JESUS IS LORD!

[Godof Glory]

JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.(cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS
10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)

Have you received THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL’S MOST BELOVED and ONLY
BEGOTTEN SON, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, to be your personal Lord and
Savior?

If not, say this prayer: “LORD GOD, please forgive me of my sins.
Thank YOU for YOUR Faithfulness in always being with me and loving me
so much to send me YOUR MOST BELOVED and ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THE LORD
JESUS CHRIST, to die on the cross for me. I receive HIM now into my
heart and life to be my Lord and Savior. I pray this in the name of
GOD, THE FATHER; GOD, THE SON; and GOD, THE HOLY SPIRIT. † Amen.”

“So let everyone in Israel know for certain that GOD has made this
JESUS, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah!” ACTS 2:36

"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see ME henceforth, till ye shall
say, Blessed is HE that cometh in the name of THE LORD." MATTHEW 23:39

Visit and share with family, friends, fans, and followers:
http://www.BIBLEstudycd.com/Lessons.html

May you be blessed abundantly! Hallelujah!

THE GOSPEL:
http://www.ebible.com/kjv/Matthew
http://www.ebible.com/kjv/Mark
http://www.ebible.com/kjv/Luke
http://www.ebible.com/kjv/John

[Michael Joel]

Godof Glory wrote:

>JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from the
>dead, thou shalt be saved, and thy house.(cf. THE HOLY BIBLE: ROMANS
>10:9 and ACTS 16:31b)
>
>
>

"and thy house" - please continue, and It explains why his house was
saved (not because he alone believed)
Acts 16:32-34 (NASB)
And they spoke the word of the Lord to him TOGETHER WITH ALL WHO
WERE IN HIS HOUSE. [33] And he took them that very hour of the night and
washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he AND ALL HIS
HOUSEHOLD. [34] And he brought them into his house and set food before
them, AND REJOICED GREATLY, HAVING BELIEVED in God WITH HIS WHOLE HOUSEHOLD.

Ezekiel 18:20 (KJV)
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the
iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of
the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Ezekiel 33:12 (KJV)
Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The
righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his
transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall
thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall
the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he
sinneth.

Matthew 16:27 (KJV)
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his
angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

>Have you received THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL’S MOST BELOVED and ONLY
>BEGOTTEN SON, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, to be your personal Lord and
>Savior?
>
>If not, say this prayer: “LORD GOD, please forgive me of my sins.
>Thank YOU for YOUR Faithfulness in always being with me and loving me
>so much to send me YOUR MOST BELOVED and ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THE LORD
>JESUS CHRIST, to die on the cross for me. I receive HIM now into my
>heart and life to be my Lord and Savior. I pray this in the name of

>GOD, THE FATHER; GOD, THE SON; and GOD, THE HOLY SPIRIT. <snip> Amen.”
>
>
>
And that will do what?

Jeremiah 7:8-11 (KJV)
Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. [9] Will ye
steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense
unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; [10] And come and
stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We
are delivered to do all these abominations? [11] Is this house, which is
called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I
have seen it, saith the Lord.

John 14:15 (KJV)
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

(a little further down)

John 14:23-24 (KJV)
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my
words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make
our abode with him. [24] He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings:
and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Matthew 5:17-19 (KJV)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one
of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called
the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach
them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 16:17 (KJV)
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of
the law to fail.

Matthew 22:37-40 (KJV)
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. [38] This is the
first and great commandment. [39] And the second is like unto it, Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments hang
all the law and the prophets.

2 John 1:5-6 (KJV)
And now I beseech thee, lady, NOT AS THOUGH I WROTE A NEW
COMMANDMENT unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we
love one another. [6] And THIS IS LOVE, that we WALK AFTER HIS
COMMANDMENTS. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the
beginning, ye should walk in it.

1 John 5:2-3 (KJV)
BY THIS WE KNOW that we love the children of God, WHEN WE LOVE GOD,
AND KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS. [3] For THIS IS THE LOVE OF GOD, THAT WE KEEP
HIS COMMANDMENTS: and his commandments are not grievous.

Matthew 5:17-19 (KJV)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am
not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one
of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called
the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach
them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

>“So let everyone in Israel know for certain that GOD has made this
>JESUS, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah!” ACTS 2:36
>
>"For I say unto you, Ye shall not see ME henceforth, till ye shall
>say, Blessed is HE that cometh in the name of THE LORD." MATTHEW 23:39
>
>

2 Thes. 1:7-10 (KJV)
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall
be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, [8] In flaming fire
taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel
of our Lord Jesus Christ: [9] Who shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his
power; [10] When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be
admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was
believed) in that day.

His Word means what He says in It. If we will accept and obey what It
says (not what we want it to say) then we will be accepted by Him.

John 14:15 (KJV)
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

[Michael Joel]

Of course - I have no idea how this slipped my mind - but the Truth of
"How to Be Saved" and "How to Accept Jesus"

Acts 2:37-38 (NASB)
Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said
to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
[38] And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


Luke 3:8-9 (KJV)
Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to
say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto
you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
[9] And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree
therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire.


Romans 6:5-6 (KJV)
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death,
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: [6] Knowing this,
that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be
destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

1 John 3:3-4 (KJV)
And every man that hath this hope in him PURIFIETH HIMSELF, even AS
HE IS PURE. [4] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: FOR
SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.


Note what is destroyed after the Judgement of all men

1 Cor. 15:54 (KJV)
So WHEN THIS CORRUPTIBLE SHALL HAVE PUT ON INCORRUPTION, and THIS
MORTAL SHALL HAVE PUT ON IMMORTALITY, THEN SHALL BE BROUGHT TO PASS the
saying that is written, DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY.

If there is no Law then we will not die (whether or not we obey Christ)
because -

1 Cor. 15:55-56 (KJV)
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? [56]
THE STING OF DEATH IS SIN; and THE STRENGTH OF SIN IS THE LAW.

But we will die if we do not obey His Laws. But in His Mercy He has
provided the way to be saved from the wrath to come

1 Thes. 1:9-10 (KJV)
For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had
unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and
true God; [10] And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from
the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

There is a lot more of course that can be used to prove this.

[Ed Mullen]

Michael Joel wrote:

> There is a lot more of course that can be used to prove this.

You cannot PROVE anything related to this. It's a matter of FAITH. So
stop spamming and go believe what you want to believe and leave the rest
of us alone. Please?

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
The good old days: When sex was dirty & Michael Jackson was black.

[Stan Brown]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 21:36:14 -0400, Ed Mullen wrote:
>
> Michael Joel wrote:
>
> > There is a lot more of course that can be used to prove this.
>
> You cannot PROVE anything related to this. It's a matter of FAITH. So
> stop spamming and go believe what you want to believe and leave the rest
> of us alone. Please?

Responding to spammers is a loser's game. The spammers don't care,
and you just pollute the newsgroup with more off-topic postings.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

[Ed Mullen]

Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 21:36:14 -0400, Ed Mullen wrote:
>>
>> Michael Joel wrote:
>>
>>> There is a lot more of course that can be used to prove this.
>>
>> You cannot PROVE anything related to this. It's a matter of FAITH. So
>> stop spamming and go believe what you want to believe and leave the rest
>> of us alone. Please?
>
> Responding to spammers is a loser's game. The spammers don't care,
> and you just pollute the newsgroup with more off-topic postings.
>

Not necessarly! I made me feel momentarily good and did no other harm
that I can detect. :-)

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/

Everyone has a photographic memory, some just don't have any film.

[dorayme]

In article <5r44vs....@news.alt.net>,
Ed Mullen <e...@MUNGEedmullen.net> wrote:

> Stan Brown wrote:
...

> > Responding to spammers is a loser's game. The spammers don't care,
> > and you just pollute the newsgroup with more off-topic postings.
> >
>

Is it polluting or even doubly polluting when the newsgroup is empty
of any relevant posts most of the time? Perhaps so. Perhaps it is even
more morally culpable - like littering a graveyard.

> Not necessarly! I made me feel momentarily good and did no other harm
> that I can detect. :-)

Of course it made you feel good, Ed, just talking about The Lord can
work in mysterious ways. May God bless you and may your
grandchildren's grandchildren finally have a really effective WYSWIG
authoring tool, one that is incapable of producing anything that is
not good, true or even beautiful.

--
dorayme

[Stan Brown]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:21:08 -0400, Ed Mullen wrote:
>
> Stan Brown wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 21:36:14 -0400, Ed Mullen wrote:
> >>
> >> Michael Joel wrote:
> >>
> >>> There is a lot more of course that can be used to prove this.
> >>
> >> You cannot PROVE anything related to this. It's a matter of FAITH. So
> >> stop spamming and go believe what you want to believe and leave the rest
> >> of us alone. Please?
> >
> > Responding to spammers is a loser's game. The spammers don't care,
> > and you just pollute the newsgroup with more off-topic postings.
> >
>
> Not necessarly! I made me feel momentarily good and did no other harm
> that I can detect. :-)

That's a solipsistic fallacy. For the sake of making yourself feel
good momentarily, you post an article that annoys hundreds or
thousands of people.

I thought you were better than that.

[Michael Joel]

Stan Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:21:08 -0400, Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 21:36:14 -0400, Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>
>>>>Michael Joel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>There is a lot more of course that can be used to prove this.
>>>>
>>>>You cannot PROVE anything related to this. It's a matter of FAITH. So
>>>>stop spamming and go believe what you want to believe and leave the rest
>>>>of us alone. Please?
>>>
>>>Responding to spammers is a loser's game. The spammers don't care,
>>>and you just pollute the newsgroup with more off-topic postings.
>>>
>>
>>Not necessarly! I made me feel momentarily good and did no other harm
>>that I can detect. :-)
>
>
> That's a solipsistic fallacy. For the sake of making yourself feel
> good momentarily, you post an article that annoys hundreds or
> thousands of people.
>
> I thought you were better than that.
>

Actually I am not a spammer. I post in here on and off dealing with HTML.

Haven't I noticed a number of times people (maybe even those on this
thread) reply to true spammers?

Anyway - I replied to the post because it was so far off that I believed
it needed correction.

Now the thread was clearly labeled. So those who are so extremely upset
(thousands?) why if the topic upsets you did you even click on it?

Anyway I just wanted to point out I am not a spammer (the content was
not spamming) - at worste I replied to a "spammer" as so many others do.

Thanks

[Warren Oates]

In article <MPG.2a81c572a...@news.individual.net>,

Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> That's a solipsistic fallacy. For the sake of making yourself feel
> good momentarily, you post an article that annoys hundreds or
> thousands of people.
>
> I thought you were better than that.

Well, if you're going to keep the thing going, I think Jesus never
existed in first place.
--

... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

[dorayme]

In article <50181c90$0$1509$c3e8da3$12bc...@news.astraweb.com>,

Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <MPG.2a81c572a...@news.individual.net>,
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > That's a solipsistic fallacy.

With a suitable private, idiolectic definition of solipsism that would
tend to catch Stan in its net.

> > For the sake of making yourself feel
> > good momentarily, you post an article that annoys hundreds or
> > thousands of people.
> >

As if Stan has any evidence of such a fact. It is not even
commonsensical to suppose Ed's post would annoy thousands. And not
only because only 8 people ever visit this newsgroup per year.

> Well, if you're going to keep the thing going, I think Jesus never
> existed in first place.

Nor do many biblical scholars according to modern historical
scholarship standards.

--
dorayme

[Tim W]

Really? I thought it was only fundamentalist, literalist, atheist
nutters who took that view?

Tim w

[dorayme]

In article <jv9pb5$13k$4...@dont-email.me>,

Tim W <tim....@mtavirgin.net> wrote:

> >> Well, if you're going to keep the thing going, I think Jesus never
> >> existed in first place.
> >
> > Nor do many biblical scholars according to modern historical
> > scholarship standards.
> >
> Really? I thought it was only fundamentalist, literalist, atheist
> nutters who took that view?

Yes, really. It is about was there someone largely fitting the
description that is described in the holy texts.

btw, nutters, whatever this really means, are spread all over the
socio-political spectrum but if you want to look at a mildly relevant
statistic to your point, map those who believe and those who don't
against educational levels and IQs.

--
dorayme

[Michael Joel]

dorayme wrote:
> btw, nutters, whatever this really means, are spread all over the
> socio-political spectrum but if you want to look at a mildly relevant
> statistic to your point, map those who believe and those who don't
> against educational levels and IQs.
>

Not getting into a conversation that has no usefulness but wanted to say...

What in the world would an educational level and IQ test scores have to
do with anything?

I would never go by that since the ones running the "High education" and
scoring the "IQ tests" are those who think they are THE Ones ("No doubt
but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you." Job 12:2).
Besides I would gladly trade any higher education and IQ scores to be
the servant of God. Much more profitable to me and others.

They never seem to actually produced something of real use.

