrain

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:41:08 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> PS - Look at the complexity of DNA, and this video is a few years
> out of date. The author (Don Johnson) continues to educate
> others through talks and seminars across the country. If
> you are interested in learning more of the newer findings
> then please contact him:
>
> "Programming of Life"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s
>
> Note: How it operates is so complex it'll boggle your mind.

The first time I saw how DNA replicates itself, I knew immediately
it could not have been evolution. In fact, it's such an operation
that I don't think anyone could look at it and say "Oh yeah, that
could just happen from random chance over billions of years."

Have you ever seen how it unzips the double-helix into two strands
and then copies each strand separately? One side does it normally,
and the other has to do it ahead and backward of itself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqESR7E4b_8&t=1m41s

I could never look at that operation and say "natural processes."
There is not only a design there at work, but it of such a truly
incredible design that it's stunning and breathtaking.

And the process of winding and unwinding DNA from the spools it
stores itself into, and all by things designed into the DNA itself,
creating the proteins and subsequent protein structures which feed
into protein machines that do the work.

There is so much information at work there it's impossible to be
anything other than design. And it is of such elegance and sheer
complexity when you view all of life, the wide range of cells and
unique forms for each kind of life that exists, all of it conducted
by this DNA operation ... it's just staggering beyond words.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Here's another video which shows the operation in stages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bjerYxOTbU

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> writes:

>>>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:58:34 -0400 "Rick C. Hodgin" wrote:
>>>>> On 8/24/2017 6:02 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:

>>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 05:35:43 -0400 "Rick C. Hodgin" wrote:

>>> He must've known that our state of sin would result. If he knew of
>>> this result in advance, since he is omniscient, how is this any
>>> different from him actually planning for it to happen to all of us?

Last time I've checked, "knowing about the consequences" and
"being the cause thereof" were actually different things.

>> He did plan for it to happen to us. He made a way out of it before
>> He created the world:

>> 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names
>> are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the
>> foundation of the world.

>> Before the world was created, God had a plan for us for salvation.
>> It was to take us through school, to establish a baseline for our
>> creation, to teach us a lesson we could learn no other way.

> Why does God, who gave you and us life and free will according the
> Bible, need you to worship him? Why does an omnipotent entity need
> to be worshiped at all? Shouldn't an omnipotent entity need nothing
> from no one?

I'm by no means a theologian, and hence unsure whether this goes
in line with the opinion of the Church Fathers, but here's my
take on the issue at hand. It's an indirect answer, though.

Why do we need to worship medics? I mean, when you climb a mountain
and break a leg, why do you have to be taken to one of their shrines?
If they're meant to help, why can't they help you then and there?

Also, why do they need to DRAW YOUR BLOOD for their rituals?
I mean, it's 21st century, man! Surely we're grown civilized enough
to not need such barbaric customs!

Or, alternatively.

We've checked your samples, and we're sorry to inform you that
you've got a disease. More like a hereditary condition, actually.
Yes, it's fatal unless treated. Lifetime treatment it is,
unfortunately. Indeed, we do offer treatment at our offices
worldwide. No, the procedures are much experimental at this point,
but we do plan to publish them within the next few millenia; we also
hope to devise a way to actually cure it at that date.

For now, there's only one doctor able to perform the treatment, and
he's very busy; you see, this condition is quite widespread around
the world. So I'm afraid you'd need to visit one of our offices
regularly to receive the treatment.

Of course, we're not forcing you to accept the treatment; this would
go against medical ethics. Should you agree, however, you can fill
the papers at any of our offices. Or, if the situation is dire
enough, we can send our representative to the closest body of water
near your place. Or, in the most severe cases, to your deathbed.

Thank you for calling. We wish you well.

[...]

>>> If you'd like to learn more about the completely wrong stuff in
>>> the Bible, try this website. It's a website version of an older
>>> text document from the 1990s, but it still archives some of the
>>> more bizarre situations the Bible presents.

>> There are no issues with the Bible. Even God commanding Israel to
>> slay all men, women, children, and animals, in the Old Testament,
>> where it seems superficially to be heinous, you have to remember
>> that all people die, and what God commanded Israel to do was
>> diminish their negative, anti-God influence upon the world, so that
>> their false teaching would not exist in the many generations to
>> come, even out to thousands of years later.

> So, it's acceptable for God to give people permission to murder
> others, but it's unacceptable for humans, whom God gave free will to,
> to chose to murder others on their own using their free will, simply
> because God commanded men to follow the Ten Commandments?

Well, I'm not going to speak for the Church, but here's a
scenario to consider. Suppose you have a few dozens of children
(imagine having a harem if you need to), and you know for sure
that two of them are set in their mind to kill most of the rest.

You live with your family in the wilderness (some sci-fi movies
and shows, set in space or in "post-apocalyptic" Earth, provide
quite detailed picture for the situation, BTW), so there's no
police, army or mental institutions to call for.

Your solution?

It's a different question why God did need the involvement of
his chosen people, instead of going with the "Sodom Solution,"
but we can imagine that the latter would've been too harsh a
punishment for the crimes committed.

> What was the point of having free will again, if we must obey God's
> commands and arbitrary laws, or be punished? That's not exactly free
> will is it? This is not only contradictory, but self-defeating for
> God. Did an omniscient being make a mistake by giving man free will?

(Did you mean "omnipotent" here, BTW?)

Remember that "could God create a stone so heavy that even He
could not lift it?" paradox? Well, some argue that human soul
/is/ such a stone (although St Augustine disagrees), in the
sense that if you do not want God in it, then He won't enter.
Whether that is to be considered a "mistake" is up to debate.

> It's clear that he back tracked away from free will with the Ten
> Commandments. ...

> Man must follow the Ten Commandments or be punished, but God can give
> you permission to violate those same commandments on a whim.

Well, to be honest, those who follow the "Thou shalt not kill"
commandment solely to avoid being punished, or think of it as a
restriction of their free will, make me worry a lot.

[...]

>>>> He doesn't do it as by the mocking of ignorant souls who say that
>>>> such a call is only for fools and weak people. He calls out to
>>>> His creation in strength, in honor, in a restoration of all right
>>>> things.

>>> Apparently, he was the one who mucked us all up with original sin,
>>> as we didn't have sin when he created us, and he knew exactly what
>>> was going to happen to us in advance. He didn't prevent it. He

>>> chose not to. I. e., he chose not to save us.

>> He gave the world Jesus Christ before He created the world.

> Did he? It's rather odd that Jews and Muslims don't believe that,
> but yet, they worship the EXACT SAME God as you.

It happens all the time; Lamarck and Darwin saw the same living
world, yet came to two largely different takes on evolution.

Also, one curious thing I've experienced personally. I remember
once reading a response to my earlier post and finding more or
less a direct insult in it. At which point I decided to take
some time before replying.

When I came back, I found that the other party was actually
thanking me.

So, the word that is said is not necessarily the one which one
will end up hearing.

The Christian take on the issue is that Jews were told of the
coming of Jesus, but failed to see who they expected to be their
literal king, the one to lead them in their war for
independence, in a mere carpenter.

Then, Islam is deemed to be largely inspired by Christianity.
Or, well (that's a huge speculation, and a quote from Wikipedia
as well):

[There's] a remote, supreme Godhead, the Monad. From this highest
divinity emanate lower divine beings, known as Aeons. The Demiurg,
one of those Aeons, creates the physical world. Divine elements
"fall" into the material realm, and are locked within human beings.
This divine element returns to the divine realm when Gnosis,
esoteric or intuitive knowledge of the divine element within is
obtained.

-- this kind of "Christianity." Except that, AIUI, Muhammad
tried to excise much of the complexity.

> Now, how is that possible? If each major religion received the exact
> same Word of God from God,

Huh? Who says that?

> then why the extreme discrepancy? They don't even believe that Jesus
> Christ existed.

Quite the contrary; Jesus is venerated as one of the prophets in
Islam, and at least his existence is acknowledged in Judaism.

> Jesus Christ is not a part of their Word of God. ...

--
FSF associate member #7257 np. En Vie -- Apocalyptica 3013 B6A0 230E 334A

[Rick C. Hodgin]

I hope you realize what the whole concept of evolution actually
means. We look at the complexity-beyond-words involved in the
information contained within our DNA, coupled to the actual
physical construction mechanisms of those encodings in the form
of proteins which then build biological machines which are able
to read and replicate and utilize the information, and to such
a degree of accuracy that a single mistake in a gene sequence
can produce a completely non-viable offspring, or give them a
particular disease (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/disorders/singlegene/),
then you realize that evolution theory basically says that by
tweaking a few genes here and there, a thing is able to evolve
from something it wasn't previously, into the new thing.

Has this ever worked with you in computer code? You take a
large group of fundamental abilities (like assembly instructions
which correlate to DNA gene encodings), and start randomly put-
ting them together until a program works. And then you throw
in some random mutations to that program to try and produce a
better program?

By this standard, we would start out with uncorrelated binary
code, which later produces a reasonably bug-free operating
system, office suite, web browser, communication mechanisms,
and so on.

It simply is not possible.

The information contained within DNA, some of which provides
for up to 12 dimensions of use in our (man's) research so far,
means that a single gene has to work in the equivalent of a
12-way crossword puzzle, and be viable in all 12 uses at the
same time ... a single mistake in that kind of system would
cause the entire thing to topple, and that's what we see in
DNA.

It is not only designed, it is so solidly obviously designed
that it really requires overt blindness and stubbornness to
not see the design, the beauty, the complexity, and in addition
the underlying love of the One who created that design, because
it exists in so many different species on this planet, and each
of them is so beautiful and distinct and, as the Bible says with
regards to us people, "Wonderfully and fearfully made."

-----
There is no evolution. There is no random chance. There is no
universe without God.

God created all things. He created everything within it. He
brought it all into existence. All of creation speaks of a
common designer (things built up from lesser things into more
complex things, in stages, each drawing on that which is below
it, and providing for that which is above it).

