Debate : 1703


Off-Topic / Debate / 1703

Re: POV-RAY orange color —Jesse Long

Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message news:slrn7rmim9.4dt....UTK.EDU... (...) Ideally the worst times are the times that gloify Him the most, as it gives you a chance to display your faith in Him aven though life sucks (think Job). (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Todd Lehman

(...) I've kind of always wondered: Is this mainly applicable for when bad things happen to good people? Or is He also there for someone who has done something really really bad? I mean, like, say someone makes a pact with the Devil. (I saw this in (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jesse Long

Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:37bb87d1.204022...net.com... (...) things (...) there (...) end (...) Isn't that Faust? Interestingly, every time that play resurfaced in a new era it had a different ending. There's the (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Mike Stanley

(...) Yeah, what if Satan just suddenly gave up? Admitted he was a jerk and wrong, and honestly (how could you hide it from God?) asked for forgiveness? Or was his original crime, way back when, so bad that he's too far gone? Or is he the pefectly (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —John DiRienzo

Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) it. (...) I agree about the "painting", Mike. At least Greek and Roman mythology were "believable". -- Have fun! John AUCTION Page (More soon!) (URL) Page (URL) wp,dm,rk,df++ fk-]++++(6035) SW,TR,old(456)+++ (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Mike Stanley

(...) Well, I assume you're joking. If not, I'm not so sure Greek mythology was "believable" but it sure is more fun. Purely Roman mythology, the stuff that they didn't just rename/incorporate from the Greeks, can be interesting too. (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Steve Bliss

(...) Hmm. Good question. I think the answer is, "nothing in the Bible addresses this point". But to talk about it anyway: it's not enough to ask for forgiveness. It's a condition for salvation, but not main cause of salvation. The real reason (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jesse Long

Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:37bc18d7.153793...net.com... (...) I (...) Well, the convenant was with humanity, not the spirit realm, so I guess Satan would not be covered, since he is not/was not human. You bring up a (...) (25 years ago, 21-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Stephen Jacquot

(...) You might want to read To Reign in Hell, by Steven Brust, which paints a far more interesting picture. Brust is quoted on the jacket: "From all of my readings on the revolt of the angels, two things are clear: God is omnipotent, and Satan is (...) (25 years ago, 21-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Tom McDonald

(...) If you believe the axiom that "God knows everything" (and that I know is a muchly overused notion) and that he is all-wise, then it's not hard to stretch and say that God knows (and has apparently declared) that Satan is incorrigible. It seems (...) (25 years ago, 23-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Steve Bliss

(...) Augh! Now you're talking about predestination. That's been a theological hot button for quite awhile. Does God already know who's going to be saved, and who isn't? And how is His knowing different from Him selecting? Is there actually free (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Tom McDonald

(...) stretch (...) I'm talking about knowing how something will react before it happens. For two examples, it's like saying you know Lego can stand temps up to 104 degrees F without ever having testing it if you had sufficient knowledge of the (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Tom McDonald

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom McDonald writes: <snip> (...) Oops! I misspoke. Not two examples, just one. Doh! -Tom McD. when replying, your SpamcakeCard has been pre-approved! (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) <SMARTARSE> The second example is: If a set number of angels can dance on the stud of a melting Lego brick at any determined temperature, would God know that number in advance? </SMARTARSE> I prefer to think of predestination to be something (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Todd Lehman

(...) Questions: If this little Universe we're in is a simple enough dynamical system that all aspects of it can be pre-known by God, or if God can compute the answer faster than the machine (the Universe) itself can, then why did God create such a (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Tom McDonald

(...) You created Lugnet. Why not something more complex? (...) That does not mean that Data didn't have observable shortcomings. But Noonian Sung knew everything about Data. (...) "Anything" is a much misused word. :-) But in the case of humans, we (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —John Neal

Todd Lehman wrote: <snip> (...) Dr. Moriarity. What a fascinating episode that was:-) And even better that they brought him back on another show! (...) *This* is classic "circle logic" If God do anything, can God create a stone he cannot lift? (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Todd Lehman

(...) Exactly: it's a proof by contradiction, proving that there's nothing that can do anything. I guess it challenges the definition of what "anything" means. (...) Also various line segments, various non-regular pentagons, various non- regular (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Todd Lehman

(...) (I don't mean that as a troll. I'm just a hopeless-romantic mathgeek.) --Todd (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) The cube has a beginning and an end, doesn't it? The cube passing through the plane implies that, at some point, we witness every aspect of God. However, scripture indicates that very few people have even come close to this. It's probably more (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, actually no. There are certain alignments required if you want to see certain shapes... so one pass won't reveal every possible cross section. Stretching this analogy, it means that even an entire lifetime of contemplating the nature of (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Todd Lehman

(...) Ok (...) Hey, I thought logic was only meaning_ful_ without feeling. That whole Spock thing, y'know? -- logic with feeling ain't really logic. (...) Hmmm. Well, this is one place where I kind of get confused. See, I believe that God didn't (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) Heh -- if you're going to quote Spock... "Logic is not the end of understanding. It's a beginning." - STVI:TUC One of the things I loved most about Spock's character, is that he tried to be logical to a fault -- a hero's fatal flaw, if you (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right... and you've just stumbled into one of my favorite anti-god arguments (1)... infinite regress. a Universe with god doesn't explain any more, or less than a universe without one. Positing a god to explain why the universe exists doesn't (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —John Neal

Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) I got news for you, Mr. Science. The more we learn about the universe, the more we see how random it is and how little we do/can know about it. It is a God who represents order out of chaos. (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) Yah, well, we're basically having the same discussion as the whole Big Bang thing. Q: What happened before the Big Bang? A1: Nothing. Period. Matter didn't exist, energy didn't exist, nothing didn't exist. So there. A2: All matter and energy (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Larry Pieniazek

<37CC301A.3CA0F7FF@voyager.net> <37CC3367.EB909A54@uswest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) False order explaining nothing and presenting no manifestation, predictable and useful and tangible (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —John Neal

(...) What I was talking about was Chaos Theory which, if I understood Dr. Malcolm in Jurassic Park correctly, is the *current* scientific rage. Einstein was about trying to uncover a unified theory of the universe. Post-Modern scientists are now (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Larry Pieniazek

<37CC354E.62450140@voyager.net> <37CC3D3D.F286D038@uswest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) So we're getting our information from movies, eh John? Well, *here's* a news flash for you... Movies (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jasper Janssen

(...) In a truly chaotic system, where each quantum interaction produces measurable macro effects, no _useful_ predictions can be made. Unless you consider "Ther is on billionth of a percent chance that after a microsecond the state will be this, (...) (25 years ago, 11-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) <CONJECTURE DISCLAIMER="(URL) Here's an analogy which may work: consider the rules pertaining our daily interactions with people. Be it in the store, in a bored meeting, at a basketball game, etc. we're all governed by rules. One should follow (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Simon Robinson

(...) Do you have any justification for believing that. Is logic something that exists in its own right or is it just something that we've created and which looks sensible because it happens to fit in with how our minds work? I'm sure I've seen one (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Christopher L. Weeks