[dorayme]

In article <Xf-dnZeYXplyPoXN...@earthlink.com>,

Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > btw, nutters, whatever this really means, are spread all over the
> > socio-political spectrum but if you want to look at a mildly relevant
> > statistic to your point, map those who believe and those who don't
> > against educational levels and IQs.
> >
>
> Not getting into a conversation that has no usefulness but wanted to say...
>

You mean that you will come on here in some hit and run sort of a way?

> What in the world would an educational level and IQ test scores have to
> do with anything?
>

It has to do with a great deal of things. Next time you need medical
help, would you go to a witchdoctor? When you next fly, would you
worry if your pilot had never been educated in flying but had great
faith in God?

> I would never go by that since the ones running the "High education" and
> scoring the "IQ tests" are those who think they are THE Ones ("No doubt
> but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you." Job 12:2).
> Besides I would gladly trade any higher education and IQ scores to be
> the servant of God. Much more profitable to me and others.
>

You would rather be a servant of something than be smart or highly
educated? Well, if you are a servant and not smart and not educated,
how would you know how to make such a comparison.

> They never seem to actually produced something of real use.

Definitely go to a witchdoctor next time you fall ill.

--
dorayme

[Michael Joel]

dorayme wrote:
> In article <Xf-dnZeYXplyPoXN...@earthlink.com>,
> Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:
>
>
>>dorayme wrote:
>>
>>>btw, nutters, whatever this really means, are spread all over the
>>>socio-political spectrum but if you want to look at a mildly relevant
>>>statistic to your point, map those who believe and those who don't
>>>against educational levels and IQs.
>>>
>>
>>Not getting into a conversation that has no usefulness but wanted to say...
>>
>
>
> You mean that you will come on here in some hit and run sort of a way?
>

No - I mean once people start talking like you are then it just
degenerates into a - openly disrespect me(or whoever) and God - then
they feel they need to defend themselves and God (which is silly - He
will take care of it).

>
>>What in the world would an educational level and IQ test scores have to
>>do with anything?
>>
>
>
> It has to do with a great deal of things. Next time you need medical
> help, would you go to a witchdoctor? When you next fly, would you
> worry if your pilot had never been educated in flying but had great
> faith in God?
>
>
>>I would never go by that since the ones running the "High education" and
>>scoring the "IQ tests" are those who think they are THE Ones ("No doubt
>>but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you." Job 12:2).
>>Besides I would gladly trade any higher education and IQ scores to be
>>the servant of God. Much more profitable to me and others.
>>
>
>
> You would rather be a servant of something than be smart or highly
> educated? Well, if you are a servant and not smart and not educated,
> how would you know how to make such a comparison.
>
>
>>They never seem to actually produced something of real use.
>
>
> Definitely go to a witchdoctor next time you fall ill.
>

Most people do (or at least very close) - they just don't know it.
Maybe you don't know because you haven't spent a long time in the
"cutting-edge" section of a hospital, I have and it comes very close to
what you would call witchdoctors. Of course they and you don't think so
because there is never a time you/they take a step back look at what is
going on and what has been going on and realize it all means they really
haven't a clue - they just have a lot of tools... and I quote - "If this
doesn't work, we'll try something else". No matter how many diplomas or
tests it all still comes down to they really don't know, they just have
a lot of tools. No one ever stops to consider that what is passing for
knowledge is only what man has already deemed to be knowledge (and most
of that is only ideas that could be proven wrong the next time they wake
up).

See - a lot of human words and nothing in there that will convince you
or anyone else of anything.

[Jonathan N. Little]

dorayme wrote:
> When you next fly, would you
> worry if your pilot had never been educated in flying but had great
> faith in God?

I'll put my faith in fight school.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Jonathan N. Little]

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>> When you next fly, would you
>> worry if your pilot had never been educated in flying but had great
>> faith in God?
>
> I'll put my faith in fight school.
>

Oops! Must my a shy "L" here... s/fight/flight/ ;-)

[dorayme]

In article <ioydnda5nII5uITN...@earthlink.com>,

Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <Xf-dnZeYXplyPoXN...@earthlink.com>,
> > Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>dorayme wrote:
> >>

...

> > You would rather be a servant of something than be smart or highly
> > educated? Well, if you are a servant and not smart and not educated,

> > how would you know how to make such a comparison?

> >
> >
> >>They never seem to actually produced something of real use.
> >

Smart and educated people never produce *anything* of real use? I
doubt you believe this, your words alone are unconvincing evidence of
your belief.

> >
> > Definitely go to a witchdoctor next time you fall ill.
> >
>
> Most people do (or at least very close) - they just don't know it.

...

OK. Let me change the example because the medical one is fraught
depending on your experience (I understand!). Who would you go to next
time you want to take a trip to the moon. My travel agency recommends
NASA.

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

In article <jvbahj$arv$2...@dont-email.me>,

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > When you next fly, would you
> > worry if your pilot had never been educated in flying but had great
> > faith in God?
>

> I'll put my faith in flight school.

Indeed. Actually, there are not very many people who actually do have
faith in God, at least not anything like as many as make this claim.

Belief is about propensity to stake things that are obviously dear to
ones's heart, mere talk or going to church or being in a church like a
pope or sing-pleading-ruminating and raising one's eyes to the sky (as
Tevye does in Fiddler on the Roof) just doesn't cut it. What a person
will bet - when he can be held to account quickly - separates those
who are just mouthing off from those who are not.

--
dorayme

[Michael Joel]

dorayme wrote:
>
> Smart and educated people never produce *anything* of real use? I
> doubt you believe this, your words alone are unconvincing evidence of
> your belief.
>

First you equate a high IQ test and high education with being smart -
this is not always the case (in my humble opinion it is rare).

Nasa has served what purpose? Are the starving fed? Are ravaging
diseases healed? Is the world a happier place? Hardly.

It is interesting that most things that are claimed to have been signs
of our advanced knowledge is falsely considered modern new. Take
expected life span - What is it now? 80 or 90?
As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years,
Or if due to strength, eighty years,
Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow;
For soon it is gone and we fly away. Psalm 90:10 (NASB)

As you see not really a change in the past what 3000 years?

Take hunger - supposedly we can now "feed the world" - so why don't
they? There is just as much hunger. Take a look in the US where crops
are failing all over. Seems man doesn't exactly have the control he
thinks or pretends to.

How about medical. Aren't we saving so many more lives? Are we? Some
people live longer (but then of course some people 3000 years ago did
too) - some with bad diseases get better (but then some did 3000 years
ago too) - some people with life threatening injuries live are saved
from death (but then some did 3000 years ago).

It is all a matter of what you WANT to believe. Facts and reality have
very little to do with the world today - it is all perception (just like
the US economy). People don't want facts and reality because it would
mean a change in their lives and they are to busy and happy being in
"control" to want that.

(just a note - inventors supplied most of the tings in our modern world
not scientists - scientist like to make the claims but I doubt Edison
would have liked the title scientist)

[Michael Joel]

dorayme wrote:

> Indeed. Actually, there are not very many people who actually do have
> faith in God, at least not anything like as many as make this claim.

Correct.

>
> Belief is about propensity to stake things that are obviously dear to
> ones's heart,

I guess it can be put that way. That is what it boils down to.

> mere talk or going to church or being in a church like a
> pope or sing-pleading-ruminating and raising one's eyes to the sky (as
> Tevye does in Fiddler on the Roof) just doesn't cut it.

Absolutely.

> What a person
> will bet - when he can be held to account quickly - separates those
> who are just mouthing off from those who are not.

There is a much longer method of proving it as well. It takes a lot
longer - and is a lot harder than saying 'yeah ok - I will die (it's
fast)'. Just because you "die for Christ" also doesn't make you a Christian.

Living it. Every day. A lot harder.

[dorayme]

In article <gJKdnVr9G7BKXYTN...@earthlink.com>,

Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> >
> > Smart and educated people never produce *anything* of real use? I
> > doubt you believe this, your words alone are unconvincing evidence of
> > your belief.
> >
>
> First you equate a high IQ test and high education with being smart -
> this is not always the case (in my humble opinion it is rare).
>

The "and" in my sentence does not connote a causal connection. I
mention IQ only to get some sort of more objective measure than the
rather loaded concept of "smart". Why would people that are good with
numbers and linguistic manipulations, pattern recognition, logical
acumen (the sort of things that IQ test measure) be less prone to
religious beliefs? Why is there a trend for the people who have better
general knowledge (a sign of education, self or otherwise) to be less
religious?

> Nasa has served what purpose?

You don't know what their technical achievements are?

> Are the starving fed? Are ravaging
> diseases healed? Is the world a happier place? Hardly.
>

And hardly relevant either.

> It is interesting that most things that are claimed to have been signs
> of our advanced knowledge is falsely considered modern new. Take
> expected life span - What is it now? 80 or 90?
> As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years,
> Or if due to strength, eighty years,
> Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow;
> For soon it is gone and we fly away. Psalm 90:10 (NASB)
>
> As you see not really a change in the past what 3000 years?
>

You have your facts wrong. Fancy relying on the words of God and then
taking them out of context to try to make a point. The relevant
statistic here is about humans as a whole, not this or that person.

--
dorayme

[Michael Joel]

dorayme wrote:

> In article <gJKdnVr9G7BKXYTN...@earthlink.com>,
> Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:
>
>
>>dorayme wrote:
>>
>>>Smart and educated people never produce *anything* of real use? I
>>>doubt you believe this, your words alone are unconvincing evidence of
>>>your belief.
>>>
>>
>>First you equate a high IQ test and high education with being smart -
>>this is not always the case (in my humble opinion it is rare).
>>
>
>
> The "and" in my sentence does not connote a causal connection. I
> mention IQ only to get some sort of more objective measure than the
> rather loaded concept of "smart". Why would people that are good with
> numbers and linguistic manipulations, pattern recognition, logical
> acumen (the sort of things that IQ test measure) be less prone to
> religious beliefs? Why is there a trend for the people who have better
> general knowledge (a sign of education, self or otherwise) to be less
> religious?

We were talking about highly educated and high IQ scores (you linked it
with established education).
There is only one reason why high "education" would be linked with
non-Christian (I did not say anything about non-religious, religious is
universal. There is not a person alive that is not religious).
1 Cor. 8:1 "...knowledge makes arrogant, but Love edifies"

>
>
>>Nasa has served what purpose?
>
>
> You don't know what their technical achievements are?
>
>
>>Are the starving fed? Are ravaging
>>diseases healed? Is the world a happier place? Hardly.
>>
>
>
> And hardly relevant either.

Actually highly relevant since Nasa (and science in general) claims that
their research has produced so many helpful new things and solved so
many problem we face (disease, food growth, etc.). It is their claims
and that is why I linked them.

>
>
>>It is interesting that most things that are claimed to have been signs
>>of our advanced knowledge is falsely considered modern new. Take
>>expected life span - What is it now? 80 or 90?
>> As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years,
>> Or if due to strength, eighty years,
>> Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow;
>> For soon it is gone and we fly away. Psalm 90:10 (NASB)
>>
>>As you see not really a change in the past what 3000 years?
>>
>
>
> You have your facts wrong. Fancy relying on the words of God and then
> taking them out of context to try to make a point. The relevant
> statistic here is about humans as a whole, not this or that person.
>

Out of context?
Psalms 90:10 is not referring to "this or that person" - He was
referring to human lifespan as a whole.
I try extremely hard not to take God's Word out of context because that
is exactly what the false religions do. That is why I referenced that
verse, because it deals with the topic and is plainly said.

[dorayme]

In article <cKmdnSqka8h1QITN...@earthlink.com>,

Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

> >>Nasa has served what purpose?
> >
> >
> > You don't know what their technical achievements are?
> >
> >
> >>Are the starving fed? Are ravaging
> >>diseases healed? Is the world a happier place? Hardly.
> >>
> >
> >
> > And hardly relevant either.
>
> Actually highly relevant since Nasa (and science in general) claims that
> their research has produced so many helpful new things and solved so
> many problem we face (disease, food growth, etc.). It is their claims
> and that is why I linked them.
>

It is totally and utterly irrelevant what NASA claims. You are too
concerned with what beings *say*.

> >
> >
> >>It is interesting that most things that are claimed to have been signs
> >>of our advanced knowledge is falsely considered modern new. Take
> >>expected life span - What is it now? 80 or 90?
> >> As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years,
> >> Or if due to strength, eighty years,
> >> Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow;
> >> For soon it is gone and we fly away. Psalm 90:10 (NASB)
> >>
> >>As you see not really a change in the past what 3000 years?
> >>
> >
> >
> > You have your facts wrong. Fancy relying on the words of God and then
> > taking them out of context to try to make a point. The relevant
> > statistic here is about humans as a whole, not this or that person.
> >
>
> Out of context?
> Psalms 90:10 is not referring to "this or that person" - He was
> referring to human lifespan as a whole.

It is irrelevant what those words referred to, what matters here is
you making an unverified claim about how human lifespans have changed
over the course of human existence.