When you read the Bible you learn that Jesus Christ is that God.
It is literally by Him and through Him that all things were made.
He is God Almighty, and He stepped down out of Heaven to come
here as a man and live by our laws (His own laws) to save us from
ourselves.

-----
There is only God's design. And it's not even about the design,
but it is exactly about us people.

We are not insignificant, we are significant.
There are no disposable or worthless people, we all have value.
It is not a choice to abort a child, it is an abomination before God.
It is not right to hate anything except sin.
It is right to love all people, even those who do sin.
And we do not have a single enemy who is a person.
All of our enemies are evil spirits operating in this world, and
they are the driving forces behind people doing bad things.

-----
Jesus Christ leads the way out of this muck and mire here in this
sin-filled Earth. He calls out to all people with the words,
"FOLLOW ME!" He knows the right way. He knows the path. He's
willing to lead everybody. All we have to do is trust Him. And
when our science provides so much information about how balanced
this universe is on a razor's edge of mathematical constants and
the physical construction of its physics, and the complexity seen
in DNA and how even the simplest single-cell organism operations...
it's not hard to see.

I could not see it before I was born again. But now that I am
born again, I see it so clearly.

There really is a binary division of people in this world:

(1) Saved
(2) Unsaved

Which category are you in? You can become #1 if you want. Just
ask Jesus to forgive your sin. Ask Him to teach you the truth.
Ask Him to save you from the wretched things you've done which
will cast your soul into Hell. He did this for me, and countless
other people who have done everything imaginable. He can do the
same for you right now.

"Jesus, I need to be forgiven for the things I've done. I don't
want to go to Hell. I want to live on in eternity in Heaven."

Pray that prayer with sincerity, and HE will do the rest.

Love you,
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:37:02 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> There really is a binary division of people in this world:
>
> (1) Saved
> (2) Unsaved
>
> Which category are you in? You can become #1 if you want. Just
> ask Jesus to forgive your sin. Ask Him to teach you the truth.
> Ask Him to save you from the wretched things you've done which
> will cast your soul into Hell. He did this for me, and countless
> other people who have done everything imaginable. He can do the
> same for you right now.
>
> "Jesus, I need to be forgiven for the things I've done. I don't
> want to go to Hell. I want to live on in eternity in Heaven."
>
> Pray that prayer with sincerity, and HE will do the rest.

Here is an explanation of this from someone who is not me (begins
at 28:22):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LCyDGuA8QI&t=28m22s

You can hear how he got saved in a drunken stupor where he slurred
his speech on the prayer, even passed out while praying. He did
not want to go to Hell and even in his stoned drunkenness he had
enough sense to cry out to Jesus and ask forgiveness (at 31:10):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LCyDGuA8QI&t=31m10s

I love you enough to teach you the truth. I love you enough to
teach you there is only one way to Heaven. I love you enough to
teach you that you will go to Hell for all eternity, which is in
the lake of fire that never ends, unless you ask Jesus to forgive
your sin.

I don't do this for nothing. I do it for you, and you are most
amazingly something.

Ask Jesus to forgive your sin, and gain eternal life today.

[Daniel]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:35:13 AM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
> Why does God, who gave you and us life and free will according the
> Bible, need you to worship him? Why does an omnipotent entity need to
> be worshiped at all?

Precisely. It makes no sense.

> Shouldn't an omnipotent entity need nothing from no one?

No, an omnipotent entity would need entertainment, you'd get pretty bummed
out if you had to spend eternity without something like a television. Which
means that Rick ought to focus on being interesting, or that omnipotent
entity might just turn him off.

Daniel

[Rod Pemberton]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 18:12:43 +0000
Ivan Shmakov <iv...@siamics.net> wrote:

> > Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> writes:

> > What was the point of having free will again, if we must obey God's
> > commands and arbitrary laws, or be punished? That's not exactly
> > free will is it? This is not only contradictory, but
> > self-defeating for God. Did an omniscient being make a mistake by
> > giving man free will?
>
> (Did you mean "omnipotent" here, BTW?)
>

No.

I meant God as all knowing (omniscient) entity should've known that
giving man free will was a mistake in advance of him doing so. I.e.,
otherwise, he's not all knowing. I was implying that maybe God isn't an
all knowing (omniscient) entity since God back-tracked and ordered man
to not engage in certain acts of free will, e.g., by giving man the Ten
Commandments.

Once you claim that God is all powerful (omnipotent), all knowing
(omniscient), and everywhere at once (omnipresent), you can basically
disprove anything about God being a god, because he violates all three
of these under numerous circumstances. The only way for God to comply
with all three is if God is the Universe itself.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 14:50:17 +0200
Ralf Goertz <m...@myprovider.invalid> wrote:

> Am Fri, 25 Aug 2017 04:54:36 -0400
> schrieb Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem>:
>

> [Your pointing out of the logical flaws in religious beliefs is quite
> refreshing although I guess it's fruitless in Rick's case.]

:-) I know.

From Hinduism, "Satyannasti Parodharmati," meaning, "There is no
religion greater than Truth."

Rick's not the first stubbornly religious individual I've met in my
life. I just want Rick to actually /THINK/ deeply about some of these
things he says, not just accept them because it's part of his Faith.

Normally, that which people don't believe to be true but tell to
others anyway, is called a lie. But, Christians (probably Muslims and
Jews too) repeat many things from the Bible they can't comprehend or
don't believe or can't know for sure as being true. I.e., they lie, on
behalf of God, in order to spread the Word of God, because they
believe the Word of God is the truth. They call it taking it on Faith,
not lying.

Rick's a computer programmer which requires an infinite amount of logic
and reason. That means an innate ability to accept facts and truth as
it comes, not what you may wish it to be, nor what you believe. Yet, he
accepts Christianity on Faith, without using his ability to think about
what it truly says or means. Clearly, much of what it says is not
valid in the present. He's thrown all logic and reason out the window
in regards to Christianity. I don't fault a man who accepts God but
who also understands that religion is man made. I fault a man with
willful blindness, i.e., one who refuses to think about what he
believes in and refuses to reject the non-sense. I.e., I see Rick as
being in the dark, unwilling to accept the Truth. He rejects any truth
contradictory to his belief.

> > Our DNA is 96% the same as a chimp.
>
> One often hears/reads that. But what exactly does it mean? Genetics
> teaches us that siblings or a mother and her child share 50% of their
> DNA. Does that mean I am genetically closer to a chimp than to my own
> mother? Of course not.

The chimp is also only 50% of his mother. So, in totality, yes,
because you have two parents, as does the chimp.

In the next post, I. Shmakov said:

> (I mean, we do have audience, right? I'm sure we aren't all
> killfiled just yet!)

I never filter anyone. You can't follow the conversation, if you do.
While most people are 4%/96% troll/normal, many other people are
50%/50% troll/normal, maybe 70%/30% on c.l.c. Rick is a 50%/50% ...


Rod Pemberton
--

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> writes:

>>>>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 18:12:43 +0000 Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>> Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> writes:

I'm cross-posting this to news:alt.religion.christianity, as
suggested by Richard Heathfield (news:onpsfd$k26$1...@dont-email.me.)
Please consider dropping the no longer (well, kind of) relevant
Newsgroups: when following-up.

(Let's see if this approach leads anywhere.)

>>> What was the point of having free will again, if we must obey God's
>>> commands and arbitrary laws, or be punished? That's not exactly
>>> free will is it? This is not only contradictory, but
>>> self-defeating for God. Did an omniscient being make a mistake by
>>> giving man free will?

>> (Did you mean "omnipotent" here, BTW?)

> No.

> I meant God as all knowing (omniscient) entity should've known

ACK; I understand this far.

> that giving man free will was a mistake in advance of him doing so.

> I. e., otherwise, he's not all knowing. I was implying that maybe

> God isn't an all knowing (omniscient) entity since God back-tracked

> and ordered man to not engage in certain acts of free will, e. g., by

> giving man the Ten Commandments.

Actually, you imply here that God /may/ be not omniscient /and/
that "free will" might have been a mistake. (Or at least
considered as such.) Is there any evidence for the latter?

Also, there's a technicality: the Ten Commandments were given as
part of the "contract" between God and His Chosen People; they
had no bearing on the humanity at large at that point.

You may want to refer to the Seven Laws of Noah instead.
However, note that these are also part of a "public offer" of a
kind: you obey them in order to secure a place for yourself in
the /world to come/ once this world ends. If you desire no such
/reward,/ there's no strict requirement to comply with them.

Finally, were God to decide to take back "free will," He
presumably would have just made it impossible to even think of
violating the whatever laws He'd deem important.

> Once you claim that God is all powerful (omnipotent), all knowing
> (omniscient), and everywhere at once (omnipresent), you can basically
> disprove anything about God being a god, because he violates all
> three of these under numerous circumstances.

Namely?

Then again, /able/ and /willing/ are two different things, are
they not? Or do you also imply at least /benevolence/ here?

> The only way for God to comply with all three is if God is the
> Universe itself.

As far as I can tell, the Christian view is that God exists
outside this Universe. (Apart from those few decades some
20 centuries ago.)

As such, it's debatable if even our understanding of space and
time itself is of any import to the discussions regarding God.

--
FSF associate member #7257 np. Constellations -- Resonantwaves B6A0 230E 334A

[Richard Heathfield]

On 26/08/17 13:12, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>>> Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> writes:
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 18:12:43 +0000 Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>>> Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> writes:
>
> I'm cross-posting this to news:alt.religion.christianity, as
> suggested by Richard Heathfield (news:onpsfd$k26$1...@dont-email.me.)
> Please consider dropping the no longer (well, kind of) relevant
> Newsgroups: when following-up.

Followup-To: set to a.r.c - please subscribe to that group rather than
continue with the cross-posting.

> (Let's see if this approach leads anywhere.)

You'd be better off starting a new thread in a.r.c., since this one is
far too messy now. It's also excessively cross-posted.

The theological questions being raised are quite trivial in nature and
easily addressed - but not in programming language and operating system
newsgroups!