<37CC301A.3CA0F7FF@voyager.net> <37CC3EA0.A8F9596E@io.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I can see how it might appear this way to a religious person not very well acquainted with science, but I (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) Quantifiable, depending upon your motives. If you're searching for the chemical reasons behind nitrogen bonding, scripture won't help you a whole bunch. (...) Yes, but you still have to take quite a lot on faith. Barring *personal* (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Todd Lehman

(...) I thought that excess gamma rays ripped your _clothes_ apart, not your flesh. That's what happened to Bruce Banner, anyway. :-) --Todd (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jeremy Sproat

<37CD2A57.50CEFE70@eclipse.net> <37CD66C3.8C44BCAF@io.com> <37cd75df.275331198@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) LOL And they ripped apart Peter Parker's social life too! Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Steve Bliss

(...) Nah, the spider couldn't have been hit by gamma rays, or Peter Parker would have turned green! Steve (25 years ago, 3-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Todd Lehman

(...) The first one: logic exists in its own right. It's not something we created or invented, but rather something we discovered. Pure logic (as in, say, DeMorgan's Theorem, for instance) existed long before humans ever used it, and it works (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Christopher L. Weeks

<37CD2A57.50CEFE70@eclipse.net> <37CD66C3.8C44BCAF@io.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) When I reread this, it sounded like I meant to be suggesting that you don't know jack about science, and (...) (25 years ago, 2-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) Yah, well, that depends on who you talk to. (...) But you can't discount it. Conspiracies do happen. But I don't think it would help my case if I were to argue this one! :-, (...) This is a mistake. You have no real reason to trust my word (...) (25 years ago, 2-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Christopher L. Weeks

<37CDCE45.78EA965D@eclipse.net> <slrn7srq48.kau.jspr...is.io.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) OK, I like to believe that I'm always open to being corrected. Help me to test God's existence and (...) (25 years ago, 2-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Larry Pieniazek

<37CDCE45.78EA965D@eclipse.net> <slrn7srq48.kau.jspr...is.io.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I trust the scientific method because I personally have conducted experiments, made predictions, and (...) (25 years ago, 2-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —David Eaton

(...) I saw this, and got intreuged... Maybe this has been covered in another thread of this debate (LMK if so), but I have a question... What defines a religion? Is it having faith in an ultimate source? If this kind of faith defines a religion, I (...) (25 years ago, 2-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jeremy Sproat

(This wording took me a day to figure out. If I'm going to have Larry spend his time countering what I say, I'd better say something good. ;-) (...) Oops. :-P I concede your point. Cold fusion was a bad example of the failing of the scientific (...) (25 years ago, 3-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) AAAAAGHH!!! This was *SUPPOSED* to say: "...I see no reason to not include the teaching of science in religion." Netscape's bogo-checker let that one through. ...Lest folks think of me as (more of) a jibbering lunatic... :-, Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 14-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Larry Pieniazek

<37CE848C.90906C8C@voyager.net> <FHFsB1.J0L@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David: One could say that the essence of a religion is to take something on faith (else it is a philosophy or moral (...) (25 years ago, 2-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —David Eaton

(...) Ok, so it sounds like your definition of religion is something along the lines of: "a set of beliefs which are taken as true by faith, where these beliefs are not submitted as needing any sort of verification" Does that sound ok? (...) Well, (...) (25 years ago, 2-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Larry Pieniazek

<37CE909B.EB040221@voyager.net> <FHFyw9.5nI@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not to be argumentative, but... :-) (...) This may be semantics, but I just don't see it as "faith". We are reasoning (...) (25 years ago, 2-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —David Eaton

(...) :) (...) I tend to agree. Mostly semantics. However, I'm used to calling it "faith" just to cover myself from getting into the whole "what is real?" argument. As I said, some existentialist can come along and say: "You just THINK you've got a (...) (25 years ago, 2-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Larry Pieniazek

<37CEC4AB.11CB1C2F@voyager.net> <FHGBvC.2AF@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Eaton wrote: <faith explanation> Ah, OK. (...) OK again. I'd turn it around. A religion may or may not have a (...) (25 years ago, 2-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Christopher L. Weeks

<37CE848C.90906C8C@voyager.net> <37D027DB.AB97ECF8@io.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) It sounds pretty clearly like you are an adherent to at least two religions (given your definition). Out of (...) (25 years ago, 4-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) How many gods do I keep in front of me, you mean? One. Well, okay, there are my vices... :-P I keep one world-making god and several world-destroying wanna-bes in front of me. I'm trying to keep the devastation to a minimum. I'm a member of (...) (25 years ago, 4-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Larry Pieniazek

<37CE848C.90906C8C@voyager.net> <37D027DB.AB97ECF8@io.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Flattery will get you anything, big fella. :-) (...) As I said it's not required that I personally verify (...) (25 years ago, 4-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) spend (...) Hold that thought... (...) I'm probably getting in over my head here, as I am not as well-read on this subject as I probably should be, but are the Founding Fathers within your web of trust? Several of them are reputed to be very (...) (25 years ago, 5-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —David Eaton

Sproaticus -> (...) Larry -> (...) Jsproat -> (...) I'll try a crack at defending Larry's point-- or at least making one of my own... I think the idea is that science is methodically verifiable. By employing methods of science, I can come to the (...) (25 years ago, 7-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) What's any more nutty about the BOM than about (the rest(?)) of the Bible? Tales are told of magic happenings that a careful analysis of history doesn't support in both, right? (...) I said much the same thing a while back about the LDS, but (...) (25 years ago, 5-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Steve Bliss

(...) That's just because it's too hard to form an intolerance committee for every single little issue that comes up. Methodists reserve committee-forming behavior for more important activities. Steve (25 years ago, 7-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Larry Pieniazek

<37D1426A.8407B33E@voyager.net> <37D2A877.51DDB8B5@eclipse.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Well, in the BOM there is a claim that gold plates were handed down. So put them on display and let (...) (25 years ago, 5-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) I cannot personally prove the golden plates to you, for I do not posess them. Nor would I casually exhibit them if I did. Responsibility for these plates were transferred from Moroni to Joseph Smith by the Lord for a specific reason. The end (...) (25 years ago, 5-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Larry Pieniazek

<37D2CBB6.6257BB22@voyager.net> <FHLt83.Avr@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) That, right there, is one of the reasons I like the LDS better than some. Many sects, or at least their (...) (25 years ago, 5-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) You and me both. Digress away. :-, But your typical Mormon-legislated morality comes from overzealous members, not from the church itself. And the majority of the moralizing happens not in Salt Lake Valley, but in Utah Valley, home of BYU. Now (...) (25 years ago, 5-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Simon Robinson

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: I've had to largely pull out of this debate for a couple of weeks owing to quite a bit of urgent work from my publishers suddenly turning up - so I've currently got very little time to post. But (...) (25 years ago, 6-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Christopher L. Weeks

<37D2DA5A.3FAA4509@voyager.net> <FHMnG6.30B@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I know this is Larry's argument, but why would you resent that? If Larry is risking his money and reputation, (...) (25 years ago, 6-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Chris Moseley

Christopher Weeks <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote (...) Aha, but privately thinking something is different from publically stating it. Doing so crosses a threshold of accountability, and brings responsibility. On the one hand the statement does imply (...) (25 years ago, 7-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Simon Robinson