> I try extremely hard not to take God's Word out of context because that
> is exactly what the false religions do. That is why I referenced that
> verse, because it deals with the topic and is plainly said.

It is not good enough to quote some words. That is not how things are
trustworthy established.

--
dorayme

[Michael Joel]

I think we must be mis-understanding each other. Your last post
completely puzzled me.

dorayme wrote:

> In article <cKmdnSqka8h1QITN...@earthlink.com>,
> Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Nasa has served what purpose?
>>>
>>>
>>>You don't know what their technical achievements are?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are the starving fed? Are ravaging
>>>>diseases healed? Is the world a happier place? Hardly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>And hardly relevant either.
>>
>>Actually highly relevant since Nasa (and science in general) claims that
>>their research has produced so many helpful new things and solved so
>>many problem we face (disease, food growth, etc.). It is their claims
>>and that is why I linked them.
>>
>
>
> It is totally and utterly irrelevant what NASA claims. You are too
> concerned with what beings *say*.
>

How so? I thought you were claiming the highly educated produce things
of real value. While I was trying to give example to prove that overall
the "science" does not (*real* value that is, not gadgets to make life
easier or take our minds off the fact that things aren't right).

>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is interesting that most things that are claimed to have been signs
>>>>of our advanced knowledge is falsely considered modern new. Take
>>>>expected life span - What is it now? 80 or 90?
>>>> As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years,
>>>> Or if due to strength, eighty years,
>>>> Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow;
>>>> For soon it is gone and we fly away. Psalm 90:10 (NASB)
>>>>
>>>>As you see not really a change in the past what 3000 years?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You have your facts wrong. Fancy relying on the words of God and then
>>>taking them out of context to try to make a point. The relevant
>>>statistic here is about humans as a whole, not this or that person.
>>>
>>
>>Out of context?
>>Psalms 90:10 is not referring to "this or that person" - He was
>>referring to human lifespan as a whole.
>
>
> It is irrelevant what those words referred to, what matters here is
> you making an unverified claim about how human lifespans have changed
> over the course of human existence.
>

Actually I only was referring to the unchanged lifespan over say the
past 3000 years (of course there have been times when some peoples
lifespans have fallen - due to environments created by man - but the
verse was there to prove that over 3000 years ago it was accepted the
average man was living between 70 and 80 years (though Moses himself
lived much longer).

>
>>I try extremely hard not to take God's Word out of context because that
>>is exactly what the false religions do. That is why I referenced that
>>verse, because it deals with the topic and is plainly said.
>
>
> It is not good enough to quote some words. That is not how things are
> trustworthy established.
>

You would quote "scientific" literature would you not? This is no
different (meaning I am quoting a source that has proven very
reliable... which means it is better than most scientific literature).

[Jukka K. Korpela]

2012-08-02 2:39, dorayme wrote:

> Actually, there are not very many people who actually do have
> faith in God, at least not anything like as many as make this claim.

While I don't want to deny the correctness of the above statement (it is
rather Biblical in content), I do have some doubts about the adequacy of
the topic in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.

So far, I haven't seen references or even allusions to God in HTML. I'm
not even sure of what HTML would worship as God if HTML were a conscious
being with a religion. (There's really no sole Creator for HTML.)
Anyway, it isn't.

The wise will undoubtedly understand the hint, as per Proverbs 17:28.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[dorayme]

In article <94WdnViL7uYoc4TN...@earthlink.com>,

Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

> I think we must be mis-understanding each other. Your last post
> completely puzzled me.
>
>

I do not blame you for this. Nor do i quite know what can be done
about it.

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <cKmdnSqka8h1QITN...@earthlink.com>,
> > Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>Nasa has served what purpose?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You don't know what their technical achievements are?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Are the starving fed? Are ravaging
> >>>>diseases healed? Is the world a happier place? Hardly.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And hardly relevant either.
> >>
> >>Actually highly relevant since Nasa (and science in general) claims that
> >>their research has produced so many helpful new things and solved so
> >>many problem we face (disease, food growth, etc.). It is their claims
> >>and that is why I linked them.
> >>
> >
> >
> > It is totally and utterly irrelevant what NASA claims. You are too
> > concerned with what beings *say*.
> >
>
>
> How so? I thought you were claiming the highly educated produce things
> of real value. While I was trying to give example to prove that overall
> the "science" does not (*real* value that is, not gadgets to make life
> easier or take our minds off the fact that things aren't right).
>
>

I mentioned NASA for a simple reason, namely, if they would assist me,
I would rely on them to get me to the moon. Rather than sayings in
Bibles or the mantras of witchdoctors.

> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>It is interesting that most things that are claimed to have been signs
> >>>>of our advanced knowledge is falsely considered modern new. Take
> >>>>expected life span - What is it now? 80 or 90?
> >>>> As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years,
> >>>> Or if due to strength, eighty years,
> >>>> Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow;
> >>>> For soon it is gone and we fly away. Psalm 90:10 (NASB)
> >>>>
> >>>>As you see not really a change in the past what 3000 years?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You have your facts wrong. Fancy relying on the words of God and then
> >>>taking them out of context to try to make a point. The relevant
> >>>statistic here is about humans as a whole, not this or that person.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Out of context?
> >>Psalms 90:10 is not referring to "this or that person" - He was
> >>referring to human lifespan as a whole.
> >
> >
> > It is irrelevant what those words referred to, what matters here is
> > you making an unverified claim about how human lifespans have changed
> > over the course of human existence.
> >
>
>
> Actually I only was referring to the unchanged lifespan over say the
> past 3000 years (of course there have been times when some peoples
> lifespans have fallen - due to environments created by man - but the
> verse was there to prove that over 3000 years ago it was accepted the
> average man was living between 70 and 80 years (though Moses himself
> lived much longer).
>

Things change over time and conditions. I don't think hunter gatherers
lived to average 70-80.

>
> >
> >>I try extremely hard not to take God's Word out of context because that
> >>is exactly what the false religions do. That is why I referenced that
> >>verse, because it deals with the topic and is plainly said.
> >
> >
> > It is not good enough to quote some words. That is not how things are
> > trustworthy established.
> >
>
> You would quote "scientific" literature would you not? This is no
> different (meaning I am quoting a source that has proven very
> reliable... which means it is better than most scientific literature).

The problem is you are not quoting a reliable source. Or, if you are,
you better be relying on your evidence that it is reliable. And what
would that be if not a scientific appraisal?

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

In article <jvdr3a$sno$1...@dont-email.me>,

I was *praying* very seriously (see the sores on my knees) that you
would not come into this fraught off-topic.

But since you have, I was puzzled by your remark that my view that few
people actually believe in God is biblical in content.

Mine is the simple view that a belief means a propensity to stake
something near and dear, few so called believers ever really do. I
would stake my house on that tomorrow there will be daylight. How many
'believers' would stake theirs on that there is a God if they really
knew there would be a definitive test of their bet tomorrow? They
believe because it is safe to believe, like betting with monopoly
money, there is no accounting of their beliefs. So little that it is
hardly belief. *Pretend* belief is what sweeps the world and opinion
polls.

This is not to say that there are no authentic believers.

--
dorayme

[Michael Joel]

Actually I am.
I am quoting a source that has been proven more than the scientific
papers/literature. Though I do not rely on being able to touch the
evidence. It is Faith - and I understand I could not "prove" it to
anyone who doesn't have that Faith. God handles that.


All the "evidence" of science is perception. An apple falls to the
ground - does not mean the ideas of the cause of gravity are true. Just
because we can predict that all things will fall to the earth does not
mean the idea/theory of gravity is correct.

Science has produced a lot of theories, but of course can prove nothing.
Science has observed how things act but this does not prove their
theories of why and how are right. Just because we predict something
will happen does not mean we understand how. Then take into account how
often they are wrong - provides enough evidence question all their findings.

Science is a religion as well. It takes faith to spend a life working
the scientific method believing you are right (or at least close
enough). Any time though the theories could be disproved.

Science without God can never be proven. God knows the why and how that
science doesn't. So science can never know if it is right or wrong. All
it can hope for is not to be proven wrong, because they can not be
proven right - it is faith.

[Michael Joel]

dorayme wrote:

> In article <jvdr3a$sno$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
>
>
>>2012-08-02 2:39, dorayme wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Actually, there are not very many people who actually do have
>>>faith in God, at least not anything like as many as make this claim.
>>
>>While I don't want to deny the correctness of the above statement (it is
>>rather Biblical in content), I do have some doubts about the adequacy of
>>the topic in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html.
>>
>>So far, I haven't seen references or even allusions to God in HTML. I'm
>>not even sure of what HTML would worship as God if HTML were a conscious
>>being with a religion. (There's really no sole Creator for HTML.)
>>Anyway, it isn't.
>>

One could point out that without God, HTML would not be possible. He
created the laws that allow our computers to function (though man does
not completely understand they why - Afterall if he did there would no
longer be a thing called "research", we would simply know).

>>The wise will undoubtedly understand the hint, as per Proverbs 17:28.

Yes. But God's Word tells me what a fool is.

>
>
> I was *praying* very seriously (see the sores on my knees) that you
> would not come into this fraught off-topic.
>
> But since you have, I was puzzled by your remark that my view that few
> people actually believe in God is biblical in content.
>

Yes of course the Bible (God's Word) states plainly that most are false
"believers".

"And why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?
Luke 6:46 (NASB)

"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is
broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it.
[14] "For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life,
and few are those who find it.
Matthew 7:13-14 (NASB)

God's Word makes it plain that very few people (compared to all
humanity) will actually have been obedient and followed the True Faith.

> Mine is the simple view that a belief means a propensity to stake
> something near and dear, few so called believers ever really do. I
> would stake my house on that tomorrow there will be daylight. How many
> 'believers' would stake theirs on that there is a God if they really
> knew there would be a definitive test of their bet tomorrow? They
> believe because it is safe to believe, like betting with monopoly
> money, there is no accounting of their beliefs. So little that it is
> hardly belief. *Pretend* belief is what sweeps the world and opinion
> polls.
>
> This is not to say that there are no authentic believers.
>

But in truth there will be the day you speak of. When the "bet" will
carry the consequence.

On the other hand there are those who will only believe in what they
perceive as a sure thing - when many times it is not. Just because
something has happened over and over again does not mean it will always
continue to do so.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Michael Joel wrote:

> Science is a religion as well. It takes faith to spend a life working
> the scientific method believing you are right (or at least close
> enough). Any time though the theories could be disproved.

Well actually no. For a theory in science to be a theory and not a
hypothesis or a "belief" it must be able to be challenge with
experimentally tests and must have reproducible and predicable results
by others.

With religion it only takes faith which only requires you the individual
to be convinced something is "true" with the need of supporting evidence
or reproducible results by others.

But philosophy, metaphysics, and religion is that way =>

[Thomas Mlynarczyk]

Jukka K. Korpela schrieb:

> So far, I haven't seen references or even allusions to God in HTML. I'm
> not even sure of what HTML would worship as God if HTML were a conscious
> being with a religion.

The Holy Validator, of course ;)

Greetings,
Thomas


--
Ce n'est pas parce qu'ils sont nombreux � avoir tort qu'ils ont raison!
(Coluche)

[Michael Joel]

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Michael Joel wrote:
>
>> Science is a religion as well. It takes faith to spend a life working
>> the scientific method believing you are right (or at least close
>> enough). Any time though the theories could be disproved.
>
>
> Well actually no. For a theory in science to be a theory and not a
> hypothesis or a "belief" it must be able to be challenge with
> experimentally tests and must have reproducible and predicable results
> by others.

Actually it is not that way.
First, the definitions (from Encarta Encyclopedia),

Theory (Noun):
1. Systematically *organized knowledge*, especially a set of
*assumptions* or *statements devised* to explain a phenomenon or class
of phenomena.

2. *Abstract reasoning*; *speculation*.

3. A set of rules or principles for the study or practice of an art or
discipline.

4. An *assumption*; *conjecture*.


Belief (Noun):
1. *Trust* or *confidence*.

2. A *conviction* or *opinion*

3. Something *believed* or *accepted as true*, especially a tenet or
body of tenets.

Sounds about the same.

There are those who do not come up with the same results as theories say
they should. These are usually swept away under the idea that they must
have done something wrong... Who is to say that that one time the test
was showing it doesn't always result the same way, and that would mean
the theory is wrong - yet it only shows up once in a while. It is all
perception - but the important part is - it is accepted perception.

Basically all of man's knowledge (and I do not say he has not attained
knowledge) is built on sands. One theory (an idea to explain what isn't
understood) is built on another theory, built on another theory.

One day those theories are going to be blown on, and there will be
nothing left.

It is simply the way it is - but perception is what maintains there
status (along with laziness). It is easier to accept then to be different.