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Mr Flibble]

On 26/08/2017 14:12, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 26/08/17 13:12, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>>>> Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> writes:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 18:12:43 +0000 Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>>>> Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> writes:
>>
>>     I'm cross-posting this to news:alt.religion.christianity, as
>>     suggested by Richard Heathfield (news:onpsfd$k26$1...@dont-email.me.)
>>     Please consider dropping the no longer (well, kind of) relevant
>>     Newsgroups: when following-up.
>
> Followup-To: set to a.r.c - please subscribe to that group rather than
> continue with the cross-posting.
>
>>     (Let's see if this approach leads anywhere.)
>
> You'd be better off starting a new thread in a.r.c., since this one is
> far too messy now. It's also excessively cross-posted.
>
> The theological questions being raised are quite trivial in nature and
> easily addressed - but not in programming language and operating system
> newsgroups!

Making the followup-to alt.religion.christianity will make no difference
to the fucktard Rick C. Hodgin because he knows nobody subscribes to
that newsgroup and he like to post his off topic "God" nonsense posts to
technical newsgroups such as this one.

/Flibble

[Ben Bacarisse]

Ivan Shmakov <iv...@siamics.net> writes:

>>>>>> Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> writes:
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 18:12:43 +0000 Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>>> Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> writes:
>
> I'm cross-posting this to news:alt.religion.christianity, as
> suggested by Richard Heathfield
> (news:onpsfd$k26$1...@dont-email.me.)

RH did *not* suggest cross-posting to a.r.c!! Too late now, though.
What you've done is invite a whole lot more off-topic posters here.

> Please consider dropping the no longer (well, kind of) relevant
> Newsgroups: when following-up.

Even some quite technical posters don't know to do that, and many who do
won't bother doing it. Your best options would have been:

(1) Start a new thread in the target group summarising the arguments so
far. This has the up or down side (it's a matter of debate) of not
drawing the existing participant into the thread.

(2) Post a reply to the message only to the groups where it is
on-topic. By being a reply, readers (with good news readers) can go up
the thread to see the history of they want to.

(3) Post your reply to the existing groups setting Followup-To:
alt.religion.christianity yourself.

This last is the technically correct way to move a thread, but it was
devised in an era when most readers used decent software and
"technically correct" trumped "sociologically effective". Lots of
people will either not know how to respect that header or will think it
imperative that everyone *must* hear they simply devastatingly clever
reply and so won't honour it.

--
Ben.

[Chris Vine]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 05:19:20 -0400
Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> wrote:
> Rick's not the first stubbornly religious individual I've met in my
> life. I just want Rick to actually /THINK/ deeply about some of these
> things he says, not just accept them because it's part of his Faith.

I just want you to shut up and stop posting off topic crap on this
newsgroup.

Even if you are not a religious obsessive (and you may well be), your
postings encourage those who are. Your postings also shows a rank
disregard for the readers of this newsgroup. If you want to encourage
others to think, please do it elsewhere. For example, instead of
engaging in an ego trip on this newsgroup, send your intended recipient
an email, since he has been good enough to provide his address.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Each of you has Christian friends, or live somewhere with access
to Christian churches.

Go to those people and ask them explicitly this:

"Is there anyone here who is truly born again?"

And then go to that person / those people and ask them to teach you
personally these things I'm teaching you. Go to them and ask them
questions interactively and find out from their own mouths, and their
own unique experiences and backgrounds this information I'm teaching
you.

Do not rely upon me or my advice. I give a single testimony, which
in and of itself is not to be trusted. But if you go to more than
just me, and go to two or three or five or 30 people, and they all
reveal to you the same general teaching and explanation about what
happened to them ... then you must take it more seriously.

-----
I urge each of you, with everything within me, go and see for your-
self. Go and see if these things I've been teaching you are the
truth or not. Go and see the lives changed by the born again nature
which comes when you ask forgiveness for your sin.

You'll feel a weight come off you like you've been paroled from
prison or something. It will be the most amazing change in your
life, and God and His angels will be with you from that time for-
ward, but the enemy will also show up and try to derail your walk.
A lot of born again people go through the immediate change and
everything in their lives is undone and submitted to God, and they
change top-to-bottom very quickly, but then the enemy comes and
begins to exert influence into their flesh again, trying to take
their eyes off a focus on the spirit, and put it on the flesh.

Satan can only operate against your flesh by using his spiritual
input and tempting. He cannot operate against you in spirit, so
if you will stay focused on God in spirit and in truth, and read
and study the Bible (for the words Jesus gave us ARE spirit and
truth), then will you be on the right path, and you will be
prosperous in service to His Kingdom.

-----
Go and see from other sources who identify as being born again
their testimony. Examine also their life to make sure their
behavior aligns with someone who is a born again person. If you
examine the fruit of their life you will know if they are legit,
or a pretender. Pretenders can appear holy for a time, but there
will be signs which reveal their true nature. And legitimately
born again individuals will seek holiness continually, even if
they occasionally do something which is not in line with what
they want to do in their life's focus, but you will see that
person quickly regroup, apologize, repent, and re-double their
future efforts so as to not make that mistake again. You will
see within them genuine remorse, and feelings of guilt to the
point of weeping over what they did.

These things bear evidence of the born again nature, along with
major changes in a person's life.

-----
Go and seek from others. Ask them. Interview them. Question
them. Demand from them to know the truth about the change that
occurred within them. And then in your quite solitude, ask God
to reveal the truth to you.

BEAR IN MIND THIS EXACT FACT: I am ONLY asking you to seek the
truth. When you are in your quiet solitude, even be willing to
question God over this: "God, I do not know if you are real or
not, or if Christianity is real or not, or if Jesus lived as my
savior or not, but what I do want to know is the truth. I want
to not be deceived by any enemy which may exist, but I want to
know the full truth. This is my sincere desire."

If you can get to that place for real, then God will know this and
He will do the rest in your life. And I should also warn you: You
will never be the same again. When a person asks forgiveness for
real from Jesus Christ, the spirit nature asserts itself and you
are literally forever a completely new creation in Christ. You will
be amazed at the change. Daily.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Do you all realize why I post these things?

I'm trying to teach you the path to eternal life. I'm trying to
teach you that there's an active enemy, conscious and alive, at
work in this world examining you in your life, adapting his attack
strategy to try and keep you from coming to that knowledge of the
path to eternal life.

I'm trying to teach you that you are more than this flesh, and that
our lives go on after we leave this world, and there are only two
destinations: (1) Heaven, (2) Hell fire.

I want you all to be in Heaven, but unless you come to Jesus and
ask forgiveness for your sin YOU WILL WIND UP in Hell fire.

-----
My sole intention is your soul in eternity. I want you to enter
eternity alive and thriving and shining and free from the limits
of this flesh-based sinful material-world existence, and to be a
part of God's Kingdom, even having fellowship with God Almighty,
the one true God, the sole Creator of all things, face-to-face.

These are God's revelations through the Bible about our relationship
with Him, that He makes possible for us through His Son. He teaches
that all who come to Him will not be cast away, but that all who do
come to Him seeking the truth will be saved.

-----
Seek the truth. Ask Jesus to forgive your sin and you will today,
this very moment, pass from death to life in eternity, and you will
see the change manifest in your life ... in most unexpected ways.

And again I reiterate: DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT!!! Go and seek
and ask other people who are born again. Find out from them the
truth. Ask them questions. Question them fully. Examine their
responses with scrutiny. Leave no stone unturned in your pursuit
of the truth!

Do this ... and God will do the rest, because He loves you and He
wants to save you. It's why He sends men and women like me into
your lives ... so you can have a chance to hear the gospel message
(the word "gospel" means "good news" by the way).

[Mr Flibble]

On 26/08/2017 19:34, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Do you all realize why I post these things?
>
> I'm trying to teach you the path to eternal life.

"Teach" is the wrong word: you are preaching not teaching and preaching
and teaching are not the same thing.

Now fuck off you egregious cunt.

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 4:54:16 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 26/08/2017 19:34, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > Do you all realize why I post these things?
> >
> > I'm trying to teach you the path to eternal life.
>
> "Teach" is the wrong word: you are preaching not teaching and
> preaching and teaching are not the same thing.

Agreed. Preaching and teaching are not the same thing.

I am teaching you the path to eternal life (asking Jesus to forgive
your sin). This teaching happens to be the same material you would
hear in a Bible-believing Christian church. Still, I am not preaching.
I am teaching. I am willing to entertain questions, and correct the
mistakes made by people who reply in error.

It is not preaching. It is teaching. And they are different.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 14:52:22 +0100
Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> wrote:

> Making the followup-to alt.religion.christianity will make no
> difference to the fucktard Rick C. Hodgin because he knows nobody
> subscribes to that newsgroup and he like to post his off topic "God"
> nonsense posts to technical newsgroups such as this one.
>

While that is true, no one (not Flibble, not Vine, not Heathfield, not
Schmakov) apparently noticed that Rick /DID/ mark this thread off-topic
(OT) as "required" by Usenet etiquette. (These are not Google
Groups.) None of you had to read it once you saw the OT. None of
you should of read it once you saw the OT. None of you had to respond
to it once you saw it. All of you could've filtered out the entire
thread by filtering for "OT" in your newsreader.

Rick is a good guy, as long as he stays off religion.

I also take issue with all of you attacking me for replying, when some
of you also did so too, when you should've taken issue with Rick, if
anyone, early on in the thread, instead of waiting, then attacking me
later on. That was low and dirty. So, put the blame where it belongs,
where it originated. That was with Rick. So, just as Healthfield has
stepped to a brand new low by stealing the trademark insult of a dead
c.l.c. regular CBFalconer, I also do so to all of you who so wrongly
attacked me for conversing with Rick in a thread so /clearly/ marked as
off-topic:

**PLONK**

[krister alm]

"Jesus died for your sins"
Except he didn't actually STAY died.
So what did he sacrifice?
His weekend?

Jesus gave up his weekend for your sin.

Strange how you can believe in Jesus and God but not Santa Clause, tooth fairy and all other fairy-tales.