(...) But Larry appears to be making what to me look like some rather strange connections. Leaving aside the question of the morals of taxation - which I'll comment on below, we have: 1. I have consistently argued that it is right for Governments to (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Christopher L. Weeks

<37D2CBB6.6257BB22@voyager.net> <FHLt83.Avr@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) According to _The Refiner's Fire_ Mormonism only exists because Joseph Smith, in New York state, was trying to (...) (25 years ago, 6-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) Christ, (...) investigate (...) Hrmmm... Yes. Yes, in a very rough nutshell. I believe that the revelation stuff happened, personally. I have no idea what _The Refiner's Fire_ is (though I assume it's a book). This event is described rather (...) (25 years ago, 6-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Larry Pieniazek

<37D2DA5A.3FAA4509@voyager.net> <FHMnG6.30B@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I think Chris did a pretty good job of explaining why I do in fact consider everything when making decisions (...) (25 years ago, 6-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Simon Robinson

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: Larry, (...) (I rearranged your posting to stick this first as I thought that was important) I'd like to emphasize that on that score the feeling is mutual. You've provided a very valuable service. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Simon Robinson

(...) I thought I'd made it clear that I do not believe in theft. I think all of us here respect property rights. Where we disagree is that the money that you claim you should not be paying in tax is money that I believe was never rightfully yours (...) (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Simon Robinson

(...) On this subject, I wonder if we're both making the mistake of trying to rationalise people's motives too much. There are a few of us here - people like you, me John DiR, Christopher Weeks, and others, who have come to different conclusions, (...) (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Larry Pieniazek

<37D3BBC5.77DE038A@eclipse.net> <FHow2F.3yM@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm skipping most of this for a more detailed comment later, perhaps... (...) but THIS is so outrageous that I have (...) (25 years ago, 7-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Chris Moseley

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote (...) Your comment that you have the right to speed because you can afford to compensate my family should you kill me. You became silent when I asked whether I could refuse to sell the item in question. I (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —John DiRienzo

Whats wrong with you? You seem to understand that the church does steal from those who belong to it (by choice, even), and you object about that. But you don't understand that governments do the exact same thing (some times in conjunction with one (...) (25 years ago, 7-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —John Neal

(...) How can you call a gift stealing? (...) They are different. Churches collect money *voluntarily* to assist those in need. The gov collects money whether you like it or not. If I don't contribute to the offering plate, so what? If I don't (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Chris Moseley

John DiRienzo <ig88888888@stlnet.com> wrote (...) There is no difference *in princliple*, provided that membership is voluntary. This situation has only recently arisen for both countries and churches. However, the difference is that taxation can (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Larry Pieniazek

<37D3BBC5.77DE038A@eclipse.net> <FHow2F.3yM@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I didn't find that. but I did find THIS: Back on 12/10/98 I said: (...) While we were talking about stealing, (...) (25 years ago, 7-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Chris Moseley

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote (...) Unfortunately neither can I. I retract the statement. Moz (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —John Neal

<37D3BBC5.77DE038A@eclipse.net> <FHow2F.3yM@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Moz (Chris Moseley)" wrote: Do I dare dignify such a troll with a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —John DiRienzo

John Neal wrote in message: (...) stupidity? well, its good debate material, whether a troll or not. (...) prohibition (...) Chris, the (...) your (...) That may or may not be the core of Christian belief - depends who you ask, but every church puts (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Chris Moseley

John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote (...) Within the terms of that debate, yes, I believe in the truth of my statements. My understanding is that from Larrys perspective anything at all the requires he give anything to anyone is theft. If a gift (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —John Neal

<37D3BBC5.77DE038A@eclipse.net> <FHpz9y.Mq4@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) big snippage here but: 1. How about the death tax (taxation (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —John DiRienzo

All right John, Here is Moz' original post that I was referring to: (...) John Neal wrote in message <37D5C0DC.FDA80880@u...st.net>... (...) steal (...) Based on what he said, which relates to the traditional role of the church (which may have (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Frank Filz

(...) What's wrong with a church which you CHOSE to belong to setting requirements on that belonging? As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the U.S. (and most European countries) REQUIRING you to belong to a church. WHy shouldn't the church (...) (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Larry Pieniazek

<37D509B5.92E4ADBC@voyager.net> <FHqI70.MIy@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Ah. OK. Well, that's putting the pieces together rather differently than I intended, but I see where you're (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Chris Moseley

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote (...) Sounds good to me. Thank you for the retraction and thought you've put into the topic. (...) Actually I seem to recall reading this recently, that there are counties(?) that raise most of their budget (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Larry Pieniazek

<37D5BF19.20DE42FA@uswest.net> <FHqnK9.4Dt@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) More or less. If I live in a society where I must be a member of a church, or where I am discriminated against (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Who's supposed to be fielding this one? Absolutely. (Unless you take the squishy we're all part of society and you owe your existence to the government philosophy - then you're just being compensated differently.) --Chris (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Chris Moseley

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote (...) It depends on what the union provides. Professional associations are one type of union where compulsory membership can be justified. And I tend to favour unions where there are substantial economies to (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Larry Pieniazek

<37D44B67.BC996AD6@voyager.net> <FHpz7x.MKI@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Good, I am glad that you feel that way, it's a stance I've sort of started to take without getting a lot of (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —John DiRienzo

Moz (Chris Moseley) wrote in message ... (...) voluntary. (...) However, (...) rendered in (...) to (...) of (...) necessary (...) I (...) I agree with you, that whether you are giving money voluntarily to a church or involuntarily to a government, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Chris Moseley

John DiRienzo <ig88888888@stlnet.com> wrote (...) I suspect you did not mean what you wrote. You said "what country has not banned genocide". Australia. I suspect you meant the opposite, in which case New Zealand is the answer. NZ was formed by (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Christopher L. Weeks

<37D3BBC5.77DE038A@eclipse.net> <FHpz9y.Mq4@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Simon, thanks for taking the time for this. (...) I have heard (but not verified) that US tax code is so large and (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Chris Moseley

Christopher Weeks <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote (...) Yes. And that's a very good argument for throwing it away. Tax does not *have* to be complex. Did you know that the NZ tax code for private income earners (your personal tax return) is down to (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Mike Stanley

(...) I know very little about the tax code itself, but one of my best friends is an accountant and she is the first to admit she doesn't know everything, or even a little bit, about some kinds of taxation. That's why they have several accountants (...) (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) My fiancee's father is an H&R Block person, and he is on his way to being a CPA as well. I read some of the material he was working on for his studies, and it was Greek to me. It is so horrendous that most people now just have it done for (...) (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —John DiRienzo

Moz (Chris Moseley) wrote in message ... (...) Thats about what I wrote, at one time or another, every country is guilty of the same thing (allowing genocide). I don't know if Australia is still allowing it or not, but I am sure there are more than (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Chris Moseley

John DiRienzo <ig88888888@stlnet.com> wrote (...) The people who arrived in NZ before the white ones. Between about 500AD and about 1500AD there were several waves of Polynesian immigrants, followed by the "discovery" of NZ by Abel Tasman, and the (...) (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

New Zealand (was: Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color))) —Christopher L. Weeks

<FHrGyG.6pn@lugnet.com> <FHsKoE.DwJ@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) So what is the relationship between the Maori and the English there now? Are they all interbred and one big happy (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: New Zealand (was: Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color))) —Chris Moseley