>
> With religion it only takes faith which only requires you the individual
> to be convinced something is "true" with the need of supporting evidence
> or reproducible results by others.
>
> But philosophy, metaphysics, and religion is that way =>
>

You left of science in general.
Tomorrow someone could prove the theory of gravity wrong, it wouldn't
change any of their minds though because they will have faith in what
they make. They of course will turn to a person who trusts God and tell
him he has blind faith.... It all works out in the end.

[dorayme]

In article <jve7j7$9ib$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Michael Joel wrote:
>
> > Science is a religion as well. It takes faith to spend a life working
> > the scientific method believing you are right (or at least close
> > enough). Any time though the theories could be disproved.
>
> Well actually no. For a theory in science to be a theory and not a
> hypothesis or a "belief" it must be able to be challenge with
> experimentally tests and must have reproducible and predicable results
> by others.
>
> With religion it only takes faith which only requires you the individual
> to be convinced something is "true" with the need of supporting evidence
> or reproducible results by others.
>
> But philosophy, metaphysics, and religion is that way =>

True that they are not <=> here, and true that religion is => that
way. But, if you don't mind, good philosophy and metaphysics is <= the
other way entirely.

--
dorayme

[Jonathan N. Little]

dorayme wrote:

>>
>> But philosophy, metaphysics, and religion is that way =>
>
> True that they are not <=> here, and true that religion is => that
> way. But, if you don't mind, good philosophy and metaphysics is <= the
> other way entirely.
>

True, but I made the mistake: to argue faith with logic is no way...

[dorayme]

In article <As6dnZLV6rcxCIfN...@earthlink.com>,
Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

> >>dorayme wrote:
...

> > The problem is you are not quoting a reliable source. Or, if you are,
> > you better be relying on your evidence that it is reliable. And what
> > would that be if not a scientific appraisal?
>
> Actually I am.
> I am quoting a source that has been proven more than the scientific
> papers/literature. Though I do not rely on being able to touch the
> evidence. It is Faith - and I understand I could not "prove" it to
> anyone who doesn't have that Faith. God handles that.
>
>

As I said, the problem is that you are not inclined to check what the
Bible says against anything except the Bible itself or your own
interpretation, which latter two you seem to take as your ultimate
intellectual foundation. It is a problem because you are just then
whistling in the dark, seeming to pretend you have no respect for any
other intellectual way. You make ernest claims but refuse to allow
their testing in any other way.
...

> Science is a religion as well. It takes faith to spend a life working
> the scientific method believing you are right (or at least close
> enough). Any time though the theories could be disproved.
>
> Science without God can never be proven. God knows the why and how that
> science doesn't. So science can never know if it is right or wrong. All
> it can hope for is not to be proven wrong, because they can not be
> proven right - it is faith.

Unsurprisingly, you have a totally false idea about science. It would
probably be unbelievable to you if I told you that science's strength
is that it has been wrong countless times, known to have been wrong
and will continue to be wrong about many things and that this, in
turn, will continue to be a foundation of its strength forever.

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

In article <jvf26i$r1f$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> >>
> >> But philosophy, metaphysics, and religion is that way =>
> >
> > True that they are not <=> here, and true that religion is => that
> > way. But, if you don't mind, good philosophy and metaphysics is <= the
> > other way entirely.
> >
>
> True, but I made the mistake: to argue faith with logic is no way...

That presumably is:

or maybe: =>^<=

--
dorayme

[Michael Joel]

dorayme wrote:

> In article <As6dnZLV6rcxCIfN...@earthlink.com>,
> Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:
>
>
>>>>dorayme wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>The problem is you are not quoting a reliable source. Or, if you are,
>>>you better be relying on your evidence that it is reliable. And what
>>>would that be if not a scientific appraisal?
>>
>>Actually I am.
>>I am quoting a source that has been proven more than the scientific
>>papers/literature. Though I do not rely on being able to touch the
>>evidence. It is Faith - and I understand I could not "prove" it to
>>anyone who doesn't have that Faith. God handles that.
>>
>>
>
> As I said, the problem is that you are not inclined to check what the
> Bible says against anything except the Bible itself or your own
> interpretation, which latter two you seem to take as your ultimate
> intellectual foundation. It is a problem because you are just then
> whistling in the dark, seeming to pretend you have no respect for any
> other intellectual way. You make ernest claims but refuse to allow
> their testing in any other way.
> ...

I base my foundation on God's Word. Never hid that.
I try my best to not interpret but to use It to define Itself - instead
of me doing so. That way I do not make it say what I want.

I admitted man has knowledge. But that doesn't do a lot of good as the
world proves.

And how would you test God's Word? Many people have "tested" it and
claimed It false, but when looked into - it turns out it was their
interpretation that was faulty not The Word. Or they come up with tests
that are so bizarre in stumbling over themselves to prove it wrong.

Any test you try to perform first requires submitting it to man's
knowledge which is so limited (and biased) that to accept any test
result would be lunacy.

>
>
>>Science is a religion as well. It takes faith to spend a life working
>>the scientific method believing you are right (or at least close
>>enough). Any time though the theories could be disproved.
>>
>>Science without God can never be proven. God knows the why and how that
>>science doesn't. So science can never know if it is right or wrong. All
>>it can hope for is not to be proven wrong, because they can not be
>>proven right - it is faith.
>
>
> Unsurprisingly, you have a totally false idea about science.

But then basically agree with what I say in your next paragraph.

> It would
> probably be unbelievable to you if I told you that science's strength
> is that it has been wrong countless times, known to have been wrong
> and will continue to be wrong about many things and that this, in
> turn, will continue to be a foundation of its strength forever.
>

I know being wrong is it's strength.. and it's foundation.
But it is accepted for that very reason. Gladly it will not be forever
though.

You seem to hold a double standard, even in your incorrectness. You
believe God's Word to be wrong - so you disqualify It... yet you state
science is wrong often - and this is it's strength. Very odd.

And you wish to test God's Word?

[tlvp]

There must be sound reasons why Faith is so often styled Blind Faith :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[dorayme]

In article <-bSdnUzZYP3fg4bN...@earthlink.com>,

Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
...
> >

> > ... you are not inclined to check what the

> > Bible says against anything except the Bible itself or your own
> > interpretation, which latter two you seem to take as your ultimate
> > intellectual foundation.

...
>
> I base my foundation on God's Word. Never hid that.
> I try my best to not interpret but to use It to define Itself - instead
> of me doing so. That way I do not make it say what I want.
>

That makes no sense to me at all. Presumably God is not an Englishman
and if he has words it is in some form that requires translating from
<html lang="Gd"> into human languages. How do you know the translation
is correct. How fluent are you in God's native language, how in God's
name did you learn it?

> > It would
> > probably be unbelievable to you if I told you that science's strength
> > is that it has been wrong countless times, known to have been wrong
> > and will continue to be wrong about many things and that this, in
> > turn, will continue to be a foundation of its strength forever.
> >
>
> I know being wrong is it's strength.. and it's foundation.

I doubt you know this. What you like about me saying this is probably
that it has an identifiable *great weakness*.

> You seem to hold a double standard, even in your incorrectness. You
> believe God's Word to be wrong - so you disqualify It... yet you state
> science is wrong often - and this is it's strength. Very odd.
>

The reason that science traffics in so much wrongness is that only by
testing theories for their weaknesses, finding and eliminating them as
much as possible, is it possible to create better ones. Having the
best theories about the world is a process without end, there is no
foundation of knowledge. There is not even any specific scientific
*method" (if there was it would be easier than it is!).

--
dorayme

[Michael Joel]

dorayme wrote:
> In article <-bSdnUzZYP3fg4bN...@earthlink.com>,
> Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:
>
>
>>dorayme wrote:
>>
>
> ...
>
>>>... you are not inclined to check what the
>>>Bible says against anything except the Bible itself or your own
>>>interpretation, which latter two you seem to take as your ultimate
>>>intellectual foundation.
>
> ...
>
>>I base my foundation on God's Word. Never hid that.
>>I try my best to not interpret but to use It to define Itself - instead
>>of me doing so. That way I do not make it say what I want.
>>
>
>
> That makes no sense to me at all. Presumably God is not an Englishman
> and if he has words it is in some form that requires translating from
> <html lang="Gd"> into human languages. How do you know the translation
> is correct. How fluent are you in God's native language, how in God's
> name did you learn it?
>

It has been slipping into it but now we reach absurdity.
It would appear it is you who have trouble understanding. I do not want
to get tangled in silliness so I will simply say - If one believes in
God, and they believe He is able to control everything, then it will
stand to reason He can bring about a preservation of His word. You
appear to confuse interpretation and translation.

>
>>>It would
>>>probably be unbelievable to you if I told you that science's strength
>>>is that it has been wrong countless times, known to have been wrong
>>>and will continue to be wrong about many things and that this, in
>>>turn, will continue to be a foundation of its strength forever.
>>>
>>
>>I know being wrong is it's strength.. and it's foundation.
>
>
> I doubt you know this. What you like about me saying this is probably
> that it has an identifiable *great weakness*.
>
>
>
>>You seem to hold a double standard, even in your incorrectness. You
>>believe God's Word to be wrong - so you disqualify It... yet you state
>>science is wrong often - and this is it's strength. Very odd.
>>
>
>
> The reason that science traffics in so much wrongness is that only by
> testing theories for their weaknesses, finding and eliminating them as
> much as possible, is it possible to create better ones. Having the
> best theories about the world is a process without end, there is no
> foundation of knowledge. There is not even any specific scientific
> *method" (if there was it would be easier than it is!).
>

Basically the intellectual version of their "survival of the fittest" -
problem is even nature shows this to be wrong.

Luckily for science it has arrogance, so when they are wrong, they are
still right.

[Warren Oates]

In article <jv9pb5$13k$4...@dont-email.me>,
Tim W <tim....@mtavirgin.net> wrote:

> Really? I thought it was only fundamentalist, literalist, atheist
> nutters who took that view?

That'd be me. So, show me some historical evidence of your hemophiliac
deity's existence. The Bible doesn't count. Josephus got his stuff
second hand.
--

... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

[Jukka K. Korpela]

2012-08-03 18:52, Warren Oates wrote:

> So, show me some historical evidence of your hemophiliac
> deity's existence.

This continued off-topic discussion, where apparent non-believers try to
prove that God does not exist (presumably to themselves, mostly), at
least shows that man does not get rid of the idea of God. Someone might
even say that aggressive atheism disproves itself.

ObHTML: If God had given HTML to us, we would surely have spoiled it,
too, with our <font> and <blink>.


--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Warren Oates]

In article <jvgu21$5um$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> ObHTML: If God had given HTML to us, we would surely have spoiled it,
> too, with our <font> and <blink>.

Was God responsible for Flash?

[Michael Joel]

Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <jv9pb5$13k$4...@dont-email.me>,
> Tim W <tim....@mtavirgin.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Really? I thought it was only fundamentalist, literalist, atheist
>>nutters who took that view?
>
>
> That'd be me. So, show me some historical evidence of your hemophiliac
> deity's existence. The Bible doesn't count. Josephus got his stuff
> second hand.

I only answer to point out that you just disqualified any proof except
some form of "science" (though even from there, there is evidence. They
just refuse it). So you basically will only accept evidence from your
own kind.

[masonc]

me too me too
i wanna post something

[dorayme]

In article <n_ednQT0p4VkfYbN...@earthlink.com>,

Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
...
> >

> > ...Presumably God is not an Englishman
> > and if he has words it is in some form that requires translating...

> > into human languages. How do you know the translation
> > is correct.
> >
>

> It has been slipping into it but now we reach absurdity.

> It would appear it is you who have trouble understanding. ...

> If one believes in
> God, and they believe He is able to control everything, then it will
> stand to reason He can bring about a preservation of His word. You
> appear to confuse interpretation and translation.
>

It is not silly to suppose that complex thinking is rooted in
language. It is well known that some thoughts in one language have no
perfect equivalents in another. So translation in one language from
one native speaker to another language for the benefit of a native
speaker in the second language is important when trying to understand.

What is intellectually silly (as opposed to good entertainment or
literary endeavour) is a sweeping of all these genuine mechanism and
conceptual questions aside with that we should be content that it
*somehow* all done and correctly. You still have a problem explaining
how you can know that what you have read is God's thoughts and you
simply fudge the question.

> >
...

> > The reason that science traffics in so much wrongness is that only by
> > testing theories for their weaknesses, finding and eliminating them as
> > much as possible, is it possible to create better ones. Having the
> > best theories about the world is a process without end, there is no
> > foundation of knowledge. There is not even any specific scientific
> > *method" (if there was it would be easier than it is!).
> >
>
> Basically the intellectual version of their "survival of the fittest" -
> problem is even nature shows this to be wrong.
>

Nature shows what exactly to be wrong? That the best theories are not
produced by ruling out rival theories?

> Luckily for science it has arrogance, so when they are wrong, they are
> still right.

No, you misunderstand again. It is by identifying weaknesses that the
impulse to produce better theories is generated. You probably
mistakenly think that there is something better for humans than the
best theories they can muster. But there is no such foundation of
certainty. You are animals that are doing the best you can making
sense of the world. If it comforts to tell just so stories, that is
one thing, but if you make a claim that these just so stories are
better for truth identification than the best science, it is simply
silly over-reach and delusion.