Time to boot up your own brain and use it for actual thinking.

[Mr Flibble]

If you were teaching us we would be learning something and yet we already
know everything you preach to us to be false so it seems that it is you
that needs to learn something.

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 10:43:33 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is not preaching. It is teaching. And they are different.
>

> If you were teaching us we would be learning something...

Why don't you learn from my teachings, Leigh?

"tl;dr"

The truth passes you by because you flatly deny it. That is
why you don't learn. You won't even give truth the time of
day, so you fail to learn not because His teaching isn't there,
but because you aren't there.

I've given you demonstration that Jesus was a man of history,
He was called Christ 2000 years ago, and that archaeologists
have found many things in the last 100+ years which have
confirmed the thing stated in the Bible. You refused to hear
them.

I've given you demonstration regarding the complexity of DNA,
and that it is so complex it could not possibly have come about
through evolutionary processes. You refused to hear them.

You do not show up to class, Leigh. It's why you don't learn.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 3:52:08 AM UTC-4, krister alm wrote:
> "Jesus died for your sins"
> Except he didn't actually STAY died.
> So what did he sacrifice?
> His weekend?
>
> Jesus gave up his weekend for your sin.

We're going to find out once we leave this world and are able to
see and understand what He went through to pay the price of our
sin. We learn from the Bible that at the cross our sin was transferred
to Him, but that He later commended His Spirit unto the Father. We are
also taught that when Jesus gave up the Ghost He let out a loud cry.

I believe that gives us a hint of the real torment and agony that He
went through to pay the price of our sin after having died bearing it
all.

Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord, and all to the glory of God the Father. I believe this will
be a willing bowing of the knee, because even those who denied Jesus
here on this Earth will then see with their own eyes what it was He
endured to save us from sin.

I think it will prompt within them such reverence and respect that
they could do no other than bow down before Him, weeping and gnashing
their teeth that they did not come to a God who would endure such as
that which He endured to save us.

> Strange how you can believe in Jesus and God but not Santa Clause,
> tooth fairy and all other fairy-tales.

It's because Jesus is not a fairy tale.

> Time to boot up your own brain and use it for actual thinking.

There are two aspects to our existence. The one we're born with,
which is our flesh-based reasoning mind. But there is also spirit.
The spirit is what we are given when we come to Jesus and ask Him
to forgive our sin. That spiritual input gives us the ability to
know and discern things our flesh cannot.

It is from within that spiritual input that born again Christians
operate, which is why it seems like sheer foolishness to those who
are not yet born again.

The way to be born again is to acknowledge you are a sinner, and
to go to Jesus and ask forgiveness for your sin. If you do this
with sincerity, as a real inner driving need, then you will be
saved, and you will be born again in that selfsame instant, and
it will change your life forever.

It's why the song Amazing Grace has these words:

I once was lost, but now am found.
Was blind, but now I see.

You can't see the truth about God's Kingdom until you have those
new eyes to see (John 6:44), and that's something only God can
do for you. But for all who are born again, they will see the
Kingdom of Heaven through that spiritual change, and they will
then make decisions from the new things that new source of input
allows them to know.

All who come to faith in Christ will see the change, and will
move from the "That doesn't make any sense, Rick" camp, to the
"Ah yes! I see it now. It's so obvious!" camp.

[David Brown]

On 27/08/17 09:31, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 14:52:22 +0100
> Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Making the followup-to alt.religion.christianity will make no
>> difference to the fucktard Rick C. Hodgin because he knows nobody
>> subscribes to that newsgroup and he like to post his off topic "God"
>> nonsense posts to technical newsgroups such as this one.
>>
>
> While that is true, no one (not Flibble, not Vine, not Heathfield, not
> Schmakov) apparently noticed that Rick /DID/ mark this thread off-topic
> (OT) as "required" by Usenet etiquette. (These are not Google
> Groups.) None of you had to read it once you saw the OT. None of
> you should of read it once you saw the OT. None of you had to respond
> to it once you saw it. All of you could've filtered out the entire
> thread by filtering for "OT" in your newsreader.

I have a few points for you here, Rod, that might help you see where
people are coming from here.

First, you don't post with a valid email address - I would have emailed
if you had. Sometimes email is a better medium than a public newsgroup,
and it is why many regulars in c.l.c and c.l.c++ use valid addresses.
(That includes Rick, and Richard, and with a small obvious fix, Chris
and Mr. Flibble. I haven't checked everyone in this thread.)

Certainly marking a topic OT is better than having an unmarked off-topic
thread. However, merely marking it OT does /not/ make it appropriate
for a given newsgroup. That depends on the newsgroup and the
preferences of the people that make up that group. In some groups, like
sci.electronics.design, on-topic threads are by far the minority
compared to politics and other topics. In c.l.c. in particular, the
regulars are very keen to stay on topic, and there are many who strongly
dislike OT threads. In particular, there is massive dislike for the
religious threads which Rick regularly starts.

When you come from the outside, I can well appreciate that you don't
know this about c.l.c. - that group is fussier than many other groups in
this respect. Personally, I think it is healthy for a newsgroup to have
a small proportion of OT threads - as long as it is possible to keep
them to a small proportion. However, that possibility has been ruined
in c.l.c., by Rick and his incessant religious posts. There are several
regulars in c.l.c., including me, who enjoy a good discussion in such OT
threads - but decline to take part (except for the occasional post on
topicality, which is always on topic) from respect for the group
preferences.

And I also agree with you that people who are bothered by threads like
this should learn to use the "ignore thread" button on their newsreader.
It is not hard. However, I also fully appreciate that they want a
newsgroup where they don't have to actively ignore a substantial part of
the traffic.

>
> Rick is a good guy, as long as he stays off religion.

I try hard to hold that attitude, but Rick makes it impossible. I would
prefer to be able to discuss technical posts with him like anyone else
and ignore his off-topic posts. But Rick simply does not see it that
way - he sees his religious posts as being of paramount importance, and
cannot separate them from his technical posts. Even when he does make
purely technical posts, he is heavily influenced by his fanaticism (for
example, he won't read the advice or suggestions I give him in technical
matters, because he believes I am possessed by the devil). And you will
notice that he does not discuss religious matters either - he
pontificates, links to youtube videos, and regurgitates the same set
answers repeatedly. You will not succeed in making him think - I have
tried and failed too.

>
> I also take issue with all of you attacking me for replying, when some
> of you also did so too, when you should've taken issue with Rick, if
> anyone, early on in the thread, instead of waiting, then attacking me
> later on. That was low and dirty. So, put the blame where it belongs,
> where it originated. That was with Rick. So, just as Healthfield has
> stepped to a brand new low by stealing the trademark insult of a dead
> c.l.c. regular CBFalconer, I also do so to all of you who so wrongly
> attacked me for conversing with Rick in a thread so /clearly/ marked as
> off-topic:
>
> **PLONK**
>

People in c.l.c. know there is no point in trying to reason with Rick
about his religious posts - it is a complete waste of time, and results
in more meaningless noise. Sometimes it is worth trying to make other
people understand the effect of their posts - it may lead to a change of
behaviour. Thus in any thread where people are responding to Rick and
encouraging threads like this, it is the other people who are asked to stop.

I am deliberately not taking sides or judging here, or trying to say who
acted badly, or who is at fault - or even what faults might have been
committed. I am just trying to give you some background and other
points of view.

I'd also suggest that if you are interested in technical discussions on
c.l.c., you might have "plonked" some useful contributors here.

[wolfgang kern]

David Brown replied to Rod Pemberton:
...
(I'm a long term AOD reader/poster)

I know Rick since several decades, and he once was a logical oriented
low level coder with a lot of knowledge about CPU internals.

But meanwhile something happened in his private life which made him
more than mad and a fanantic religious nerd.

I'm really sorry for I had to ban all his posts for not seeing this
sad change at all. And he doesn't listen anymore to former friends.
So I can't see his posts, but I see all your replies to it.
__
wolfgang

[Mr Flibble]

My analysis tells me that you have absolutely nothing to teach me
WHATSOEVER about ANYTHING.

You could be an interesting research project into how obtuse it is
possible for a Hominidae of average intelligence can possibly be. The
only value of the vomit you spew on Usenet could be input data for a
deliberately annoying Christ bot.

/Flibble

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 8/24/2017 5:20 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
[...]
> To expand upon this, look at the entirety of creation.  Everything
> is built up from things below.  We have foundational sub-atomic
> particles, which build up to components of atoms, which build up
> to atoms, which build up to molecules, which build up to structures,
> which build up to assemblies / machines, which build up to factories
> of all kinds (biological, mechanical, industrial), which build up
> to provide grander constructs.

Humm... Sounds a bit fractal in nature to me. ;^)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:37:41 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> People are unaware of the influences in their life because they
> only know the flesh. They think everything they feel is only their
> own thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc. THAT IS NOT TRUE. There
> are real evil spirits pumping their evil agendas and goals into
> people's flesh-based mind, filling them with contrary ideas,
> thoughts, feelings, THAT ARE NOT THEIR OWN! And all of them are
> designed from inception to do harm to the person, and others.

Why can't some people stop doing the thing they don't want to do?
They can't stop taking drugs. They can't stop having an affair
with so-and-so. They can't stop drinking alcohol. They can't
stop abusing their children.

We see cases like road rage. A person is driving along, and gets
so caught up in their emotions while driving they do some reckless
thing to another driver, only to wonder afterward how on Earth it
even happened?

These are all evidences of the influence of some other force than
the person alone at work in their lives. It is easy to say it's
just some chemical imbalance in the brain, or there are these
physical or physiological reasons for X, Y, or Z to happen. That
is a side-effect of the root cause. Those markers may be there,
but what caused them to be there in the first place? Science
would teach us it's some as-of-yet-unknown thing that we will
someday nail down, but it is not. It is the presence of an evil
spirit at work, doing something to that person to cause them to
have those feelings in their flesh, which makes them extremely
susceptible to their influence.

