Debate : 1717


Off-Topic / Debate / 1717

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)