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

In article <jvgu21$5um$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> 2012-08-03 18:52, Warren Oates wrote:
>
> > So, show me some historical evidence of your hemophiliac
> > deity's existence.
>
> This continued off-topic discussion, where apparent non-believers try to
> prove that God does not exist (presumably to themselves, mostly), at
> least shows that man does not get rid of the idea of God. Someone might
> even say that aggressive atheism disproves itself.

No one so far here is trying to prove that God does not exist. But
since you mention it, I just happen to have such a proof (constructed
a while back during some idle moment) but I hate to stray too far off
topic here to give it. I would have to be pressed. Begged would be
better and this is hardly likely.

JK, what are you doing still looking at a thread whose subject is
capitalised with an exclamation mark and clearly off topic? Should you
not leave us trolls to play in some corner of the quiet of ciwa? <g>

--
dorayme

[Warren Oates]

In article <WY6dnVrwC_2YvYHN...@earthlink.com>,

In other words, that's all you got. You christers, you disavow _any_
form of rational thought. The Bible tells you so.

[Michael Joel]

dorayme wrote:

> In article <n_ednQT0p4VkfYbN...@earthlink.com>,
> Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:
>
>
>>dorayme wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>...Presumably God is not an Englishman
>>>and if he has words it is in some form that requires translating...
>>>into human languages. How do you know the translation
>>>is correct.
>>>
>>
>>It has been slipping into it but now we reach absurdity.
>>It would appear it is you who have trouble understanding. ...
>>If one believes in
>>God, and they believe He is able to control everything, then it will
>>stand to reason He can bring about a preservation of His word. You
>>appear to confuse interpretation and translation.
>>
>
>
> It is not silly to suppose that complex thinking is rooted in
> language. It is well known that some thoughts in one language have no
> perfect equivalents in another. So translation in one language from
> one native speaker to another language for the benefit of a native
> speaker in the second language is important when trying to understand.
>

May I remind you again - you were speaking on interpreting Scripture -
and changing it into translating Scripture. Someone honestly doing their
job as a translator is not attempting to interpret but translate. Take a
word in one language (that has defined meaning) and choosing the closest
word in the other language (that has a defined meaning). Yes many times
these translators showed their biases and attempted to interpret as they
translated - but that is one part of God's Word that is amazing (maybe
not so much God's Word, but Him working with those who really want Him
and obey Him)... They can't succeed in changing the meaning because
those who are Truly obeying use the whole Word, and get their
"interpretation" by It - not themselves or some obscure verse.

Most religions claiming to be Christian out there are false. They have
absolutely no resemblance to what God Commands - hey even Obamah said
it... 'Do you know what is in your Bible'... 'we would have to get rid
of our army if you want to follow what it says in your Bible' (not exact
quotes but extremely close). But they aren't going to even consider that
- because they believe there is a God, but they do not have Faith in
That God.

The false ministers feed their people a scripture here and there along
with nice long stories and mis-interpreted scriptures (they are doing
exactly what science is doing - keep their mind occupied and away from
the Real Truth).

> What is intellectually silly (as opposed to good entertainment or
> literary endeavour) is a sweeping of all these genuine mechanism and
> conceptual questions aside with that we should be content that it
> *somehow* all done and correctly. You still have a problem explaining
> how you can know that what you have read is God's thoughts and you
> simply fudge the question.
>

No questions being fudged. You change the questions. Just as previous it
went from interpreting to translating.

Why do I believe it is God's Word and as He wanted it?
Faith. There is no other answer I can give. It has to be faith because
man desires so much to lie to himself that no matter what evidence I
provide (there is plenty of physical evidence) it will never be enough
to convince someone who does not want to submit to God.

All the evidence would just be "interpreted" to them. But they will not
admit that science if faith because it is the lie they must sustain. I
guess they really don't need to sustain it but it is the easiest they
have gotten so far.

An interesting thing about God's Word is - It interprets Itself. I have
no need to say "Oh. This means that.". When It (or rather what He Gave)
speaks on a topic - I can then examine His Word as a *whole* and see
from other times the same topic is discussed what He means (most of the
time it is completely clear - When Jesus says you are sinning to remarry
after divorce, only man can wiggle out of the clear statements).

People who do not think It agrees mistake a disagreement between parts
of God's Word - and what is actually happening, a disagreement between
God's Word and the meaning they wanted It to have.

>
> ...
>
>>>The reason that science traffics in so much wrongness is that only by
>>>testing theories for their weaknesses, finding and eliminating them as
>>>much as possible, is it possible to create better ones. Having the
>>>best theories about the world is a process without end, there is no
>>>foundation of knowledge. There is not even any specific scientific
>>>*method" (if there was it would be easier than it is!).
>>>
>>
>>Basically the intellectual version of their "survival of the fittest" -
>>problem is even nature shows this to be wrong.
>>
>
>
> Nature shows what exactly to be wrong? That the best theories are not
> produced by ruling out rival theories?

No that the best survive over the lesser. Both in nature and in humans
it is completely false. Many times the mightier animal will fall to the
weaker. In humans a lot of time the better are killed by the lesser.

Your ideas that science being wrong is it's strength proves everything I
am saying. You would never say that because God's Word isn't proven
wrong so It is right - but that would at least be far better than
claiming being wrong is a strength.

>
>
>>Luckily for science it has arrogance, so when they are wrong, they are
>>still right.
>
>
> No, you misunderstand again. It is by identifying weaknesses that the
> impulse to produce better theories is generated. You probably
> mistakenly think that there is something better for humans than the
> best theories they can muster.

Yes of course. God's Way - as His Word shows - is much better than
spending countless lifetimes trying to find the "reason for life" - when
all along they simply wouldn't accept it.

How long will humans continue the "science is better" game. It hasn't
made anything better. It has only provided more time for us to entertain
ourselves.

Science biggest achievement so far is to give us more time to be selfish.

I have already proven that the human life expectancy hasn't changed from
when Moses was alive.

Or is that not evidence either? The fact that someone over 4000 years
ago said that 70 or 80 was the years expected. Yet it was obvious he
didn't mean EVERYONE since he lived to be 120. Let me guess the answer -
no because nothing backs that writing up?

Yet you will accept the *current* theory of gravity as truth - with
nothing to back it up. Nothing they can say see, we know this is true.
Simply because someone can say (from observation) something will happen
- does not mean they understand why it happens.
You yourself said they are wrong many times. But you prefer to believe them.

You put your faith in them. That is your choice. You have that right.

I choose to put my Faith in God (which takes a lot of explaining because
it isn't just that I choose Him - He also keeps me in The Faith - but
only while I am willing to obey, just as a Father and son).

> But there is no such foundation of
> certainty. You are animals that are doing the best you can making
> sense of the world. If it comforts to tell just so stories, that is
> one thing, but if you make a claim that these just so stories are
> better for truth identification than the best science, it is simply
> silly over-reach and delusion.
>

No. I am not an animal. That is a lie that has been forced on humans for
decades now. It must be forced so that humans will act like animals.

They are succeeding too.

Look around you. Humans have refused God and they *will* act like
animals. It will only get worse.

So far the world has tried your way... they still haven't given God's a
try yet.... and they won't by their own will.

(I do not have time to re-read before posting, God's Commanded Sabbath
is coming so I will not be on tomorrow... I think it best for me to use
God's Word to provide any proof from this point because human words are
just that)

[Michael Joel]

Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <WY6dnVrwC_2YvYHN...@earthlink.com>,
> Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:
>
>
>>Warren Oates wrote:
>>
>>>In article <jv9pb5$13k$4...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Tim W <tim....@mtavirgin.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Really? I thought it was only fundamentalist, literalist, atheist
>>>>nutters who took that view?
>>>
>>>
>>>That'd be me. So, show me some historical evidence of your hemophiliac
>>>deity's existence. The Bible doesn't count. Josephus got his stuff
>>>second hand.
>>
>>I only answer to point out that you just disqualified any proof except
>>some form of "science" (though even from there, there is evidence. They
>>just refuse it). So you basically will only accept evidence from your
>>own kind.
>
>
> In other words, that's all you got.

Man's ideas is "all you got". You have faith. Have the right to your
choice. But it does not make the choice right.

>> You christers, you disavow _any_
>> form of rational thought. The Bible tells you so.

Actually it is rational - you just dislike it, so you decide it is not
rational - and you refuse anything but what you decide is "rational".


I figured that was the attitude - so I refrain from further comments.

[dorayme]

In article <WuOdnUKGiP9d_IHN...@earthlink.com>,

Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
...

> > It is not silly to suppose that complex thinking is rooted in
> > language. It is well known that some thoughts in one language have no
> > perfect equivalents in another. So translation in one language from
> > one native speaker to another language for the benefit of a native
> > speaker in the second language is important when trying to understand.
> >
>
> May I remind you again - you were speaking on interpreting Scripture -
> and changing it into translating Scripture. Someone honestly doing their
> job as a translator is not attempting to interpret but translate. Take a
> word in one language (that has defined meaning) and choosing the closest
> word in the other language

...

You are not getting the central point: I am not questioning Bible
translation. I am asking how we can know that the thoughts in God's
mind, necessarily in some language that is native to God, are actually
accurately translatable to human language. It is no good saying you
are told by God it is accurate because you are told in words (how else
can a human like you be told?) and the question then is how do you
know those words are an accurate translation of what God is thinking
when you see or hear those words?

...

> > What is intellectually silly (as opposed to good entertainment or
> > literary endeavour) is a sweeping of all these genuine mechanism and

> > conceptual questions aside with that we should be content that it is

> > *somehow* all done and correctly. You still have a problem explaining
> > how you can know that what you have read is God's thoughts and you
> > simply fudge the question.
> >
>
> No questions being fudged.

Then what is your answer to how you can know that the human words you
see, be they in their original biblical human language forms are an
accurate representation of the thoughts of God?

>
> Why do I believe it is God's Word and as He wanted it?
> Faith. There is no other answer I can give.

Which is no answer at all. The machinery, spiritual though it be, in a
hugely complex thinking being cannot be understood by humans simply
believing whatever they like about it on no grounds at all.

...

> Your ideas that science being wrong is it's strength proves everything I
> am saying. You would never say that because God's Word isn't proven
> wrong so It is right - but that would at least be far better than
> claiming being wrong is a strength.
>

It is a strength in any rational investigation to discard ideas that
are found to be wrong. It proves nothing about what you are saying.

...

> I have already proven that the human life expectancy hasn't changed from
> when Moses was alive.
>

You have proved nothing of the sort. And even if it so happened that
life expectancy at one period of time was the same at some other time,
this would mean nothing.

...

> > But there is no such foundation of
> > certainty. You are animals that are doing the best you can making
> > sense of the world. If it comforts to tell just so stories, that is
> > one thing, but if you make a claim that these just so stories are
> > better for truth identification than the best science, it is simply
> > silly over-reach and delusion.
> >
>
> No. I am not an animal.

You protest too much!

--
dorayme

[Jukka K. Korpela]

2012-08-04 1:54, dorayme wrote:

> JK, what are you doing still looking at a thread whose subject is
> capitalised with an exclamation mark and clearly off topic?

Oh, I just hoped that the brightest of you might get a clue. Off-topic
messages are off-topic, not matter how much you shout in the Subject
line. But Usenet isn't what it used to be, and neither is nostalgia.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[dorayme]

In article <jvi8ur$ef8$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> 2012-08-04 1:54, dorayme wrote:
>
> > JK, what are you doing still looking at a thread whose subject is
> > capitalised with an exclamation mark and clearly off topic?
>
> Oh, I just hoped that the brightest of you might get a clue. Off-topic
> messages are off-topic, not matter how much you shout in the Subject
> line. But Usenet isn't what it used to be, and neither is nostalgia.

Usenet has always had various off topic chattering between people. The
sort that is generally polite, not too personal, where one or two find
interest in one or two things, especially where there are some
genuinely interesting questions, will do no harm, surely.

Anyway, perhaps you are seeing more posts than I am here. I have very
active filters these days. Occasionally it interests me why and how
people think various things.

--
dorayme

[Jukka K. Korpela]

2012-08-04 14:18, dorayme wrote:

> Usenet has always had various off topic chattering between people. The
> sort that is generally polite, not too personal, where one or two find
> interest in one or two things, especially where there are some
> genuinely interesting questions, will do no harm, surely.

It surely harms by polluting newsgroups. The babble makes it more
difficult to use the groups for their designated purposes. In the good
old days, people with positive IQ used to realize this after a round or
two of due flaming.

Filters are not an excuse. It would be impolite to shout mindlessly when
people are trying to discuss, even if you could present the excuse that
it is perhaps technically possible to construct devices that filter out
the shouting and make people wear them.