THIS IS A WAR THAT'S ON, PEOPLE! There are human souls, eternal
souls, at stake. And the enemy is attacking everybody. God has
given us a way out, and He's made the knowledge of that way out
freely available to everyone. And even when it's in the church
or churches in every town, or through content easily accessible
on the Internet, and even when He sends men and women like me out
to teach people the truth about their sin state and Hell and the
very real salvation offered by Jesus Christ ... still they won't
believe because the influence of sin is that powerful in a person's
life.

Do you remember that line from the movie The Matrix? When Morpheus
is there explaining to Neo about the Matrix. "It's all around you.
Even in this room. You can feel it when you ... or when you pay
your taxes" [I can't remember the exact line, but that's generally
it]. He said, "It is the world pulled over your eyes to blind you
from the truth..."

We do not live in The Matrix. But that is something you can relate
to in understanding what is going on here. There are evil spirits
at work EVERYWHERE in this world. They have influenced our cultures,
our clothing styles, our manner of speech, EVERYTHING. They are
active in our lives attacking us, active in our lives harming us,
and there is no escape from those attacks by everyone. We are
literally born into it. When we enter this world we are already
dead in sin. We have no spiritual life. We are just this flesh,
and the Bible records that evil spirits can enter in and attack
even children (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+9%3A21).

I AM TEACHING YOU THE WAY OUT FROM THAT WAR. THE ONLY WAY GOD ALMIGHTY
HAS GIVEN US TO BE SET FREE FROM DEATH. I AM TEACHING YOU THAT VERY
THING THAT HE FIRST TAUGHT ME, AND HAS REINFORCED IN MY LIFE CONTINUALLY
SINCE THAT DAY.

> It is there, from within that area total blindness to their influence
> because of sin and our spiritual death through sin, that Satan and his
> many demon imps OWN YOU. They gain access to your life, and cause you,
> as a person, as a flesh-based body in this world, to move as they guide
> you. They've been watching you your whole life, studying you, tempting
> you, testing you, seeing what you will respond by, and they attack you
> where you're weakest and wiggle their way in to your life there.
>
> It's why you MUST BE BORN AGAIN to be saved. Only then are you alive
> and able to discern the matters of the spirit, and see the guidance of
> God as true, and the guidance of demons as evil.

I can only teach you the truth. I can only show you the way to go
and learn more than my writings. I can only plead with you and pray
for you and desire earnestly within my heart that you will listen
and be saved. And it is it to my great sadness, yet my ongoing hope,
that I continue on trying to reach each of you.

You are valuable people. You are amazing and astounding and brilliant
and in all ways desirous as the most incredible creation of God He
ever made. But unless you repent of your sin, YOU WILL BE CAST INTO
HELL FIRE FOREVER. And it is that I would save you from by teaching
you that thing HE first taught me.

I love you, and I need you. We all need each other. Please hear
these words.

In hope,
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

On 28/08/2017 14:50, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

[snip: tl;dr]

> We do not live in The Matrix.

How do you know we do not live in The Matrix? It is no more unlikely
than the alternative bullshit you keep preaching inappropriately to
technical Usenet newsgroups. There is no less evidence for us living in
The Matrix than for us living in the reality you propose.

Interestingly base reality might actually be a mathematical structure
infinite in complexity and scale and human beings are simply self aware
mathematical sub-structures existing in a simulated universe; see:
"Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH)":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

A Muslim once told me that reality being mathematics is not incompatible
with his religion and the Qur'an.

If MUH is true it is likely that our simulated universe isn't first
class (i.e. it exists within another simulated universe) and it is also
likely that simulated gods exist as simulated "supernatural" powers are
likely to be evolutionary advantageous traits.

MUH being true does not favour the Abrahamic god existing (or Christ) as
described in the bible as there is "physical" evidence to the contrary.

[snip: tl;dr]

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:13:46 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> ...[snip: tl;dr]...

Leigh, you've tried thinking things through. It's gotten you to the
place in your life where you reject God summarily, use profanity, and
even all manner of extreme vulgar profanity, berating your fellow man
in grand fashion for posting words you disagree with...

Try Jesus.

He will boggle your mind beyond anything you've ever encountered
before (if you get a handle on who He is). You should read this
writing Napoleon wrote about Him. It's really quite an amazing
writing:

http://biblehub.com/library/schaff/the_person_of_christ/napoleon_bonaparte.htm

BTW, how did you ever learn anything if everything is tl;dr for
you? Or is it just those things which would lead you to faith,
Leigh? Is it just those things that would lead you out of your
current darkness, ruled by your current evil spirit masters, that
you then conclude, "Oh man! That's just too much for me to read?"

How sad if true.

[Richard]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

When will you all realize that putting "[OT]" in the topic doesn't
excuse you from spamming up the newsgroup with unrelated stuff?

You're still being annoying.

We have newsgroup charters for a reason.

</get off my lawn>
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[Mr Flibble]

On 28/08/2017 17:04, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 10:13:46 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> ...[snip: tl;dr]...
>
> Leigh, you've tried thinking things through. It's gotten you to the
> place in your life where you reject God summarily, use profanity, and
> even all manner of extreme vulgar profanity, berating your fellow man
> in grand fashion for posting words you disagree with...

Correct, I am happy with this state of affairs.

>
> Try Jesus.

Jesus doesn't exist: I have taught you this fact and yet you keep
forgetting it.

[snip; tl;dr]

> BTW, how did you ever learn anything if everything is tl;dr for
> you? Or is it just those things which would lead you to faith,

I only tl;dr the crap you post to this newsgroup Rick; I have seen and
heard it all before and you have nothing new to say.

[snip]

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 12:27:22 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 28/08/2017 17:04, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > Try Jesus.
>
> Jesus doesn't exist: I have taught you this fact and yet you keep
> forgetting it.

You missed it, Leigh. I gave you secular historical proof that Jesus
existed, and was called Christ, and was sentenced under Pontius Pilate:

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/incarnation/jesus-did-not-exist/

-----[ Begin ]-----

Josephus (AD 37–c.100, Jewish military leader and historian): ...
his account of the execution of James is generally accepted, and he
mentioned James, “the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.”

Tacitus (AD 56–120, great Roman historian): Reported that after
rumors spread about Nero burning Rome, Nero needed scapegoats for
the crime and chose “Christians, [who were] hated for their
abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the
reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius
Pilate.”

Pliny the Younger (AD 61–c.112, Roman senator): Wrote to Emperor
Trajan about his experience with Christians.

-----[ End ]-----

These are secular sources which identify Jesus by name, place Him
in a Biblical context (James' brother -- see
http://biblehub.com/galatians/1-19.htm), and identify Him as Christ,
sentenced to death under Pontius Pilate (see
http://biblehub.com/luke/23-24.htm).

-----
I have also shown you proof about DNA being too complex and too
intricately woven to be produced by evolution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bjerYxOTbU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPkBEYsG6EQ

-----
I know it's hard to accept you've been lied to by the world and
all its teachings. But pursuing the truth is better than continuing
to believe the lie. And in this case, pursuing the truth leads to
eternal life for you personally.

[Mr Flibble]

On 28/08/2017 17:45, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 12:27:22 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 28/08/2017 17:04, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> Try Jesus.
>>
>> Jesus doesn't exist: I have taught you this fact and yet you keep
>> forgetting it.
>
> You missed it, Leigh. I gave you secular historical proof that Jesus
> existed, and was called Christ, and was sentenced under Pontius Pilate:

No you didn't.

>
> https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/incarnation/jesus-did-not-exist/
>
> -----[ Begin ]-----
>
> Josephus (AD 37–c.100, Jewish military leader and historian): ...
> his account of the execution of James is generally accepted, and he
> mentioned James, “the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.”
>
> Tacitus (AD 56–120, great Roman historian): Reported that after
> rumors spread about Nero burning Rome, Nero needed scapegoats for
> the crime and chose “Christians, [who were] hated for their
> abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the
> reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius
> Pilate.”
>
> Pliny the Younger (AD 61–c.112, Roman senator): Wrote to Emperor
> Trajan about his experience with Christians.

I am well aware of the existence of these so called "sources" (as I said
you have nothing new to say) and none of them provide proof that Jesus
Christ existed.

[snip]

> I know it's hard to accept you've been lied to by the world and
> all its teachings. But pursuing the truth is better than continuing
> to believe the lie. And in this case, pursuing the truth leads to
> eternal life for you personally.

The truth is that I am correct and you are incorrect. The truth is that
you cannot accept reality and that you are probably mentally ill.

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 1:17:12 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> [snip]

I think you and I could be great friends, Leigh, if it wasn't for
this barrier between us.

[Mr Flibble]

On 28/08/2017 18:36, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 1:17:12 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> [snip]
>
> I think you and I could be great friends, Leigh, if it wasn't for
> this barrier between us.

We could only be friends if you promised never to bring up the subject
of anything even remotely theistic in nature which I suspect would be an
impossibility.

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Or, we could also be friends if you were to become born again as I
did in 2004. Then we would be on the same page.

I didn't think it was possible either, Leigh. I was wrong, just as
you are. I was saved, just as you can be saved. I am not special
or in any way different than (other people apart from the obvious
fact that we're all unique), but I needed a savior, just as you do.
I have sin, just as you do. Etc.

We are all in the same boat, and for each person it is a personal
path to salvation. I cannot make you believe. Only God can change
you, and He will in the proper time if you will be saved.

[Mr Flibble]

On 28/08/2017 21:26, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 4:12:28 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 28/08/2017 18:36, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 1:17:12 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> I think you and I could be great friends, Leigh, if it wasn't for
>>> this barrier between us.
>>
>> We could only be friends if you promised never to bring up the subject
>> of anything even remotely theistic in nature which I suspect would be an
>> impossibility.
>
> Or, we could also be friends if you were to become born again as I
> did in 2004. Then we would be on the same page.

Never going to happen mate; I am as certain that my choice to be an
atheist is the correct choice as you are that your choice to be a theist
is the correct choice.