Christopher Weeks <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote (...) More or less amicable, I think. Put it this way, our "race issues" are more about why relatively few Maori get elected to parliament or go to college than why so many get killed by racist thugs. (...) (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Speeding: Prima facie negligence? (was Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Larry Pieniazek

<37D64CA8.96CF1964@voyager.net> <FHsKo5.Dq8@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I think I want to drill into this one a bit more. Let's be clear... are you saying that to break any law (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Speeding: Prima facie negligence? —Chris Moseley

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote (...) You've switched immediately from laws which are codified conventions to laws which attempt to enforce possibly immoral behaviour. What happens to a society where only half the members behave as you (...) (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Larry Pieniazek

<37D44B67.BC996AD6@voyager.net> <FHtIB8.M2G@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I'm replying to you in this thread so it may seem like I'm picking on you. I don't intend that it seem that way (...) (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Chris Moseley

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote (...) No, because it was in a context where we were talking about the behavior of governments. I say again, it is necessary to distinguish between behaviours that are appropriate for the community as a whole, (...) (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Christopher L. Weeks

<37D857A5.EE5161B3@voyager.net> <FHu9rK.AFL@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) ?!?!?!? I like out of context snips. --Chris (25 years ago, 10-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —John DiRienzo

(...) prohibition Read what Moz wrote. Repeat it again. Theft is at the core of Christian beliefs. The Church (and almost any religion) was *founded* for the purpose of stealing money from the multitudes for the purpose of making the people who run (...) (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —John Neal

(...) Please, this is utter nonsense. In your minds you may think that is the reason; maybe it makes you feel more comfortable about not being apart of a Church I don't know, but your perception has little to do with reality. At the very least (...) (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Frank Filz

(...) You paint religion with an awfully wide brush. My religion doesn't condemn anyone to hell. Of course many people do not consider my religion to be a religion since it doesn't even require one to believe in a god. (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —John DiRienzo

John Neal wrote in message <37DA72D1.544B539@us...st.net>... (...) the (...) I was speaking for myself on this - I don't know how it stands in other people's minds. It could be that Moz is upset with me for quoting him so much, but he deserves it - (...) (25 years ago, 11-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I don't usually like 'me too's, but I was going to say something much like this. Governments claim to be good, and for organization and economy of scale, and they throw bones to the masses just enough to stay in power - for a time. But the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —John Neal

<FHwnDv.rC@lugnet.com> <37DC7251.4794C59D@eclipse.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) And *who* might those people be? Because the reality is that (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) To some extent elected officials, but mostly businesses which have a strong lobby. (...) Right, but they don't do too bad either. (...) Well, I'm glad that I entertain you. They who? Governmental employees? Supporters of the government? Which (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Speeding: Prima facie negligence? —Larry Pieniazek

<37D8033D.108EF440@voyager.net> <FHvs28.ELu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Sure. I did switch because I wanted to make a point. I think we all agree that some set of conventions is (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Speeding: Prima facie negligence? —Chris Moseley

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote (...) One measure of a democracy is whether you can vote for the revolution, I suppose. While I don't want the outcome you want, I'm inclined to agree that you deserve points for trying. But not many, since I (...) (25 years ago, 14-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)) —John Neal

<FHw7y5.7KF@lugnet.com> <37DD1DDE.4083@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) How convenient;-) (a la Dana Carvey as the Church Lady) -John (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Complex number theory (Was: God and the Devil and forgiveness) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) I finally figured out what it was about this statement that bothered me! Math (a valid part of logic, arguably) has real difficulty resolving even low-order functions on 4-dimensional complex numbers (1). There are at least two main camps of (...) (25 years ago, 14-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Can god create a two-sided triangle? Arguing about definitionally impossible things is useless, IMHO. My take: Should an _omnipotent_ god (there is always the possibility of non-omnipotence, after all) exist, he would be able to make a stone (...) (25 years ago, 11-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Todd Lehman

(...) Say, if it took God six days to create the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, this would seem to indicate that God isn't infinitely fast...that good things take time. Maybe He could make the Universe blink *out* of (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) If I were to wax philosophical, like Mr. Lehman, days would seem like millennia, if I were to wax philosophical. ;-) Perhaps -- and this is purely guesswork -- time was conceived to allow good things to happen. It's pretty much stated in (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Tom McDonald

(...) I (...) Hehe. If you so intimately knew your creation, say Lugnet for instance, wouldn't you know what it would do ahead of time given just about any situation? Maybe you could anticipate what it would do 95, 96, 97, or even 100% of the time. (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —John Neal

Ever wonder who the person was who was recording the creation event as it happened? Wasn't Adam or Eve either, because they weren't created until "day" 6. The creation account in Genesis _is a story_. An oral tradition passed down 100s of years (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jeremy Sproat

(...) Ah, there are those who say that the story was passed down through Adam to Moses (or whoever took notes for Moses) from God. Presumably, God could have also set the record straight when he and Moses were conversing. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —John Neal

Sproaticus wrote: <snip> (...) Yes, and that is my point. What does it matter? Why must we make it reconcile with what *we* believe? We try to make everything fit and reconcile perfectly. And folk like Larry can see right through that. Better to (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —John Neal

(...) What, no winkies? I hope you're kidding, because you sound like the Church Fathers in the first millenium discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. A lot of nonsense. In my experience, there is no personified Devil, only the (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Mike Stanley

(...) A LOT of Christians don't believe Hell is just the absence of God (eternal lonliness maybe, or do you mean annihilation?) - they literally believe it is a real lake of fire into which all the bad people will be thrown, to burn and be tortured (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —John Neal

Mike Stanley wrote:But COME ON, eternal damnation? I'm supposed to believe that an (...) Think of it this way, Mike. God isn't the one doing the damning. There are people who hate the light and love darkness. Even faced with God in His glory, *they (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Mike Stanley

(...) So you're saying that you believe that people will literally burn for all eternity in Hell? That God, in his infinite wisdom, knowledge, love, and compassion, could actually allow that to happen? Why? What possible point could there be for (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —John Neal

Mike Stanley wrote: ???!! I never said anything about burning, literary or no. What I said was that there are people who would *choose* to not be with God (my definition of Heaven) because they *hate* the light and love the darkness. It is *their* (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Simon Robinson

(...) that there (...) because they (...) will. They (...) love of (...) their (...) But if it's they're decision, doesn't that imply they would have the power to reverse that decision? Christian theologies may differ on interpretation of hell, but (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —John Neal

(...) Who *really* knows? I'm more interested in living life here and now on earth. We'll all find out the hard way soon enough as it is;-) (...) As I mentioned before, it is the view in a book by CS Lewis entitled The Great Divorce. It's a story (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Ed Jones

I don't believe in an afterlife. Dead is dead. IMO, people create their own "Heaven" and/or "Hell" while they are alive. Of course the best argument for this is simply: If there is afterbirth, there must be afterlife. :') (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) What about those ignorant of the process of salvation? Through what mechanism does a stone age native of Borneo avoid separation from God? --Chris (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Tom McDonald