I know quite well that my notes are part of the off-topic babble in
addition to fighting against it. I'm just sad to see c.i.w.a.h. die
_this_ way - with people who actually _could_ discuss its defined topic
but choose to contribute to noise.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Jonathan N. Little]

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> It surely harms by polluting newsgroups. The babble makes it more
> difficult to use the groups for their designated purposes. In the good
> old days, people with positive IQ used to realize this after a round or
> two of due flaming.

That's for sure. The Ubuntu group now is basically nothing but flame
wars that you cannot get a decent discussion about (amazingly enough)
Ubuntu without the thread dissolving into an OS pissing contest. Sad.

[Warren Oates]

In article <91io189jkbrvskvcn...@4ax.com>,

masonc <mas...@frontal-lobe.info> wrote:

> me too me too
> i wanna post something

Hey, no off-topic-topic posting to an off-topic thread. In the meantime,
your comments will be taken into consideration, and someone will get
back to you in a few days.

[masonc]

I assume from the posts here that authoring HTML is obsolete.
As is literacy. Use YouTubes only.
All go to the YouTube.authoring forum.
See you there.

[dorayme]

In article <jvj22g$vof$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> 2012-08-04 14:18, dorayme wrote:
>
> > Usenet has always had various off topic chattering between people. The
> > sort that is generally polite, not too personal, where one or two find
> > interest in one or two things, especially where there are some
> > genuinely interesting questions, will do no harm, surely.
>
> It surely harms by polluting newsgroups. The babble makes it more
> difficult to use the groups for their designated purposes. In the good
> old days, people with positive IQ used to realize this after a round or
> two of due flaming.
>

Flaming yes, I agree. But I am not sure that the odd polite side
discussion of other matters is *so* bad. There are groups which are
vibrant on their specific technical matters that still have such
discussions. But perhaps if everyone was as inclined as I am on odd
occasions, it would become a bad thing! In the absence of more than
the odd posts, it is a temptation hard to resist but one of your
points (below) I think, sounds like you are saying there should be
some decorum as the ship sinks. Which is a nice point.

...

> I know quite well that my notes are part of the off-topic babble in
> addition to fighting against it. I'm just sad to see c.i.w.a.h. die
> _this_ way - with people who actually _could_ discuss its defined topic
> but choose to contribute to noise.

It is sad if we are talking abuse or flaming. Perhaps it is also a a
wee bit sad that some argument on the ability of a Unique Mind to
translate It's thoughts in It's native language to human languages
does not spark a little interest in the group rather than detract from
it. But I guess this is special pleading!

--
dorayme

[Ed Mullen]

I appear to be missing the irony.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Always remember to pillage BEFORE you burn.

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2012-08-04, masonc wrote:
> I assume from the posts here that authoring HTML is obsolete.

Or that you have forgotten how to use your killfile.

I have just cleared everything from my killfile, which is the only
reason I saw this thread. It will be the first entry in my new
killfile.


--
Chris F.A. Johnson
<http://torontowebdesign.cfaj.ca/>

[Ed Mullen]

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2012-08-04, masonc wrote:
>> I assume from the posts here that authoring HTML is obsolete.
>
> Or that you have forgotten how to use your killfile.
>
> I have just cleared everything from my killfile, which is the only
> reason I saw this thread. It will be the first entry in my new
> killfile.
>
>

Chris, you obviously understood something from Mason's post while I did
not. Did I miss the context? Or miss the irnoy? And, hence, the
pointlessness?

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/

A good scapegoat is almost as good as a solution.

[Ed Mullen]

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2012-08-04, masonc wrote:
>> I assume from the posts here that authoring HTML is obsolete.
>
> Or that you have forgotten how to use your killfile.
>
> I have just cleared everything from my killfile, which is the only
> reason I saw this thread. It will be the first entry in my new
> killfile.
>
>

BTW, just looked at your site (sig URL) ...

What does the asterisk point to in ...

"work in any window size with any font size*"

I don't see any footnote for the asterisk. Hey! Just curious, not
criticizing!

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/

"A musicologist is a man who can read music but can't hear it." - Sir
Thomas Beecham (1879 - 1961)

[dorayme]

In article <5rh5aa....@news.alt.net>,

Ed Mullen <e...@MUNGEedmullen.net> wrote:

> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> > On 2012-08-04, masonc wrote:
> >> I assume from the posts here that authoring HTML is obsolete.
> >
> > Or that you have forgotten how to use your killfile.
> >
> > I have just cleared everything from my killfile, which is the only
> > reason I saw this thread. It will be the first entry in my new
> > killfile.
> >
> >
>
> BTW, just looked at your site (sig URL) ...
>
> What does the asterisk point to in ...
>
> "work in any window size with any font size*"
>
> I don't see any footnote for the asterisk. Hey! Just curious, not
> criticizing!

It's a link. Hover slowly over it.

--
dorayme

[Michael Joel]

dorayme wrote:

> In article <WuOdnUKGiP9d_IHN...@earthlink.com>,
> Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:
>
>
>>dorayme wrote:
>>
>
> ...
>
>>>It is not silly to suppose that complex thinking is rooted in
>>>language. It is well known that some thoughts in one language have no
>>>perfect equivalents in another. So translation in one language from
>>>one native speaker to another language for the benefit of a native
>>>speaker in the second language is important when trying to understand.
>>>
>>
>>May I remind you again - you were speaking on interpreting Scripture -
>>and changing it into translating Scripture. Someone honestly doing their
>>job as a translator is not attempting to interpret but translate. Take a
>>word in one language (that has defined meaning) and choosing the closest
>>word in the other language
>
>
> ...
>
> You are not getting the central point: I am not questioning Bible

>> translation...

That is exactly what you are doing in your next paragraph - this is why
it is to the point of impossibility to talk to you. What you ask - isn't
what you ask.

> ...I am asking how we can know that the thoughts in God's

> mind, necessarily in some language that is native to God, are actually
> accurately translatable to human language. It is no good saying you
> are told by God it is accurate because you are told in words (how else
> can a human like you be told?) and the question then is how do you
> know those words are an accurate translation of what God is thinking
> when you see or hear those words?
>

That would be "questioning translation" wouldn't it?

Your questions would require that I lose my mind to answer. I might as
well ask you, how can I know your words are English and not some other
language that resembles English but has totally other meanings (it would
appear so at points) - but that and your question require me to not
think rationally or even exist in reality. How do I know you really
exist? Can we stay in control of our imaginations and in reality?

I know It is what God says because He sent His Son to say It, agree with
It and make no excuse for not believing and obey Him.
You refuse to accept that God can do it. That is the answer but you
refuse it because you think your very logical and only your "logic" is
correct.

There is lots of physical evidence (archeology itself keeps denying
God's Word, yet keeps finding things exactly as It said - it will not
make any difference though because they refuse it anyway) - but to rely
on physical evidence is false faith.

Hebrews 11:1-3 (NASB)
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
things not seen. [2] For by it the men of old gained approval. [3] By
faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so
that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Exodus 33:11 (KJV)
And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto
his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua,
the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Galatians 4:4-5 (NASB)
But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born
of a woman, born under the Law, [5] in order that He might redeem those
who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

He said THIS GOSPEL (and confirmed all the writings),
Matthew 24:14 (KJV)
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world
for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

So your answer is that God didn't just send the message through His
prophets (though He could have - let's not be silly) - BUT did so
Himself in times.

I am afraid there is no talking to you simply because you refuse any
answer. You decide what is "intelligent", what is "right" - and if my
answers do not meat what you want, they are not enough or logical.
You judge it all by your own ideas - yet do not realize your own ideas
are wrong and that is why you can't accept my answers.

You refuse because you will have nothing but your own ideas. Your own
ideas are the only ones that are right - though you can't prove it.

I already know what you would like to reply - I am doing the same - not
at all. I am not going by MY ideas. I am going by what God had preserved
for me to learn of Him by. You make yourself your master - I make myself
a servant to God and try to make myself nothing to myself.

This to you is a lot of words with no meaning. There is nothing I can do
about that.

You refuse to accept your science as faith (though that is exactly what
it is - a religion; in which you hold "truths" that can not be proven) -

I accept mine is Faith. In fact God's Word tells me that is exactly all
I can go on. In the end (and there will be one) the ones that did right
will be proven.

If you want me to answer *serious* questions about my Faith I can - but
I think it is wrong for me to continue to just use my own words and try
to convince you with human logic - especially since it was not logical
to even think that would work - God's Word keeps warning it wont, yet I
fall into the trap to many times.

I should not debate people that insist they are asking questions - but
in reality have the answer they want and do not accept any answer I can
give.

[dorayme]

In article <A8WdnbS3i_J0VYDN...@earthlink.com>,

Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
...

> > ...I am asking how we can know that the thoughts in God's
> > mind, necessarily in some language that is native to God, are actually
> > accurately translatable to human language. It is no good saying you
> > are told by God it is accurate because you are told in words (how else
> > can a human like you be told?) and the question then is how do you
> > know those words are an accurate translation of what God is thinking
> > when you see or hear those words?
> >
>
> That would be "questioning translation" wouldn't it?
>

There are two issues, one that is of no interest to me and one that
is. There is the scholarly question of the translation from the first
human record of the alleged words of God. Into Greek, English,
whatever. You are reading the English presumably. I am not questioning
the translation from the original to your version however interesting
that might be to others.

My question is about how you know that the words you see represent the
thoughts of God.

> Your questions would require that I lose my mind to answer....

No, I am not trying to play any tricks on you. I believe that a
complex thinker must have some sort of complex language to think in
and that if you are to know what this complex thinker is thinking, you
need either to translate its native language or share it. I cannot see
that you can share a god's language, and I cannot see how anyone who
is not part of his language community can translate him. It just seems
an impossibility to me.

--
dorayme

[Michael Joel]

dorayme wrote:
> In article <A8WdnbS3i_J0VYDN...@earthlink.com>,
> Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:
>
>
>>dorayme wrote:
>>
>
> ...
>
>
>>>...I am asking how we can know that the thoughts in God's
>>>mind, necessarily in some language that is native to God, are actually
>>>accurately translatable to human language. It is no good saying you
>>>are told by God it is accurate because you are told in words (how else
>>>can a human like you be told?) and the question then is how do you
>>>know those words are an accurate translation of what God is thinking
>>>when you see or hear those words?
>>>
>>
>>That would be "questioning translation" wouldn't it?
>>
>
>
> There are two issues, one that is of no interest to me and one that
> is. There is the scholarly question of the translation from the first
> human record of the alleged words of God. Into Greek, English,
> whatever. You are reading the English presumably. I am not questioning
> the translation from the original to your version however interesting
> that might be to others.
>
> My question is about how you know that the words you see represent the
> thoughts of God.
>

I know that is your question. You must not see how illogical it is.
But you appear serious.

Did you read my answer? Let me re-word my answer,

You seem to first assume the original prophets got their message in
writing - actually God's Word says He spoke to them. No translated
needed.... this is so silly - What would it matter if it needed
translating, God is not limited as a human. That is part of your
problem, you try to apply human rules (and rules you decide must exist)
to God who is not bound by those rules - He created all the rules the
worlds use to function. It is because you do not believe in a God and
you do not (can not as long as you refuse) understand God.

He spoke face to face,

Exodus 33:11 (KJV)
And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto
his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua,
the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

He sent His Son to speak face to face,

Galatians 4:4-5 (NASB)
But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born
of a woman, born under the Law, [5] in order that He might redeem those
who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

He said THIS GOSPEL (and confirmed all the writings),
Matthew 24:14 (KJV)
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world
for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

>

>>Your questions would require that I lose my mind to answer....
>
>
> No, I am not trying to play any tricks on you. I believe that a
> complex thinker must have some sort of complex language to think in
> and that if you are to know what this complex thinker is thinking, you
> need either to translate its native language or share it. I cannot see
> that you can share a god's language, and I cannot see how anyone who
> is not part of his language community can translate him. It just seems
> an impossibility to me.
>

Again that is because you limit God. You apply your limitations to God.
This is completely illogical - or actually it fits perfect with human
logic - or "science".

It "seems" that way to you because you take what you think and assume it
must be. Again - you judge by your ideas without realizing they are
flawed. It is unavoidable without using God's Word.

John 16:13 (KJV)
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you
into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he
shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Romans 8:11 (KJV)
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell
in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your
mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

"Speaking His language" if you want to term it like that (not that it is
anything like that).

When someone is willing and obedient (part of receiving His Spirit) His
Spirit is a kind of "communication". It gives you a Love for His Truth -
not parts of it (as the false religions do). Then by searching It, and
allowing It to interpreter Itself then you understand (definitely not
the understanding the vast majority of "Christian" churches try to give It).

In human terms this is like trying to explain algebra to someone who
doesn't understand addition... and doesn't believe addition is possible.

If you have decided not to believe in God and His Word nothing I say
will be an "answer". You will keep your faith in science (a religion).

[tlvp]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 20:17:22 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson linked to

> <http://torontowebdesign.cfaj.ca/> .