No matter how many times you post; no matter how many times you tweak
your argument without changing the basic substance; no matter what you
do or say it will make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER. I am a SETTLED
ATHEIST. This will not change.

And to save you some time I don't want to see you post for the nth
fucking time explaining how you also used to be an atheist before you
became fucking "born again".

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 4:58:29 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 28/08/2017 21:26, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 4:12:28 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> On 28/08/2017 18:36, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 1:17:12 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>> I think you and I could be great friends, Leigh, if it wasn't for
> >>> this barrier between us.
> >>
> >> We could only be friends if you promised never to bring up the subject
> >> of anything even remotely theistic in nature which I suspect would be an
> >> impossibility.
> >
> > Or, we could also be friends if you were to become born again as I
> > did in 2004. Then we would be on the same page.
>
> Never going to happen mate; I am as certain that my choice to be an
> atheist is the correct choice as you are that your choice to be a theist
> is the correct choice.

It wasn't my choice, Leigh. I sought the truth, and God literally
changed me from within. I still, to this day 13+ years later,
remain amazed that it happened.

And I can also tell you, that "Rick the man" (flesh) still, to this
day 13+ years later, tries often to derail my Christian walk. But
it is God living inside me that keeps it from happening.

-----
If you learn anything from these posts, Leigh, learn that YOU DON'T
CHOOSE TO BE A CHRISTIAN. When God calls you, you are changed and
drawn from within so that you can do nothing else. It is the spirit
being asserted, and it is all-changing in your life.

If it ever happens to you, then you'll know what I'm talking about.

[Mr Flibble]

On 28/08/2017 22:01, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 4:58:29 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 28/08/2017 21:26, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 4:12:28 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On 28/08/2017 18:36, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 1:17:12 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you and I could be great friends, Leigh, if it wasn't for
>>>>> this barrier between us.
>>>>
>>>> We could only be friends if you promised never to bring up the subject
>>>> of anything even remotely theistic in nature which I suspect would be an
>>>> impossibility.
>>>
>>> Or, we could also be friends if you were to become born again as I
>>> did in 2004. Then we would be on the same page.
>>
>> Never going to happen mate; I am as certain that my choice to be an
>> atheist is the correct choice as you are that your choice to be a theist
>> is the correct choice.
>
> It wasn't my choice, Leigh. I sought the truth, and God literally

Bullshit. Following a religion is a choice. Believing in supernatural
things existing is a choice. The only places where it isn't a choice are
in backward theocracies mainly in the Middle East where the alternative
is far worse.

> changed me from within. I still, to this day 13+ years later,
> remain amazed that it happened.

Sounds like the symptoms of psychosis.

>
> And I can also tell you, that "Rick the man" (flesh) still, to this
> day 13+ years later, tries often to derail my Christian walk. But
> it is God living inside me that keeps it from happening.

Sounds like the symptoms of schizophrenia.

> If you learn anything from these posts, Leigh, learn that YOU DON'T
> CHOOSE TO BE A CHRISTIAN. When God calls you, you are changed and

Bullshit. You made a choice the only question is did you make that
choice whilst psychotic. I really wish you would see a doctor and take
some anti-psychotics as it would probably result in you halting your God
bothering posts to this newsgroup.

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:10:24 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 28/08/2017 22:01, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > It wasn't my choice, Leigh. I sought the truth, and God literally
>

> .. Following a religion is a choice.

Yes. Christianity is not a religion. It is for some people
because they are not born again, but have simply joined a club
with other religious people. But for those who are born again,
their lives are altered in ways nobody believed possible before
it happened to them.

> Believing in supernatural things existing is a choice.

Can be. With the born again nature, new "eyes" are given to a
person, so they are able to see and understand many supernatural
things related to God. There are spiritual gifts which exist
and some people possess them.

> The only places where it isn't a choice are in backward
> theocracies mainly in the Middle East where the alternative
> is far worse.

No. It's different when a person is born again.

Have you ever read about John Newton? A vile slave trader.
He was later born again and wrote the song Amazing Grace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVhUP7OVnXY

History is filled with such people, Leigh. You can read about
their testimonies as a matter of history. And, you can go to
a local church and ask the people there who are born again and
talk to them face-to-face and get their testimony.

There are things we are capable of this world does not teach
us. Those things are spiritual, and they only come from
Jesus Christ when He takes our sin away and we are born again.

You have no knowledge of this so you don't believe it, just
as I did not believe it before it happened to me.

[Mr Flibble]

Enough is enough.

*PLONK*

/Flibble

[Rod Pemberton]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:24:23 +0000 (UTC)
legaliz...@mail.xmission.com (Richard) wrote:

> When will you all realize that putting "[OT]" in the topic doesn't
> excuse you from spamming up the newsgroup with unrelated stuff?

First, placing [OT] in the topic is proper Usenet etiquette for for any
non-topical thread.

Second, **I** didn't put "[OT]" in the topic. Rick put [OT] in the
topic. Please stop conflating the two of us or learn to comprehend.

> You're still being annoying.

As are you.

> We have newsgroup charters for a reason.

We have moderated groups for a reason too. These are not any of them.

Please stop attempting to tell me how Usenet works. I've been using it
since the 1980's.

(Follow-up set to a.o.d. should you misguidedly decide to continue to
project your anger onto me instead of Rick.)

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:03:45 +0200
David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> On 27/08/17 09:31, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 14:52:22 +0100
> > Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> wrote:

Follow-up set to a.o.d. should D.B. decide to reply to me.

> >> Making the followup-to alt.religion.christianity will make no
> >> difference to the fucktard Rick C. Hodgin because he knows nobody
> >> subscribes to that newsgroup and he like to post his off topic
> >> "God" nonsense posts to technical newsgroups such as this one.
> >>
> >
> > While that is true, no one (not Flibble, not Vine, not Heathfield,
> > not Schmakov) apparently noticed that Rick /DID/ mark this thread
> > off-topic (OT) as "required" by Usenet etiquette. (These are not
> > Google Groups.) None of you had to read it once you saw the OT.
> > None of you should of read it once you saw the OT. None of you had
> > to respond to it once you saw it. All of you could've filtered out
> > the entire thread by filtering for "OT" in your newsreader.
>
> I have a few points for you here, Rod, that might help you see where
> people are coming from here.

...

(Again, follow-ups set to a.o.d. should D.B. decide to reply to me.)

> First, you don't post with a valid email address - I would have
> emailed if you had. Sometimes email is a better medium than a public
> newsgroup, and it is why many regulars in c.l.c and c.l.c++ use valid
> addresses. (That includes Rick, and Richard, and with a small obvious
> fix, Chris and Mr. Flibble. I haven't checked everyone in this
> thread.)

I don't have, nor use email anymore. I stopped using it around 2004.
Even so, the fact that I don't have a valid email address is irrelevant
as to the issue of how others responded. Why should anyone be judged on
the use of a valid email address with a service that doesn't require a
valid address? I.e., Usenet. I rotate garbage address for technical
reasons, instead of using RFC compliant "@invalid.invalid" etc.

> Certainly marking a topic OT is better than having an unmarked
> off-topic thread. However, merely marking it OT does /not/ make it
> appropriate for a given newsgroup. That depends on the newsgroup and
> the preferences of the people that make up that group.

No, it's not. It's proper Usenet etiquette. Read the FAQs. A
polite, RTFM, if you don't mind.

> In some
> groups, like sci.electronics.design, on-topic threads are by far the
> minority compared to politics and other topics. In c.l.c. in
> particular, the regulars are very keen to stay on topic, and there
> are many who strongly dislike OT threads. In particular, there is
> massive dislike for the religious threads which Rick regularly starts.

Irrelevant. Rick - unlike normal - actually posted an OT on the thread.
No one has any valid cause whatsoever to complain in /this/ thread
because he did so. End of story. Or, it should've been.

> When you come from the outside, I can well appreciate that you don't
> know this about c.l.c. - that group is fussier than many other groups
> in this respect.

Outside? I posted to c.l.c. for over a decade and read it for longer
than that. I just didn't post while you are there, AFAIR. I've been
posting to Usenet since the 1980's. You need to stop making assumptions
about me. If you'd been reading c.l.m. posts other than just yours,
e.g., to James Harris, you'd know I'm familiar with many of those who
were and may still be on c.l.c., such as Richard Heathfield, Keith
Thompson, Steve Summit, Nick Keighley, David Thompson, Jacob Navia,
Chris Torek, and Eric Sosman among many others, e.g., Kenny McCormack,
CBFalconer, ...

> Personally, I think it is healthy for a newsgroup
> to have a small proportion of OT threads - as long as it is possible
> to keep them to a small proportion.

Heathfield has claimed for decades that he filters posts. If true, he
wouldn't be in this thread at all. So, set your newsreader to filter if
you don't like OT threads. It's simple and easy to do, and, the best
part, is that you don't need to stoke your own cracked ego by blaming
others for your anger and irrationality over some off-topic threads.

> However, that possibility has
> been ruined in c.l.c., by Rick and his incessant religious posts.

I don't like Rick posting _incessant_ religious posts either, but I
don't filter. I don't have a problem with some religious posts, even
though I'm non-religious. Some of my best friends are religious. Most
of my family is religious. I know quite a bit about the Bible. No one
even bothered to ask me my position on Rick. I had to state that he's a
nice guy, when he's not ranting on religion. That was after everyone
jumped on me. Why do you think I'm attempting to get him to think about
what he says? Maybe, he'll realize it's stupid, or he doesn't believe
what he is saying and will stop, or he may just burn out from arguing
with "non-believers" whom he can't convince. I've only seen one person
on Usenet that hasn't burned out from ranting, and I think that they're
finally about to crack.

> There are several regulars in c.l.c., including me, who enjoy a good
> discussion in such OT threads - but decline to take part (except for
> the occasional post on topicality, which is always on topic) from
> respect for the group preferences.

If you knew anything about politics, you'd know that group thought is
usually wrong, i.e., 50%/50% correct/wrong.