(...) was that there (...) because they (...) will. They (...) love of (...) honors their (...) Do you want a Sunday School answer, or one of my long-winded dissertations? :-) -Tom McD. when replying, "..and now here's your host, Wink Spamcake!" (25 years ago, 28-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) What are the other choices? <grins, ducks and runs> IIRC Catholicism holds that these souls will go to purgatory to be evaluated further. IOW, it's OK to be ignorant if you lived righteously, but if some missionary came to you and gave you the (...) (25 years ago, 28-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Tom McDonald

(...) (Tom then quickly submits Larry's email address to a subscription of an online papal newsletter, grins, ducks, and runs the other way ;-) (...) Off-hand, that sounds works-based. (...) Theoretically, if one was living righteously one wouldn't (...) (25 years ago, 28-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jesse Long

Tom McDonald <radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote in message news:FH7715.B0z@lugnet.com... (...) Well, I've talked to a lot of old school Catholics, and they're pretty bent on the works side of salvation. I think it's leftovers from the (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jesse Long

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:37C75232.865AD2...ger.net... (...) I find it interesting how you make your own judgements about what is righteous and what is groveling, and then condemn God for not living up to your own (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Larry Pieniazek

I find it interesting that you can twist around what I say so remarkably, since it seems to be one of your hot buttons to accuse others of twisting YOUR words. Your god requires worship in a specific way. Why is that not groveling? My morality is (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —John Neal

(...) You misunderstand the purpose of worship. Worship is *not* required nor needed by God, but is the natural expression of thanks by His people for what God has done/is doing/will do. Worship should be joyful. What God requires of us is to love (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Ed Jones

(...) judge, (...) Then explain why so many religions teach that they are the ONLY correct religion, that only THEY worship god correctly and that only THEY will go to heaven (Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox, etc.) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Steve Bliss

(...) They're getting it wrong? Steve (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Can I use that as a test of valid religion, then? If they say they are the one true faith, they aren't??? That would help winnow a LOT of them out. (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jesse Long

Ed Jones <edboxer@aol.com> wrote in message news:FHByEv.FoH@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) If you're speaking of different religions, such as Christianity vs. Islam, it's because of differences in opinion in what counts as Holy text. If you're (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

The Road to Atheism (Was Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Ed Jones

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jesse Long writes: [snip] (...) WHile in college, I took a philosophy of religion class. The first week of the course was religious history. The remaining 9 weeks of the course consisted of nothing more than a (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jesse Long

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:37CC3897.1147B7...ger.net... (...) People can disagree on the details and still be one true faith, unless you define one true faith as 100% the same across the board, which doesn't happen (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Road to Atheism (Was Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Selçuk Göre

Wow , same style of thinking..:-) Just check out my comments on the first religion debate: (URL) Hey friends, do you ever think about this?..All of the religions has their own types of ceremonies (I can't find a better word) and beliefs, which are (...) (25 years ago, 2-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —John Neal

(...) Well, I think the *idea* might come from the thought that, if I'm going to believe something, it had better be right! So it's more "we have the answers as revealed to us" and less "we are right, and you are wrong" Because to tell you the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jesse Long

arry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:37CB60B3.98E448...ger.net... (...) What have a twisted? You decry my/our/Christians' concept of God because the God you see in the Bible doesn't live up to your definitions of justice, (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) So no specific kind is required? False Idols are OK? Ikons are in, or out? Name in vain is OK? Which of the commandments do I have to keep? All 10? best of 7? Seems pretty specific to me there. OK, OK, part of the issue really is the many (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Jesse Long

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:37CC346F.721177...ger.net... (...) Okay, that is "specific." Usually "specific" is referred to as meaning "stand up sit down say this get up sit down say that pray sing pray talk pray leave (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Larry Pieniazek

Much better, thank you. To a certain extent I already knew this but it needed articulating for everyone else. I'm gonna snip away most of what you and I said, but I still have to focus on this part... (...) You bet it is. LOL. THIS is why I say your (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Simon Robinson

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: Simon (URL) I just don't want to share heaven with murderers and torturers, no (...) OK - I may dislike a lot of what Christians say but I'm with Jesse on this one. The mistake I think you're (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) How about both? I know it's an old question, but I don't recall ever getting a reasonable answer. --Chris (25 years ago, 28-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color) —Steve Bliss

(...) There should be enough people that I can stand on top of a bunch of them, and clear the surface. Steve (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: POV-RAY orange color —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Wasn't Job the guy that God bet the Devil about how unshakable his faith was? I'll have no truck with a god that would do such a thing as allow another deity to throw his worst at me just to settle a bet. (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: POV-RAY orange color —Mike Stanley

(...) That story has always bugged me too. I don't really see how some people see it as one that makes God look good. Satan basically ego-trips him into letting him royally dump on Job, and God, who is supposed to be so loving of his creation, let's (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: POV-RAY orange color —Tom McDonald

(...) I had never heard of the idea that this was a bet. But I could see how it could come across that way. Yet it wasn't really a bet at all because God had nothing to lose and he knew it. I'd call Satan a fool for even thinking that God could be (...) (25 years ago, 23-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: POV-RAY orange color —John Neal

(...) It's a story. Didn't really happen. It is, however, a fascinating insight into the development of the Jewish concept of God. An immature belief in God assumes that the good in this world would get rewarded, and the bad punished. That's fair, (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: POV-RAY orange color —Simon Robinson

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (about Job) (...) into (...) assumes (...) addresses (...) fair, (...) John, I'm intrigued. In all the discussions I've followed here, you appear to have been arguing from the Christian point of (...) (25 years ago, 19-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: POV-RAY orange color —John Neal

(...) Well, let me first say that I am a Christian, which is to say that I follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah who came from God to teach us about Him and about how to live. His nature (man/God) is a mystery which cannot be (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: POV-RAY orange color —Jesse Long

Simon Robinson <simon@simonrobinson.com> wrote in message news:FGqKGr.sy@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) I think there are some books that could be stories (not real) without taking away from the overall message of the book. Job and Esther come to (...) (25 years ago, 21-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: POV-RAY orange color —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Ah, OK. So what else in the bible is just a story, then, and what is true, if anything? None of the old, and all of the new testament? Or something different? And what's the basis for your sorting? AFAIAC, Jesus being the son of god is just a (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: POV-RAY orange color —John Neal

(...) The Bible isn't a proof text. It's a collection of many different traditions, most of them oral. Don't be so "Western Culture, how did it happen, is it true, what are the facts". The fact is that the ancient world didn't care for such things, (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: POV-RAY orange color —Simon Robinson

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) Saying that Jesus was the most influencial human that ever lived is IMO one of those statements that sounds reasonable at first, but doesn't really stand up to close analysis. Influencing (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: POV-RAY orange color —John Neal

(...) I see your point. It wasn't my intention to try to add veracity by saying something like "that many people can't be wrong" I just meant that people still talk about 1 man who lived 2000 years ago and follow his message. Why? (...) Yes, of (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: POV-RAY orange color —Larry Pieniazek

(...) That's certainly a matter of interpretation. Were I more than normally interested in baiting you I'd say GIGO, but I won't. I will merely say that the Bible is not an easy read and that scholars do a great deal of debating about what errors (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: POV-RAY orange color —John Neal