FWIW, your links to http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js
fail for me, because pagead2.googlesyndication.com is in my HOSTs file,
redirected to 127.0.0.1. I suspect I'm not alone in that regard :-) .

No offense intended, of course. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[dorayme]

In article <1d2dnedBs_4feYDN...@earthlink.com>,

Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
...
> >

> > There are two issues, one that is of no interest to me and one that
> > is. There is the scholarly question of the translation from the first
> > human record of the alleged words of God. Into Greek, English,
> > whatever. You are reading the English presumably. I am not questioning
> > the translation from the original to your version however interesting
> > that might be to others.
> >
> > My question is about how you know that the words you see represent the
> > thoughts of God.
> >
>
> I know that is your question. You must not see how illogical it is.
> But you appear serious.
>

It is surely not illogical to ask how you know something to be true?
Perhaps some questions along the lines of "how do you know..." are
illogical or inappropriate but I cannot see how my question is. It is
such a big leap to suppose that words you hear or see have a direct
causal link with a god.

...

> You seem to first assume the original prophets got their message in
> writing - actually God's Word says He spoke to them. No translated
> needed.... this is so silly - What would it matter if it needed

> translating, God is not limited as a human....

It does not matter whether the words allegedly from God were heard or
written, the same question comes up about how you or anyone could know
they reflected the thoughts of God.

>
> He spoke face to face,
> Exodus 33:11 (KJV)
> And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto

> his friend. ...
>

Surely the face of a god is something very different to a face of a
man. When a man speaks to another man face to face, their faces are
visible to each other. This was not the case here. Some sounds were
heard and these sounds were exactly as if someone had spoken them. But
there is then a number of questions.

First, were the sounds real and not merely imagined?

Were there other witnesses, others besides Moses that heard this?

How reliable was the judgment and general fact identifying skills of
Moses?

Particularly interesting to me, how do you go about checking that the
words heard actually represent the thoughts of God. Does God think in
the particular language the heard words are in? Is He multilingual?
Does He have a native language, one He is particularly strong in and
uses to do general thinking? Does He think in some non-linguistic way?
Can it even be possible for a really complex being to think complex
thoughts, to design really big and intricate things, to have a grasp
of these things, *without* a complex rule-bound rich language. How
would a god who was the only member of his class attain a language?

...

> If you have decided not to believe in God and His Word nothing I say
> will be an "answer". You will keep your faith in science (a religion).

This is another interesting issue. I don't think anyone can *decide*
to believe something. It is not the sort of thing that is under the
direct control of the will. You can find yourself believing something
under the causal weight of the evidence, you can simply find yourself
believing something without quite knowing how to explain it, all sorts
of things... But you cannot decide by an act of will to believe
something. Try it! Try believing - just for a few minutes - that a
frog is about to jump into the room you are in in the next couple of
minutes. You can entertain the thought, but I don't think you can
simply choose to believe it.

--
dorayme

[Wilbur Eleven]

In article <A8WdnbS3i_J0VYDN...@earthlink.com>,

Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

> yet do not realize your own ideas
> are wrong and that is why you can't accept my answers.

You sound like my sister-in-law. Hey, I heard that archaeologists have
discovered that Mitt [spit] Romney coexisted with the dinosaurs and had
his skull shined by Eve.

--

Fine then, I'm drinking coffee and rolling cigarettes and looking
out at the hot baked street and a lady just walked by wiggling it
in tight white pants, and we are not dead yet.

[Michael Joel]

You make that all up for yourself - you ask questions based on how "it
must be" - but the how "it must be" is from your own imagination - it
goes in circles. Just as "science" performs "test" - but the test are
based on their own "understanding" - it goes in circles.

>
> First, were the sounds real and not merely imagined?
>
> Were there other witnesses, others besides Moses that heard this?
>
> How reliable was the judgment and general fact identifying skills of
> Moses?
>
> Particularly interesting to me, how do you go about checking that the
> words heard actually represent the thoughts of God. Does God think in
> the particular language the heard words are in? Is He multilingual?
> Does He have a native language, one He is particularly strong in and
> uses to do general thinking? Does He think in some non-linguistic way?
> Can it even be possible for a really complex being to think complex
> thoughts, to design really big and intricate things, to have a grasp
> of these things, *without* a complex rule-bound rich language. How
> would a god who was the only member of his class attain a language?
>
> ...

I answered the question. I answered it with good answers. I do not
intend to chase the same question in circles.

The question you ask is only a question because you have decided to
limit God's ability to speak and His ability to cause to understand.

That is your decision. I would like you to change your mind but I can't
do anything to get you to change your mind.

I supplied answers from God's Word to prove that He did speak and He was
heard.

You decide not to accept the Witnesses that God spoke to Moses "face to
face" as in not in a dream (vision) but as one would talk to his friend.
Moses even SAW the back of God [because no man may look on the face of
God and live... So because Moses was the friend of God and desired to
see Him - God allowed Him to, but covered Moses' face as He passed by so
he would not see the Face of God, He then removed his hand and Moses saw
the back of God].

It is witnessed that God spoke openly to the entire congregation of
Israel at once. But they in fear asked not to be spoken to anymore but
that Moses go speak to Him - and they would listen to what Moses told
them God commanded - of course they didn't.

Jesus Christ was the Son of God and was made flesh (just as we are) and
He witnessed to God and His Truth. He witnessed to the recorded writings
as True.

I have nothing more for that question. You refuse my answers. You refuse
the Witness - though you do not have evidence It is wrong.

This IS the "scientific method". Make a question that only is a question
to them - then search for the answer - though the answer has been
already given.

>
>
>>If you have decided not to believe in God and His Word nothing I say
>>will be an "answer". You will keep your faith in science (a religion).
>
>
> This is another interesting issue. I don't think anyone can *decide*
> to believe something. It is not the sort of thing that is under the
> direct control of the will. You can find yourself believing something
> under the causal weight of the evidence, you can simply find yourself
> believing something without quite knowing how to explain it, all sorts
> of things... But you cannot decide by an act of will to believe
> something. Try it! Try believing - just for a few minutes - that a
> frog is about to jump into the room you are in in the next couple of
> minutes. You can entertain the thought, but I don't think you can
> simply choose to believe it.
>

Actually if you dwell on it you can make yourself believe anything you
want. (e.e "phobias" - all it takes is the person consistently deciding
not to believe/act on the fear and they can get over that "phobia").

That is why it is a choice to believe false ideas or God's Truth.

You can decide what to you put faith in.
Faith is not some thought or doubt - Faith is action. Anyone can have
doubts in anything - as a kid I once wondered if what I took for reality
could be a dream and my dream reality - that was childish doubt. We do
not have to serve our doubts, we can overcome them. By acting in Faith
our doubts are pushed away and eventually die.

As long as one feeds their doubts they will increase.

You could doubt your beloved "science" if you decided to. Just as you
could accept God's Word as Truth and "draw near to God".. so that He
could..."draw near to you"...
Act on Faith and the doubts will die.


I have no answers you will accept - because -you set the rules for "how
it must be" and then refuse to accept that it is NOT "the way it must
be". So the True answers are not accepted.

[dorayme]

In article <T9idnX9tutSA7oPN...@earthlink.com>,

Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
...

> > It does not matter whether the words allegedly from God were heard or
> > written, the same question comes up about how you or anyone could know
> > they reflected the thoughts of God.
> >
> >
> >>He spoke face to face,

...
> > Surely the face of a god is something very different to a face of a
> > man. When a man speaks to another man face to face, their faces are
> > visible to each other. This was not the case here. Some sounds were
> > heard and these sounds were exactly as if someone had spoken them. But
> > there is then a number of questions.
>
>
> You make that all up for yourself - you ask questions based on how "it

> must be" - but the how "it must be" is from your own imagination ...

I did not make it up that God did not speak visible face to visible
face to Moses, you inform me later that He did not show His face, only
His back.

>
>
> >
> > First, were the sounds real and not merely imagined?
> >
> > Were there other witnesses, others besides Moses that heard this?
> >
> > How reliable was the judgment and general fact identifying skills of
> > Moses?
> >
> > Particularly interesting to me, how do you go about checking that the
> > words heard actually represent the thoughts of God. Does God think in
> > the particular language the heard words are in? Is He multilingual?
> > Does He have a native language, one He is particularly strong in and
> > uses to do general thinking? Does He think in some non-linguistic way?
> > Can it even be possible for a really complex being to think complex
> > thoughts, to design really big and intricate things, to have a grasp
> > of these things, *without* a complex rule-bound rich language. How
> > would a god who was the only member of his class attain a language?
> >
> > ...

...

> The question you ask is only a question because you have decided to
> limit God's ability to speak and His ability to cause to understand.
>

The question remains, no matter who asks it. I have no power to limit
any God. I am asking how it could be done? Is it even logically
possible? When we read fairy stories and other wild whacky stories to
our kids and grandkids, the tales involve such things as flying cows
or dinosaurs or what have you. But when you examine the actual notion,
it would not be possible for a dinosaur or a cow to fly, these animals
simply do not have the means and the point is this: sticking wings on
them as in the drawings does not cut it.

In the case of minds, there are similar concerns. It is no good simply
accepting that it is possible or actual that a mind could do this or
that just because you can write such things down in words. You can
*say* a cow (that never leaves its grazing field) knows more about
physics than the top human physicists with Phd.s but it is hard to
understand two things about such a claim. First, how do they know.
Second, and much more interesting, what exactly are they really
believing, how could *a cow* have such skills and knowledge.

...

> ... God spoke to Moses "face to

> face" as in not in a dream (vision) but as one would talk to his friend.
> Moses even SAW the back of God [because no man may look on the face of
> God and live... So because Moses was the friend of God and desired to
> see Him - God allowed Him to, but covered Moses' face as He passed by so
> he would not see the Face of God, He then removed his hand and Moses saw
> the back of God].
>

If someone sees something, it must look a certain way. What way was it
and how can we be sure it was the back of a god? But, again, more
importantly, how can a god have a front and a back, a top and a
bottom? Would this not make Him a spatial being and limit him to a
time and a place. How big was the back that Moses saw? If it was a
normal sized human back, the question arises as to how Moses or you
can know it was of a God.

...
> You refuse my answers... though you do not have evidence It is wrong.
> ...

No, you seem not to be understanding the burden of proof in these
matters. Think of a court of law where an accused needs to be proved
to be guilty before he can be convicted. The level of proof is often
that his guilt be beyond reasonable doubt. He does not have to prove
his innocence. In other words, the judge and jury cannot say he is
guilty because he cannot prove his innocence.

I will give you another analogy. Suppose someone here in Sydney claims
that there is red balloon in a cupboard in a crevice on Mount Everest.
It would be unreasonable to think it is a strength for the case that
there is no evidence against it.

Big and fantastic claims generate around them a need for them to be
critically examined

...

> > This is another interesting issue. I don't think anyone can *decide*
> > to believe something. It is not the sort of thing that is under the
> > direct control of the will. You can find yourself believing something
> > under the causal weight of the evidence, you can simply find yourself
> > believing something without quite knowing how to explain it, all sorts
> > of things... But you cannot decide by an act of will to believe
> > something. Try it! Try believing - just for a few minutes - that a
> > frog is about to jump into the room you are in in the next couple of
> > minutes. You can entertain the thought, but I don't think you can
> > simply choose to believe it.
> >
>
> Actually if you dwell on it you can make yourself believe anything you
> want. (e.e "phobias" - all it takes is the person consistently deciding
> not to believe/act on the fear and they can get over that "phobia").
>

It is true that you can choose to start a process that you believe
will end with you believing things that you do not believe now. For
example, you could make a trip to somewhere and know beforehand that
you will believe things that you do not believe now. You could even
have evidence that doing something will cause you to change your mind
about some proposition. But, what I am saying, is that you cannot
directly choose to believe something.

> That is why it is a choice to believe false ideas or God's Truth.
>

I beg to differ. People find themselves believing things as a result
of influences.

> You can decide what to you put faith in.
> Faith is not some thought or doubt - Faith is action. Anyone can have
> doubts in anything - as a kid I once wondered if what I took for reality
> could be a dream and my dream reality - that was childish doubt. We do
> not have to serve our doubts, we can overcome them. By acting in Faith
> our doubts are pushed away and eventually die.
>

I don't think this is a good description of what happens when people
will themselves on to things. But putting this aside, it does not mean
in any way that such beliefs gain any greater likelihood of being
true. If I somehow could turn around my idea that Black Thunder is a
complete dud of a race horse and will never place in the 7th at Ascot
just as he has never won anything ever before, and - action! - I put
all my money on it, it does not mean it has any better chance of
coming in for a win or place.