> And I also agree with you that people who are bothered by threads
> like this should learn to use the "ignore thread" button on their
> newsreader. It is not hard. However, I also fully appreciate that
> they want a newsgroup where they don't have to actively ignore a
> substantial part of the traffic.

When I was posting to c.l.c., Rick wouldn't have been a significant
part of the traffic, e.g., easily multiple hundreds of posts per day.

> > Rick is a good guy, as long as he stays off religion.
>
> I try hard to hold that attitude, but Rick makes it impossible.

Really? I don't see many from him on c.l.c., but see a ton on c.l.c++.
(No, I'm not sub'd to either.)

> People in c.l.c. know there is no point in trying to reason with Rick
> about his religious posts - it is a complete waste of time, and
> results in more meaningless noise.

I disagree. He posts incessant religious rants to a.o.d. too. I've
asked him to stop repeatedly. He does respond to replies to his posts.
Replies which don't conform to his beliefs do irritate him. This is
good as it makes one question their beliefs or question why they're
posting them where they are or why they're posting to whom they are.

> Sometimes it is worth trying to
> make other people understand the effect of their posts - it may lead
> to a change of behaviour.

Exactly. That would confirm that you agree with me arguing with him.

(I.e., every argument you present against me talking to Rick, can be use
to support me doing the same. Or, there are two sides to every coin,
or two edges on every sword. One path minimizes victims, while the
other maximizes.)

> Thus in any thread where people are
> responding to Rick and encouraging threads like this, it is the other
> people who are asked to stop.

That's clearly the wrong approach. Two wrongs don't make a right. All
that does is create angry victims. The people who responded to Rick in
an attempt to encourage Rick to change become victims of the group by
doing that. So, all you've done by enforcing group thought is compound
the actual problem by an order of magnitude. You made it worse. Those
people that the group attacked have every right to /not/ be attacked by
the group or clique, not only because they are "innocent," but also in
large part because they are in support of said group or it's agenda,
i.e., annoyed by Rick's numerous religious rants.

> I am deliberately not taking sides or judging here, or trying to say
> who acted badly, or who is at fault - or even what faults might have
> been committed.

Really? If that was actually true, you wouldn't have replied to me
with this almost TLDR post to explain your side to me.

> I'd also suggest that if you are interested in technical discussions
> on c.l.c., you might have "plonked" some useful contributors here.

No, I didn't. Of that, I'm 100% certain. As stated above, I posted
on c.l.c. for about a decade and read for longer than that. There are
only *two* people who posted on c.l.c. whom I admired (probably not
those you'd expect), but they and c.l.c. are of no use to me IRL. My
posts are only here because Rick threw on a.o.d.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:50:46 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Enough is enough.
>
> *PLONK*

If you ever come back, here is DNA replication in real-time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6f3ZbKaL7A

Here's the whole talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFCvkkDSfIU&t=2m55s

This orchestrated complexity, showing only one aspect of the range
of biological processes taking place inside a living cell, is so
finessed and nuanced, comprised of so many layers of systems and
sub-systems, that it is a literal impossibility that it could've
come about by natural processes. DNA uses only left-hand DNA molecules,
even though both left- and right-hand occur naturally. And when you
get in to the N-way levels the information on DNA is used, and the
way some things divvy up a gene sequence, slicing out segments here
and there before use in their application of the N-way uses, it all
adds up to not only design, but such incredibly complex and beautiful
design that it's breathtaking.

And then you factor in the variations across plants, animals, bacteria,
all forms of life, different kinds, and the variation within each
kind, its ability to adapt and alter form out to final forms as through
selective breeding for specific gene expressions ...

It's quite simple: designer, not natural processes. In fact, it's
so obviously created by a designer that to say otherwise is to look
foolish.

When you study God's creation, He is there. Everywhere you look you
find beauty beyond imagination ... except where the policies of man
are applicable, and that exception is due to sin.

By man's choices he mucks things up. Sin is the stain God is removing
by His Son, and the existence of Hell, so that everything else can
thrive in the beauty God created.

Jesus makes us perfect by His righteousness. Our sin, our error,
our weaknesses, our mistakes, they are poured out of us onto Him,
and He bears their burden before God. We continue on thereafter as
the sin-free, error-free, weakness-free, fully capable, fully complete
forms God intended for us before sin. We then go on to the next stage
of our existence having been purged of sin, all wrongness and error,
to then be a part of God's plan for us ongoing.

The Bible records in Revelation we will learn the new name of Jesus.
The name Jesus literally means, "God who saves." And while it doesn't
say, I'm guessing His new name is "Teacher" because I think God
has future plans for us which are astounding. As beautiful as the
clockwork precision of His vast universe.

[Chris Vine]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:25:36 -0400
Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:03:45 +0200
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

[snip]

> > Thus in any thread where people are
> > responding to Rick and encouraging threads like this, it is the
> > other people who are asked to stop.
>
> That's clearly the wrong approach. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> All that does is create angry victims. The people who responded to
> Rick in an attempt to encourage Rick to change become victims of the
> group by doing that. So, all you've done by enforcing group thought
> is compound the actual problem by an order of magnitude. You made it
> worse. Those people that the group attacked have every right
> to /not/ be attacked by the group or clique, not only because they
> are "innocent," but also in large part because they are in support of
> said group or it's agenda, i.e., annoyed by Rick's numerous religious
> rants.

You are incredibly immature. You are not a victim: you were repeatedly
responding to Rick's off topic posts knowing that it would encourage
him to post more.

You were not as your claim trying to change his posting habits, which
would clearly be hopeless. Instead you said that you were posting your
crap to make Rick "actually /THINK/ deeply about some of these things
he says, not just accept them because it's part of his Faith".

The only part of your posting that is right is that "two wrongs do not
make a right". Responding to off topic posts with off topic posts does
not make off topic posting OK. Stop it (and your attempts at
self-justification).

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

>

Rick doesn't seem to realize that DNA follows the rules of chemistry.

No God needed in this "hypothesis".

--
Debian Hint #20: Want to keep track of what version of a package you have
installed (especially useful for those running hybrid stable / testing /
unstable systems)? Check out apt-show-versions.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 9:06:13 PM UTC-4, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> >
> Rick doesn't seem to realize that DNA follows the rules of chemistry.
> No God needed in this "hypothesis".

A printed page follows the rules of physics and chemistry for how
the ink works on the page, but it is in the arrangement of the data/
information that makes it non-spontaneous, non-chemical, non-natural,
and artificially created.

It is the same with the information in DNA, except the information
contained in DNA is like the most complex math formulas you've ever
seen integrated over and over and over again to provide for use in
a physical medium, creating proteins which are able to read itself,
replicate itself, and all the while employing that complex inter-
relational system of data.

There is an alphabet that is arranged into a code. The code has
error checking, redundancy, and for various applications a sequence
of content is trimmed for use in this location, while trimmed
differently for use in another, while used in full in a third, and
it continues out for up to 12 separate uses the genetic researchers
have been able to identify so far.

-----
DNA is a chemical, and its interaction with other things are also
all chemical. However, it is the way it has been engineered, the
information at work, which makes it non-chemical.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 14:22:45 +0100
Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:25:36 -0400
> Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:03:45 +0200
> > David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> > > Thus in any thread where people are
> > > responding to Rick and encouraging threads like this, it is the
> > > other people who are asked to stop.
> >
> > That's clearly the wrong approach. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> > All that does is create angry victims. The people who responded to
> > Rick in an attempt to encourage Rick to change become victims of the
> > group by doing that. So, all you've done by enforcing group thought
> > is compound the actual problem by an order of magnitude. You made
> > it worse. Those people that the group attacked have every right
> > to /not/ be attacked by the group or clique, not only because they
> > are "innocent," but also in large part because they are in support
> > of said group or it's agenda, i.e., annoyed by Rick's numerous
> > religious rants.
>
> You are incredibly immature.

Says the apparently completely wrongheaded idiot, who fails to take
personal responsibility to filter posts, who has no integrity because
he blames others for his life problems, who wishes to enforce his own
immature, non-standard, group thought, entirely made-up Usenet
etiquette rules upon everyone else, who doesn't see things his way,
like a little cry-baby. Are you a little cry-baby? Oh, yes, you are.

> You are not a victim:

Yes, I was, by definition. I had every right to respond in a thread
clearly marked OT without being attacked by anyone. How many times do
I have to say this before you comprehend it as the truth? Rejection
shows your wrongheaded confirmation bias, but does nothing to correct
your erroneous beliefs.

> you were repeatedly responding to Rick's off topic posts

Yes, and those posts which were marked off-topic per Usenet etiquette.
So, what exactly justifies you having the right to complain about
something when it followed standardized Usenet etiquette? (rhetorical)

> knowing that it would encourage him to post more.

That's a lie. He doesn't respond to every post.

And, I can't control whether he posts or not, just as I can't control
your anger issues. I can help him think about what he says instead of
just repeating religious propaganda, if he wants to think about the
issues.

> You were not as your claim trying to change his posting habits,

On what grounds can you claim that you know what I was doing? I told
you what I was doing and did, yet you claim I was doing something
else entirely. Are you an idiot?

> which would clearly be hopeless.

That is a matter of opinion. Your tactic with Rick is clearly not
working. It's clear to me that your and c.l.c./c.l.c++'s group thought
"policy" of repeatedly ignoring his posts is doing absolutely nothing to
stop them. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and
over again, but expecting different results," which is attributed to
Albert Einstein. Imagine that, Albert Einstein apparently agrees with
me.

Your anger at me is only an attempt to victimize others who needn't be,
which is wrong as you don't have that right.

> Instead you said that you were posting your crap

Crap? That's entirely false. No crap was posted by me. My arguments
with Rick were 100% serious. It's only "crap" because you refuse to
accept standard Usenet etiquette, because you dislike Rick's posts.

> Instead you said that you were posting [...] to make Rick

> "actually /THINK/ deeply about some of these things he says, not
> just accept them because it's part of his Faith".