(...) Moot. Doesn't matter. Scholars *have* studied the Bible critically and have come up with many illuminating ideas, BUT it only takes you so far. How many times must I say that one *cannot* apply science to that which is untestable BY (...) (25 years ago, 21-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color —Larry Pieniazek

You're free to reject science, that's your choice. (and saying there are things higher than science, is, ultimately, to reject it. When the safe is falling down on your head, feel free to count on your faith to save you. I think I'll step aside (...) (25 years ago, 21-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color —John DiRienzo

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <37BF1B78.C2E77093@v...er.net>... (...) Your not the only one. Well said! -- Have fun! John AUCTION Page (More soon!) (URL) Page (URL) & IG88888888 on AOL (...) have come (...) times must (...) DEFINITION. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 21-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color —Scott Edward Sanburn

< clipped Larry's and John's view on God > That's what makes America great, gentlemen. I don't agree with Larry's assessment, but I won't get gunned down for it either (At least, not yet, who knows in Clinton's America). You have your beliefs, I (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color —Jesse Long

Scott Edward Sanburn <ssanburn@aeieng.com> wrote in message news:37C0092A.3C8A36...eng.com... (...) who (...) "agree (...) "LEGO" (...) Hey, keep the voice of moderation out of this. This is America, where you fight to the end over everything, and (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color —Scott Edward Sanburn

Moderate? Communist? HA! I am about as much Communist as George Lucas is poor. ;) You can ask Larry P. even. Right Larry? :) Scott S. P.S. I think this is one subject that will never be resolved between non-believers and believers, some will (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yup, I'll vouch for Scott. (...) Eminently sensible advice. I'm certainly not out to convert anyone to atheism. If you need me to tell you how to think, you need some sort of crutch anyway, so why not pick one that to the uncritical thinker (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) It touches my heart when Larry can vouch for me. (Wipes away a tear...) :) < snip Larry's commendable observations of ignorant, intolerant people a.k.a. so called Christians > I agree with Larry on his observations on "Christianity". People (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color —Simon Robinson

(...) No, debates like this are useful. It's true that you rarely convince someone directly by one posting - human pride tends to be too strong for that. But the overall effect of arguing sensibly for something can change people's attitudes (...) (25 years ago, 23-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color —John Neal

Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip legitimate rant on history of "Christian" actions> (...) Lar- I'm going to submit to you this: Being a Christian means literary being "Christ-like". I don't care what anyone *says* they are, if they are not acting (...) (25 years ago, 28-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color —Larry Pieniazek

John Neal wrote: <snip rather moving account> So stipulated. Rules a very large percentage of professed christians, out, though. And also doesn't give the outsider much of a yardstick. Let me say that I have no truck with true christians who leave (...) (25 years ago, 28-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Taking things on faith (was Re: POV-RAY orange color —John Neal

(...) Are the two mutually exclusive? (...) I would never advocate that. In fact, Jesus came so that we might have more abundant life HERE and NOW. Christianity is all about how we live NOW, and how we treat our neighbors NOW. Being faithful to (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: POV-RAY orange color —Jesse Long

Simon Robinson <simon@simonrobinson.com> wrote in message news:FGrK2C.L1t@lugnet.com... (...) lives (...) factors (...) fooling (...) I can't remember the author, but there's a book out about the most influential people in history and Jesus is about (...) (25 years ago, 21-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

The nature of the JC god, good or evil? (Was Re: POV-RAY orange color (0) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Why not? The scientific method works. Look at the marvels and wonders it's produced. What lasting contribution to human progress have those oral traditions given us? (1) (...) In what way was he more than a man? (beware of circular arguments) (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil? (Was Re: POV-RAY orange color (0) —Jesse Long

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:37BD6985.26585E...ger.net... (...) I think the claim that man could reconcile with God through faith alone and not earn it is new for the time. (...) He didn't say "know," he said "knew." (...) (...) (25 years ago, 21-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil? (Was Re: POV-RAY orange color (0) —John Neal

(...) Does the scientific method help me to understand the rules of baseball? A kind of apples and oranges situation, as it is with God and science. You can't define something that is BY DEFINITION undefinable. Try expressing 22/7 as a decimal (I (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil? (Was Re: POV-RAY orange color (0) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes, in fact it does. The rules are the way they are because the devisers of the rules have desired outcomes and want the game to have certain characteristics. Why the devisers want those characteristics would be a matter for sociology or (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Todd Lehman

Plowing though .debate and a couple numbers caught my eye! (below) (...) Larry, IMBW, but I think John might've meant "pi" when he said "22/7" -- at least, I know I've heard people accidentally refer to pi in that manner before. John, pi = (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Todd Lehman

(...) Whoops. I misspoke. Yes, you can actually manipulate infinite numbers in many (not all) cases, but the example of sqrt(8)/sqrt(2)=2 isn't an example of manipulating infinite numbers. Those numbers are finite, of course -- but perhaps (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Simon Robinson

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes: <Massive snip> (...) You mean the transcendental numbers, presumably? I seem to recall reading that practically every number along the real number line is transcendental, with just odd blips where you (...) (25 years ago, 23-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Todd Lehman

(...) Well, since transcendentals are a subset of the irrationals, so there's no way that transcendentals can constitute a bigger infinity than the irrationals. All transcendentals are irrational (but the converse isn't true). pi is transcendental (...) (25 years ago, 23-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Larry Pieniazek

Do put your oar in Simon, I think you're making some good points (...) Knowing deep in your inner being what something means, and being able to use it to make predictions, are two different things. I won't pretend to understand quanta, or (...) (25 years ago, 23-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Jesse Long

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:37C1467E.E8D0D6...ger.net... (...) How? All you do is sit around hacking away at other people's views without offering any workable alternatives (much like you do with your politics). How much (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Simon Robinson

(...) Trouble is it doesn't look to me like it really is 'God's standards' your pushing. It looks to me more like a set of standards that *PEOPLE* have come up with by following through one particular, and highly questionable, interpretation of the (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Tom McDonald

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Robinson writes: <snipped above> (...) <snip> (...) I can explain them as far as the context of "the reward he got for his wickedness" if we consider the verse after Acts 1:18, and the verses following Matthew 27:5, (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Simon Robinson

(...) they (...) following (...) more (...) included (...) <big snip about story of Judas dying> (...) Well I have to admit to being impressed by the effort you've made to reconcile those accounts. Trouble is there's a point where what you are doing (...) (25 years ago, 26-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Tom McDonald

(...) In context, I just tried to follow the accounts to show where and how they relate to each other. And basically I listed the obvious points made in the verses. (...) Obviously I have prior beliefs: everyone does. To be perfectly fair my (...) (25 years ago, 26-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Simon Robinson

(...) I (...) Yes you're right that we all inevitably get influenced by our prior beliefs. We also all have our own ideas about what counts as reasonable - and in most cases we'd be hard put to explain why we draw the line where we do. I *think* the (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Tom McDonald

(...) No, you're right. It could been easily described in one place. I do not attempt to explain or to justify why there's more than one account - there just is. Given that both accounts are correct, I'm merely attempting to show that they do not (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Simon Robinson

Tom, [I've snipped and shifted around the order of your last posting in order to put my replies read in a more logical order] (...) No, where appropriate I'm arguing on the basis that it is in order to see where that leads. That doesn't mean I'm (...) (25 years ago, 30-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Jesse Long