--
dorayme

[Michael Joel]

dorayme wrote:
> In article <T9idnX9tutSA7oPN...@earthlink.com>,
> Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:
>
>
>>dorayme wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>It does not matter whether the words allegedly from God were heard or
>>>written, the same question comes up about how you or anyone could know
>>>they reflected the thoughts of God.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>He spoke face to face,
>
> ...
>
>>>Surely the face of a god is something very different to a face of a
>>>man. When a man speaks to another man face to face, their faces are
>>>visible to each other. This was not the case here. Some sounds were
>>>heard and these sounds were exactly as if someone had spoken them. But
>>>there is then a number of questions.
>>
>>
>>You make that all up for yourself - you ask questions based on how "it
>>must be" - but the how "it must be" is from your own imagination ...
>
>
> I did not make it up that God did not speak visible face to visible
> face to Moses, you inform me later that He did not show His face, only
> His back.
>

I noticed you have been editing my answers down to just a mere portion
of what I actually said.

Also - noticing what parts get edited makes we wonder if it is so your
replies and questions are not compared side by side with my answers?

If they were you and others could only conclude that you either are not
reading all of the reply - or you can not understand the answer so you
continue on with questions that continue to get sillier and sillier.

>>
>>>First, were the sounds real and not merely imagined?
>>>
>>>Were there other witnesses, others besides Moses that heard this?
>>>
>>>How reliable was the judgment and general fact identifying skills of
>>>Moses?
>>>
>>>Particularly interesting to me, how do you go about checking that the
>>>words heard actually represent the thoughts of God. Does God think in
>>>the particular language the heard words are in? Is He multilingual?
>>>Does He have a native language, one He is particularly strong in and
>>>uses to do general thinking? Does He think in some non-linguistic way?
>>>Can it even be possible for a really complex being to think complex
>>>thoughts, to design really big and intricate things, to have a grasp
>>>of these things, *without* a complex rule-bound rich language. How
>>>would a god who was the only member of his class attain a language?
>>>
>>>...
>
> ...
>
>>The question you ask is only a question because you have decided to
>>limit God's ability to speak and His ability to cause to understand.
>>

There was a good bit of my reply before and after this piece.
I answered those questions - but you removed the answers.

>
>
> The question remains, no matter who asks it. I have no power to limit
> any God. I am asking how it could be done? Is it even logically
> possible? When we read fairy stories and other wild whacky stories to
> our kids and grandkids, the tales involve such things as flying cows
> or dinosaurs or what have you. But when you examine the actual notion,
> it would not be possible for a dinosaur or a cow to fly, these animals
> simply do not have the means and the point is this: sticking wings on
> them as in the drawings does not cut it.
>
> In the case of minds, there are similar concerns. It is no good simply
> accepting that it is possible or actual that a mind could do this or
> that just because you can write such things down in words. You can
> *say* a cow (that never leaves its grazing field) knows more about
> physics than the top human physicists with Phd.s but it is hard to
> understand two things about such a claim. First, how do they know.
> Second, and much more interesting, what exactly are they really
> believing, how could *a cow* have such skills and knowledge.

I do not care if you read silly stories to your kids or grandkids. I
will warn you though, they pollute the mind so it is harder to accept
God's Truth when they hear of it... "Oh daddy that sounds like that
story you used to read me..." yeah - and there is a REASON that it does.
Their there to pollute the mind so it can be confused between True power
of God and men's evil imaginations that they WILL NOT control.

>
> ...
>

Another good bit of my last reply gone.

>
>>... God spoke to Moses "face to
>>face" as in not in a dream (vision) but as one would talk to his friend.
>>Moses even SAW the back of God [because no man may look on the face of
>>God and live... So because Moses was the friend of God and desired to
>>see Him - God allowed Him to, but covered Moses' face as He passed by so
>>he would not see the Face of God, He then removed his hand and Moses saw
>>the back of God].
>>
>
>
> If someone sees something, it must look a certain way. What way was it
> and how can we be sure it was the back of a god? But, again, more
> importantly, how can a god have a front and a back, a top and a
> bottom? Would this not make Him a spatial being and limit him to a
> time and a place. How big was the back that Moses saw? If it was a
> normal sized human back, the question arises as to how Moses or you
> can know it was of a God.
>
> ...

Another good bit of my reply gone... Even an answer for a specific
question you asked...

>
>>You refuse my answers... though you do not have evidence It is wrong.
>>...
>
>
> No, you seem not to be understanding the burden of proof in these
> matters. Think of a court of law where an accused needs to be proved
> to be guilty before he can be convicted. The level of proof is often
> that his guilt be beyond reasonable doubt. He does not have to prove
> his innocence. In other words, the judge and jury cannot say he is
> guilty because he cannot prove his innocence.
>

You no longer are even following the conversation.
It is you saying and questioning God's abilities - all of which is bad
enough, but you do it with the most outrageous and silly ideas.

> I will give you another analogy. Suppose someone here in Sydney claims
> that there is red balloon in a cupboard in a crevice on Mount Everest.
> It would be unreasonable to think it is a strength for the case that
> there is no evidence against it.
>
> Big and fantastic claims generate around them a need for them to be
> critically examined
>

So far you have asked questions, changed questions, refused my answers -
removed my answers.

You can have your beliefs - not a problem for me. I wish you would come
to your senses.

I could turn this around and ask questions of "science" that are not
answerable - BUT at least my questions would be reasonable questions.

They would not be silly reasonings in which I ask how God, who has all
Power, Knows all things, is the CREATOR - not the creation, could
communicate with His creation and be understood.

*I would think anyone who works on computer programs would understand
the maker knows how to communicate with what they makes. But you do it
all the time and yet can't even grasp it for your answer.*


Everything I answered the last time still stands.
Editing my replies doesn't make them go away.

I would be silly to bother replying anymore. I am done. To continue
would only be giving in to bombastic nonsense.

I will ask God's forgiveness for giving into to such a waist of time and
the use of so many human words that have no benefit.

[dorayme]

In article <fsKdnbz-qPUqjILN...@earthlink.com>,
Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

...

> >
>
> I noticed you have been editing my answers down to just a mere portion
> of what I actually said.
>

Otherwise each post would keep growing in length and become too
confusing. There is nothing to stop anyone from seeing the public
record.

...

>
> I would be silly to bother replying anymore. I am done.

This is probably a good idea. I am used to it. Many different sorts of
people flee from me. Often I have experienced religious proselytisers
coming to the door but finding themselves quite unable to persist
standing there for ever while I go through a few things of interest to
me at length.

Hang on, I hear a knock on the door... maybe some nice couple (they
sometimes come in pairs, especially if one is young, the other needed
as chaperone) to talk to...

--
dorayme

[Ed Mullen]

Godof Glory wrote:
> JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that GOD raised HIM from th

I haven't been able to figure out where to inject any prose into this
thread, which, frankly, I find both fascinating and idiiotic. But, okay,
here goes.

SHUT UP!!!

It's silly to argue about this. You either believe or do not. End of
discussion.

Oh, well, of course, you can labor on to no avail but the + will never
convince the - of anything, nor vice versa.

But I do enjoy watching you all waste your time.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/

Don't be accommodating, be honest. I honestly don't have much more time
for anything else.

[dorayme]

In article <5rjsig....@news.alt.net>,

Ed Mullen <e...@MUNGEedmullen.net> wrote:

> I do enjoy watching you all waste your time.

What do you mean "you all", white man? You don't waste your time
reading it?

--
dorayme

[Ed Mullen]

Too damned much! :-D

Yes I do. But I only scan it. I've heard it all before and I know
there is no end.

You believe, I don't. Or vice-versa. No matter.

"Yes! I believe the frog sits on the hearth!"

"No, you can't prove the frog even exists!"

What's the point other than amusement, assuming you are amused by such
stuff?

I mean, what's to argue about? God exists. Many of my relatives
frequently reassure of this fact! Who am I to argue? the Catholic
Church (in favor of fair disclosure I must admit that I am a recovering
Roman Catholic) taught me that for years. Hey! They own the Vatican!
Who am I to argue?

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/

We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out. - Decca
Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

[dorayme]

In article <5rjtb3....@news.alt.net>,

Ed Mullen <e...@MUNGEedmullen.net> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <5rjsig....@news.alt.net>,
> > Ed Mullen <e...@MUNGEedmullen.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I do enjoy watching you all waste your time.
> >
> > What do you mean "you all", white man? You don't waste your time
> > reading it?
> >
>
> Too damned much! :-D
>
> Yes I do. But I only scan it.
> I've heard it all before and I know
> there is no end.

I don't think you could have heard it *all* before, there are issues
that even I - a keen student of the theological mind - have not heard
nor properly understood yet.

btw, Ed, endlessness is not necessarily a bad thing.

--
dorayme

[Jonathan N. Little]

dorayme wrote:
> btw, Ed, endlessness is not necessarily a bad thing.

But fruitless is.

[dorayme]

In article <jvnbgu$uu5$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > btw, Ed, endlessness is not necessarily a bad thing.
>
> But fruitless is.

Not necessarily, it depends.

--
dorayme

[tlvp]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:37:26 -0400, Michael Joel wrote:

> I will ask God's forgiveness for giving into to such a waist of time and
> the use of so many human words that have no benefit.

Waist knot, wont knot, they all weighs say :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

[masonc]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 12:22:42 +1000, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

What evidence are you depending on as proof "there are issues" you
have not heard ?

[masonc]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:29:15 -0400, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:37:26 -0400, Michael Joel wrote:
>
>> I will ask God's forgiveness for giving into to such a waist of time and
>> the use of so many human words that have no benefit.
>
>Waist knot, wont knot, they all weighs say :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

The unemployment of HTML authors has by this thread been demonstrated.

Now.... about YouTubes .... any of you unemployed ones know
a good, instructive forum? I'm abandoning HTML because of its
literacy requirement.

[dorayme]

In article <05ku18d4hb5htl44k...@4ax.com>,

masonc <mas...@frontal-lobe.info> wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 12:22:42 +1000, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>

...
> >
> >...there are issues

> >that even I - a keen student of the theological mind - have not heard
> >nor properly understood yet.
>
> What evidence are you depending on as proof "there are issues" you
> have not heard ?

That there are a lot of highly intelligent educated civilised
restrained articulate people who are religious that I have never
talked to and there just must be things I am missing. Not all theists
are bombastic fools, simpletons and madmen.

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

In article <99ku18t45ed02ds4i...@4ax.com>,

masonc <mas...@frontal-lobe.info> wrote:

> The unemployment of HTML authors has by this thread been demonstrated.

Like

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/htmlWorkWanted.jpg>

--
dorayme

[Warren Oates]

In article <fsKdnbz-qPUqjILN...@earthlink.com>,

Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

> I will ask God's forgiveness for giving into to such a waist of time and
> the use of so many human words that have no benefit.

I forgive you sonshine. As penance, do 100 hail-ups and lose 2 inches
off your waste.
--

... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

[Warren Oates]

In article <dorayme-461BF7...@news.albasani.net>,

dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> That there are a lot of highly intelligent educated civilised
> restrained articulate people who are religious that I have never
> talked to

Name three.

>and there just must be things I am missing. Not all theists
> are bombastic fools, simpletons and madmen.

I can name three who are.

[tlvp]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 07:43:00 -0400, Warren Oates wrote:

> In article <dorayme-461BF7...@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> That there are a lot of highly intelligent educated civilised
>> restrained articulate people who are religious that I have never
>> talked to
>
> Name three.

Not dorayme, but even I can do that -- Mahatma Gandhi, Rheinhold Niebuhr,
Pearl Buck.

>>and there just must be things I am missing. Not all theists
>> are bombastic fools, simpletons and madmen.
>
> I can name three who are.

But why bother? (... there are so many of them :-) .)

[dorayme]

In article <17l55ns1dtq1f$.145n3ey1...@40tude.net>,

tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 07:43:00 -0400, Warren Oates wrote:
>
> > In article <dorayme-461BF7...@news.albasani.net>,
> > dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> That there are a lot of highly intelligent educated civilised
> >> restrained articulate people who are religious that I have never
> >> talked to
> >
> > Name three.
>
> Not dorayme, but even I can do that -- Mahatma Gandhi, Rheinhold Niebuhr,
> Pearl Buck.

The ones I have talked to have always too quickly reached a point
where they become obscure.

John Robinson, to take an example of a theist (not one I have managed
to earbash) is a pommy bishop who claimed not to believe in any
supernatural being, but identified God somehow with the notion and
practice of love. When addressing the appearance that he is an atheist
in his ontology, he seems to me to fudge.

But maybe all theists have to fudge their ontology (the list of types
of things believed to exist)? Or maybe it is not a matter of ontology
but of a sort of literary and moral prism through which they view the
world, a prism that does not say what is in fact the case but rather
one that makes the viewer comfortable in various ways, and lost
without. Like clothes. Or hats, there is no true hat, there are just
hats.

--
dorayme

[Ed Mullen]

Godof Glory wrote:
> JESUS IS LORD,

Only for those who believe. I don't. At least not in this fiction.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/

"Sometimes I think it's a shame when I get feelin' better when I'm
feelin' no pain." - Gordon Lightfoot