With the blatantly false "crap" insult excised, that's true. If he
did, might realize it's not worth posting to people uninterested in
his message, or he may simply burn out from arguing.

> The only part of your posting that is right is that "two wrongs do
> not make a right".

False.

> Responding to off topic posts with off topic posts
> does not make off topic posting OK.

Off-topic posting is perfectly acceptable per Usenet etiquette standards
as long as it is clearly marked as such, as it was in this case. RTFM.
It's clear to me that you never have read the Usenet etiquette FAQ.

> Stop it (and your attempts at self-justification).

You need to stop spreading your lies. Repeating them doesn't make
them true. You are completely wrong to criticize off-topic posts
clearly marked as such. If you want to criticize Rick's off-topic
posts not marked as such, that's fair game, of which there are many.

The solution, like everything else here stated previously, is to filter
out posts by Rick or marked OT. That's called personal
responsibility. It would also demonstrate integrity. If you had any,
you wouldn't be blaming others for your self-created misery and
problems. You'd filter.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 9:06:13 PM UTC-4, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> >
>> Rick doesn't seem to realize that DNA follows the rules of chemistry.
>> No God needed in this "hypothesis".
>
> A printed page follows the rules of physics and chemistry for how
> the ink works on the page, but it is in the arrangement of the data/
> information that makes it non-spontaneous, non-chemical, non-natural,
> and artificially created.
>

> It is the same with the information in DNA, ...

Nope.

> except the information
> contained in DNA is like the most complex math formulas you've ever
> seen integrated over and over and over again to provide for use in
> a physical medium, creating proteins which are able to read itself,
> replicate itself, and all the while employing that complex inter-
> relational system of data.
>
> There is an alphabet that is arranged into a code. The code has
> error checking, redundancy, and for various applications a sequence
> of content is trimmed for use in this location, while trimmed
> differently for use in another, while used in full in a third, and
> it continues out for up to 12 separate uses the genetic researchers
> have been able to identify so far.
>
> -----
> DNA is a chemical, and its interaction with other things are also
> all chemical. However, it is the way it has been engineered, the
> information at work, which makes it non-chemical.

DNA is not engineered, though lately we have figured out techniques
to "engineer" it to some extent.

What "Nature" does easily, according to the "laws" of physics, we
have to work hard at. Thus arises the inability of some people to
believe that there is no God-engineer needed to create the complex
world we see.

Oh, and buh bye.

--
There's small choice in rotten apples.
-- William Shakespeare, "The Taming of the Shrew"

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 8/30/2017 5:16 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 9:06:13 PM UTC-4, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>> Rick doesn't seem to realize that DNA follows the rules of chemistry.
>>> No God needed in this "hypothesis".
>>
>> A printed page follows the rules of physics and chemistry for how
>> the ink works on the page, but it is in the arrangement of the data/
>> information that makes it non-spontaneous, non-chemical, non-natural,
>> and artificially created.
>>
>> It is the same with the information in DNA, ...
>
> Nope.

Information does not arise from purely mechanical processes. If
you put a paper substrate into a pool of ink, it would never be able
to arrange the ink molecules in a way so as to produce the writing
War and Peace, and DNA is infinitely more complex than would be the
arrangement of letters into a document like War and Peace.

The research is out there regarding how much information and how
many information systems are at work in DNA, Chris. The twelve
dimensions I mentioned state that a single piece of DNA is used
in twelve separate functions differently, and not just differently,
but differently in a very specific way which is also triggered by
additional information contained within the DNA.

If you want to seek the truth, then go and research it for yourself.
If you get a handle on what's taking place inside of DNA ... I don't
believe a person could ever be the same again. It's simply one of
those fundamental things you come to realize and you look at it and
you just stand back in awe and say, "Hold on. Wait a minute. What's
going on here?" because you realize it could not just happen. It was
purposefully designed, and is of such complexity that it's totally
mind boggling.

-----
There is an active enemy at work in this world attempting to keep
you from coming to the knowledge of God, and from seeking the truth.
But if you will resolve within yourself to know the truth, God
Himself will make sure you find it.

God is real and created all things a few thousand years ago, so
the enemy takes God out of the equation and ascribes the infinitely
complex processes of God's genius to natural processes over millions
of years, something we can't possible prove or disprove, so as to
give us seeds of doubt that make us wonder if it's really true or
not. All the while, God is teaching us what is true, but because
of sin, only those who seek the truth will find it. The rest will
be fooled by the enemy.

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 04:06:13 UTC+3, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
> >
>
> Rick doesn't seem to realize that DNA follows the rules of chemistry.
>
> No God needed in this "hypothesis".

What Rick posted was a link to computer animation (that follows rules
of its animator, not chemistry). His posts always contain such logical
errors ("atheist scientist" of age 16) and misreports ("real news" from
prank news sites). If to reply then he posts more of such things. May
be he really looks at computer animations and thinks that awww God
made it! Then it is not nice to laugh at him.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

The animation was posted from a Google TEDTalk by a leading expert
in the field of genetics research. His animation is one of several
produced by the team of researchers who began studying DNA in the
2000s, only to publish a paper in the mid-2010s which stated that
they've found that 80% of the information in DNA is used in bodily
processes. Researchers involved in that project have come forward
since then and said it's likely to be 100%, but they cannot solidly
verify the last 20%, so they used conservative estimates.

God is revealing Himself to us through all things, Öö Tiib. It is
not God's design or creation BECAUSE Rick says so, but because it
is that way, and the evidence we find continually is pointing to it.

Here's how the fossil record of change over time we see really works:

"One Race, One Blood"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbODW6XO8zY&t=16m1s

And here's a talk describing the complexity of genetics:

"The Wonder of DNA" -- Dr. Purdom, Genetics Researcher
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ACCIu3jPrc

And here's more information by Drew Berry:

"Animations of Unseeable Biology" at TED Talk Sydney
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfB8vQokr0Q

At TED Talk CalTech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPC1MZ-xAu4

-----
This information couples with the balanced knife edge set of
constants and equations which hold our universe together, which
scientists have said seems unreasonably balanced to support
life, meaning it doesn't make sense for the values to be what
they are, unless they were purposefully tweaked to support
life.

But more fundamentally:

(1) Do you have sin?
(2) Do you want to be judged by God for that sin?
(3) Jesus gives you a way out by asking forgiveness.
(4) He can give you eternal life today, and restore to you
a future in the paradise of God. It is His great pleasure
to give man this, but He will not force Himself on anyone.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 8/30/2017 8:17 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On 8/30/2017 7:00 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 04:06:13 UTC+3, Chris Ahlstrom  wrote:
>>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rick doesn't seem to realize that DNA follows the rules of chemistry.
>>>
>>> No God needed in this "hypothesis".
>>
>> What Rick posted was a link to computer animation (that follows rules
>> of its animator, not chemistry). His posts always contain such logical
>> errors ("atheist scientist" of age 16) and misreports ("real news" from
>> prank news sites). If to reply then he posts more of such things. May
>> be he really looks at computer animations and thinks that awww God
>> made it! Then it is not nice to laugh at him.
>
> The animation was posted from a Google TEDTalk by a leading expert
> in the field of genetics research.  His animation is one of several
> produced by the team of researchers who began studying DNA in the
> 2000s,

The research team he works with is here:

https://www.wehi.edu.au/research/research-fields/genomics
https://www.wehi.edu.au/research/research-fields/epigenetics
https://www.wehi.edu.au/research/research-fields/cell-signalling

They perform research in a wide range of genetics fields, including
genomics, epigenetics (characteristics which span lifetimes, and
even go across generations -- such as a near starvation period in
history in a particular region, and nearly all offspring born
during that time had far greater cardiovascular health than others),
cell signaling which is a type of Internet within our cells for
cell-to-cell communication, along with chemical markers, and the
underlying proteins which produce these things.

These are not idle scientists. And his work is the presentation end
of that full body of research.

[Mr Flibble]

On 30/08/2017 09:13, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 14:22:45 +0100
> Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:25:36 -0400
>> Rod Pemberton <NeedNotR...@xrsevnneqk.cem> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:03:45 +0200
>>> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>>>> Thus in any thread where people are
>>>> responding to Rick and encouraging threads like this, it is the
>>>> other people who are asked to stop.
>>>
>>> That's clearly the wrong approach. Two wrongs don't make a right.
>>> All that does is create angry victims. The people who responded to
>>> Rick in an attempt to encourage Rick to change become victims of the
>>> group by doing that. So, all you've done by enforcing group thought
>>> is compound the actual problem by an order of magnitude. You made
>>> it worse. Those people that the group attacked have every right
>>> to /not/ be attacked by the group or clique, not only because they
>>> are "innocent," but also in large part because they are in support
>>> of said group or it's agenda, i.e., annoyed by Rick's numerous
>>> religious rants.
>>
>> You are incredibly immature.
>
> Says the apparently completely wrongheaded idiot, who fails to take

Yes you are a fucking child mate. Rick doesn't always mark his god
bothering rants as off topic so your so called argument is moot.

/Flibble

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <jqmdnVLJs7N7QDvE...@giganews.com>,
Mr Flibble <flibbleREM...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
...

>Yes you are a fucking child mate. Rick doesn't always mark his god
>bothering rants as off topic so your so called argument is moot.

Worrying about whether or not the '[OT]' header is provided is nonsene.
It's the proverbial "Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" sort of
thing.

The fact is that everything Rick posts is OT, so if you want to screen out
OT, just killfile him and be done with it. I'm saying that even when Rick
posts stuff that, superficially, seems to be "on topic", it's still and
always is and always will be, the same old garbage. It's just a thin
veneer of topicality wrapped around it, but it's the same old crap.

So, just make a decision. Either killfile him or selectfile him (I do the
later, because I find his stuff so darn amusing - even though even I can't
actually read his most recent crap - he really does seem to be suffering
some sort of chemical change in the brain as of late) - and be done with
it. In either case, stop whining about it!

--
Rich people pay Fox people to convince middle class people to blame poor people.

(John Fugelsang)