Tom McDonald <radiotitan@spamcake.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:FH2x8n.Bq0@lugnet.com... (...) the (...) Do you want the "everything's always right, exactly right, literally right" explanation? If so, then he hanged himself, fell off the tree (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Tom McDonald

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Tom McDonald

(...) Back then, it did matter, because it was blood money and the religious leaders wanted nothing to do with it. But as far as we're concerned today, most of us don't care. It's only a hill I'll defend as long as some see it as [part of] concrete (...) (25 years ago, 28-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Christopher L. Weeks

<FH2x8n.Bq0@lugnet.com> <FH3ynz.7no@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Perhaps he hanged himself by his intestines. You know, he climbs to the top of the lone tree in the potter's field, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Tom McDonald

(...) Ow! That sounds like some kinda home surgery.. :-O -Tom McD. when replying, "You are part of the Spamcake Alliance and a traitor! Take her away!!" (25 years ago, 28-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Jesse Long

Simon Robinson <simon@simonrobinson.com> wrote in message news:FHAL2G.JHJ@lugnet.com... (...) I guess I missed the gist of the message. Besides, in the end this isn't about deduction, it's about faith. I can't prove there's anything special about (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Simon Robinson

(...) At the risk of me being accused of saying something then not following through, I'm not sure there's too much point me trawling through back messages to pick logical flaws in what was said - especially as I think you and John N both picked (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Larry Pieniazek

I'll respond to this one first, and Jesse's maybe later. (...) Hopefully I didn't come off as TOO self-righteous, because that would be a flaw, and I don't have any. :-) I think that's great, but why do you do it? If (...) Good question. I could (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) (I've been peeking at this debate, but have refused to get involved... sigh, how I weaken) It almost sounds as if you are referring to Utilitarianism until this point... Perhaps it's the definition of "life-affirming", which is left a little (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) sigh, (...) We all do. I should probably stay out of this, since it is someone else's argument and words... (...) point... (...) sounds (...) the (...) a (...) different (...) To me, having a moral code that is (...) (25 years ago, 24-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Utilitarianism is very similar-- the consequences of the action are critical. An action is judged according to the level of happiness after the fact. The consequences of the action affect people's happiness, even in little ways, and the (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —John DiRienzo

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) <2 days reading - edited for length> (...) critical. (...) and (...) I don't know so I can't argue - but life affirming and happiness go well together, so from your definition, Util... sounds cool. But from (...) (25 years ago, 26-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Ok, I think I'm a little clearer on your definition. That was my original intent, although I did a rather quick job myself in my first post. Basically, I wanted to know if 'happiness' was included in life-affirming. Here's what happened: Larry (...) (25 years ago, 26-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Todd Lehman

(...) I like the note in there about survival of the fittest! IMHO, all of the religions popular today are memes or viruses of the mind which have adapted and evolved to serve the human condition and local political climates. Those religions which (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Simon Robinson

(...) Yeah - religions can adapt. I don't think David Eaton is really correct to say that Christianity doesn't bend - it does - it just does so over a period of hundreds of years - rather than tens of years. Christianity has adapted tremendously (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

theism & atheism (was: Re: 22/7 & infinities) —Todd Lehman

(...) I would say that, yeah. Definitely. Atheism is a meme just as much as theism is. Moreover, atheism is a direct byproduct of theism. If theism had never evolved on this planet, then neither would have atheism. Theism can exist without atheism, (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: theism & atheism (was: Re: 22/7 & infinities) —Tom McDonald

(...) IMO... In an all theistic world, theism probably wouldn't be called or thought of as theism. If all people believed in the existence of God from Day 1 and their offspring continued to do so, it would just be a way of life (and quite likely (...) (25 years ago, 28-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) That I shall grant. Christianity has changed a great deal. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that they are stubborn in change. As you said, it takes hundreds of years for change to come about-- it doesn't happen as rapidly as change may be (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Larry Pieniazek

<FH0z76.FnM@lugnet.com> <FH2vtD.A01@lugnet.com> <FH33sH.M82@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Very quickly (because John DiR is doing fine) I don't THINK what I was outlining as a justification (...) (25 years ago, 26-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Larry Pieniazek

<FH0z76.FnM@lugnet.com> <FH2vtD.A01@lugnet.com> <FH33sH.M82@lugnet.com> <37c602bf.99869@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I would think it would pop back up pretty quickly. Like I've said (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) <did you snip anything? This is still huge! Took me almost a week to reply...> (...) Basically, (...) thought (...) and (...) than (...) there. (...) very (...) think (...) emotion (...) is (...) definitions (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Yeah, I snipped a bunch from of things from here, the problem seems that the message's length grows exponentially as more and more points arise that we want to respond to... then everything gets included for reference... etc. There was a bunch (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) justification (...) based (...) finishing (...) nice, (...) wanna be (...) pauper? (...) (some (...) was a (...) a (...) OK, you've deviated from whatever we were discussing, but its still interesting to a (...) (25 years ago, 7-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) No prob. The point deviated slowly, I think, but basically it's just migrated. The point was morality underlying consequences, but that's moved elsewhere in the message. (...) Well, the actual question is more about who you would rather be... (...) (25 years ago, 7-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John Neal

(...) !!?? What a surprisingly ignorant thing to have heard you say John! How do you "know" religion is fiction? Do you have proof? Evidence? I'd say that coming from one who holds up the scientific method so earnestly, it sounds rather (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John Neal

<FHoBwu.8wJ@lugnet.com> <FHp4oz.Gny@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I appreciate everything you've said, David, but I have a question. If (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John Neal

Forgot this: [1] Lar notwithstanding;-) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) You understood everything I was saying! Woo hoo! (sorry to sidetrack, I've been worried that my points were unclearly written-- I feel like I've repeated and refined what I've said a whole bunch of times in this thread) Anyway, on to a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

Just wondered if anybody was reading the little philosophy subthread that David and I have been slowly working on. Still, I find it useless to debate religion (on a hypothetical level of course), and friends really shouldn't. And, yes, there are (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Larry Pieniazek

I'm reading it... Not sure where it is going, but I will say this. Morals are relative only to the extent that some are better than others. I hold any morality that says it is OK to violate rights as inferior to one that does not. As to history (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Where is it going... hmmm.... the basic arguments (forgive any misquotes, John D): Q: Are actions good solely by their consequences, or is there an underlying morality which judges them regardless? A: I think we're more or less agreed at this (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) on (...) don't (...) it (...) and (...) migrated. (...) in (...) OK, your original point was to show that morally we could decide which person deserved the bread, and I pointed out that it is very hard, with (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) My original point was to figure out your stance on morality. Your initial posts seemed rather ignorant of charity, and focused on justice solely. More specifically, on consequences of actions. Anyway, yeah, the point modified itself. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <37D64FD8.BBF4EB4B@v...er.net>... (...) I quite agree, and I know we all have different morals, but some are better than others. I don't think just because a moral is right to you that it makes it right (which is (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) heretofor (...) in (...) says (...) questions (...) as (...) a (...) history (...) what (...) to (...) "real" (...) content to (...) then (...) if we (...) I think it would be nicer if we could say our country (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) that (...) posts (...) Actually, the original posts were about what is a life affirming set of morals (the one Larry accepted when it was presented to him). It took me awhile to explain it to you, and if you (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

Warning: LONG MESSAGE! (...) Yep. As I said before, I was curious as to whether or not this was more a straight consequentialist argument or one of both consequence and underlying morality. I didn't see the morality put forth directly, just kind of (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Christopher L. Weeks

<FHq5L0.7nI@lugnet.com> <37D64FD8.BBF4EB4B@voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) But what good is moral superiority? When push comes to shove and you can survive or be moral, what do you do? (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Where is this coming from? I seem to cause it to appear in some of my posts... not that I want to. Only some. I have html turned OFF in NS posting settings, or so I thought. :-) (...) I can say that I won't. But you're right. Push hasn't come (...) (25 years ago, 9-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John Neal

<FHrMEp.Et3@lugnet.com> <FHssu0.zJ@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Eaton wrote: <snip Dave and John discussion of basis of morality, logic (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

John Neal wrote in message <37DC9866.54DFFFBB@u...st.net>... (...) x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" (...) want to (...) fundamental. (...) pleasureable and (...) even (...) another one (...) This (...) of (...) and (...) me; does (...) instinct (...) (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Like I said to John N, I'd say they're both encompassed by what we want. The idea I was trying to present was "we want *something*, and to get that something is good". That's the fundamental emotion. That something can encompass both the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Well, I'd classify that under what I said, actually... I was trying to pick out the root desire-- And I'd certainly qualify living as one of the things we want. Another way to look at it is that happiness presupposes survival. We can't easily (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Christopher L. Weeks

<37DC9866.54DFFFBB@uswest.net> <FHzyB1.3zB@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I'm not trying to take this out of context, but do you really mean this? If not, what do you mean? If so, I (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Not to jump in for John N here, but I think this is just resultant of what was cut off in replies... I think what he was getting at was a sense of ethical equality, which he said is central to Libertarianism. The top bit looks like it was cut (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

Christopher Weeks wrote in message <37DD1065.31A4EEC8@e...se.net>... (...) in (...) I covered this a little in my other post. I like cats, and I like the Eliot poem that ends like this: pondering the thought of thought of thought of his name... his (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John Neal

<37DC9866.54DFFFBB@uswest.net> <FI02Gr.9tx@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Unless we're in heaven;-) (...) That would be reflex, an (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Hmmm... I think the problem I have is making any real sort of line. On the one hand, I agree that reflex reaction certainly seems like it is different from instinct, as is the learned reaction, but then I have to question what examples of (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

John Neal wrote in message (...) <snip> (...) without (...) because (...) one can (...) David, I think you are using definition #1, while we are using definition #2... 1 : a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Ok, well, I'm not really concerned with what the dictionary says. Ask the dictionary what morality is, and I bet it won't define it as well as we've tried to here. If you want quick terminology, go to the dictionary; if you really want the (...) (25 years ago, 14-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John Neal

<37DD1613.D194240B@uswest.net> <FI0oIw.2uo@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Well, I would say that our (human's) natural tendency is to (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

This message is huge again! I wish I had as much free time at work as you, David. I still have an unfinished reply to one of your previous posts in a draft folder. Hopefully I can finish this one in one sitting... David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) I like my job :) (...) I'm gonna do the "remember this as you read my post" thing... "even if animals can reason to some extent... they aren't anywhere near humans" (...) Again, remember! (...) Hmmm.... "people are in a variety of stages of (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) Hopefully (...) definition (...) actions (...) is (...) really (...) I (...) humans, (...) animals (...) he (...) years (...) or (...) you, (...) backwards (...) as in (...) idea (...) I'll (...) can (...) (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Aha! I think some headway has been made... I can see one of two possible arguments you are making... maybe you can tell me which is more correct? #1: "An entity is judgeable morally as long as it has considered morality. Hence, those not (...) (25 years ago, 15-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo

David Eaton wrote in message ... (...) you (...) to (...) cause (...) it (...) can (...) act (...) our (...) I didn't really mean either of your definitions. I think every creature has the same morality - to survive by whatever means necessary, but (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton

(...) Ok, so basically the main difference is in the exemption of animals from morality that I suggested. You're saying they have their own morality, still ultimate, but a different ultimate morality than our own? Ok. I guess one of the points that (...) (25 years ago, 16-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Todd Lehman

(...) IMHO, it's difficult not to conclude that bonobo apes probably have the mental faculties for moral codes. --Todd (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) So stipulated. I did use both "Most" and "maybe" in my post. Doesn't dilute the argument... (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Todd Lehman

(...) No, you're right, it doesn't. I apologize for sounding cross. I didn't mean my statement as something intended to refute your larger argument but instead simply a tangent intended to express some amount of disbelief in creationism. While I (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Didn't think you did, just wanted to keep our listening audience straight. :-) (...) You know, this is one belief that I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to. I'm not sure what a "soul" is, exactly, but depending on how you define it, (...) (25 years ago, 26-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Jesse Long

Simon Robinson <simon@simonrobinson.com> wrote in message news:FGz2xu.8B9@lugnet.com... (...) the (...) things (...) strict (...) by (...) Okay. But before I start I have to say that "scholars" have been able to make the Bible say whatever they want (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Todd Lehman

(...) Hmm. Does a clone of yourself count as a blood relative? And would that fall under incest or homosexuality? How about an opposite-sex clone? (If there is such a thing. I'm sure there will be someday!) Do human clones have souls? Or only those (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Jesse Long

Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:37c37276.223080...net.com... [snip clone stuff] I have no clue. I think successfully cloning a human would send metaphysical shockwaves all over the place. the only good places to draw a solid (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Todd Lehman

(...) Whoa -- cool! Great example! OK, so if fraternal twins have two souls right from the start, then how about identical twins? Does an embryo or a zygote which is destined to become a pair of identical twins have two souls to begin with -- one (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Straw man alert. Who is? You may be pretty sure that your book has all the answers, and you may be prepared to abide by whatever it says, no matter whether it makes sense or not, but that, in and of itself doesn't make you a moron, I don't (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Jesse Long

Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:37C3E470.A22410...ger.net... (...) and I (...) What I mean is that usually everyone involved in these discussions takes it very seriously and tends to think you can't really approach it from a (...) (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John Neal

(...) Here's what I believe about the Bible. It is a collection of books edited together by many people at different times in history. It is a historical document which can be scrutinized in any manner of ways (historical criticism, literary (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Robert Munafo

(...) The "much better" one I heard was 355/113: 355/113 = 3.141592920353... which comes within ~0.000008 percent... (...) It's interesting to note, however, that there are important sets of numbers that include these irrational numbers and are (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil? (Was Re: POV-RAY orange color (0) —Matthew Miller

(...) But that's not _dec_imal, which implies base 10. (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil? (Was Re: POV-RAY orange color (0) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You know that, and I know that. But John, being a mac user, doesn't. :-) Just kidding. But I, right after that, did express it in decimal, exactly. It's just not a non-repeating decimal. He didn't say it couldn't repeat... (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil? (Was Re: POV-RAY orange color (0) —Matthew Miller

(...) I know; I shamelessly took advantage of selective snipping. :) (25 years ago, 23-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil? (Was Re: POV-RAY orange color (0) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Prozac. (25 years ago, 27-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)