[~ot] why is programming so fun?

John Reimer terminal.node at gmail.com
Sat Jun 7 08:36:06 PDT 2008


Hello Yigal,

>> 
> look, I do not wish to discuss religion with you. unlike BCS who's
> open to other views you clearly are not, and I will not waste my time
> beyond this post to argue with you. In the same way I will not waste
> my time trying to explain what the color blue is to a blind man.
> 


That's fine, Yigal, but we haven't even discussed what is and isn't "blue" 
yet. I think that's important before one calls the other blind, don't you? 
Your definition might be no better than mine, at this point.  

The lack of openness on the issue comes with the same realization that while 
there will exist many renderings of what a person interprets God to be, the 
majority will be incorrect, inconsistant, or unuseful -- the usual motivation 
will be to create a God that fits ones own needs or one's cultures needs. 
 My claim is that the Christian God (originating in the old testament) is 
distinct, consistant, and accurate and works for all peoples in this world. 
If I didn't argue this way even about the Christian God, there would be little 
point in me committing to the argument at all or defending the complete worldview 
I adhere to.  Out of necessity for a consistant universe, there must be one 
rendering of God the excludes them all.  The fanciful, and perhaps romantic, 
would love to see all religions leading to truth some way or another, but 
the Bible (old and new) repeatedly makes a claim to the contrary.  If this 
claim is true, I maintain that we must be alert to it and willing to analyze 
false representations of it.  I merely deny that your Jewish rendering works 
or is consistant with prophecies therein.  You are an athiest, so I assume 
you concluded the same and your defense of it now is probably motivated by 
my seeming insulting of your intelligence of understanding your own Hebrew 
roots.  If that was the case, I apologize for the action.  I am most certainly 
quite clumsy half the time I write.

True, I cannot decide for the Jew what Judaism thinks God to be (and even 
that varies, I'm sure).  But if that's (one of the ways) what they think 
him to be, and we are discussing the reality of God, don't you think I'm 
going to disgree with the representation or how that representation was concluded? 
 Furthermore,  by definition, one who call himself an athiest is one of the 
least open-minded of all -- if he were not, he wouldn't be an athiest.  Perhaps 
agnostic is a better term if you want to make people think you are more open-minded. 
 :)   The fact is very few in this discussion are really open-minded beyond 
being willing to discuss different points of view.  I certainly can't "convert" 
you either.  When it comes down to it, the choice always will be left with 
the individual to make his own inquiries into a matter and decide for himself. 
 If an individual just takes my word for it, that could be very risky indeed.


> you have your view of the world which you think is absolute based on
> your seemingly very strong faith and therefore anything I say must be
> wrong. and that's based on:
> "the nth-hand re-interpretations of m-times "translated" stories
> related
> by /man/, and attributed to the will, actions or purpose of a god" as
> "Me Here" put so accurately in his post.
> There's a saying in Hebrew that says: "the Torah has 70 faces" meaning
> that everyone can read and see a different meaning in the text and in
> fact the Jewish faith expects all Jews to read and learn the bible
> themselves, unlike The preachings practiced in a church.
> I have my own understanding of the bible and of course I do not
> necessary believe everything I read. What I said was the Jewish view
> based on the very close examination of the [original!] text. as a
> Christian you do not have a say in what the Jewish view should be.
> your view is different based on your interpretation, sure, but have
> you
> ever read the bible yourself? have you read the Hebrew version of it?
> there is a very good reason why the pope knows Hebrew, and wares a
> yarmulke (found that word in an online dictionary...).
> since I'm an atheist and a Jew, please keep your Christian preaching
> to
> yourself (in the Jewish faith preaching is a very grave sin!)


Uh oh.  I think more than one of us in trouble then. :)  May I ask where 
the preaching occurred?  What is preaching?  I'm merely arguing for the Christian 
worldview.  I was arguing... just like ... you. :)  

I'm not sure what you are implying about Catholicism's relationship to Judaism, 
but I suppose, since you are Jewish, that you do still relate to your culture 
and defend some of it accordingly, even if it means an appeal to another 
"authority" to prove it's importance.  I don't know how relevant that is, 
but I suppose that's your right.


> all I posted in my original view was the Jewish understanding of the
> bible which is not "wrong" as you seem to imply, but merely different
> (Id say more accurate based on the text in the Hebrew edition version
> 1.0 as I like to call it, but not an absolute truth). what your
> version
> of the bible says is irrelevant to the Jewish perspective.
> If the Christian version changed some of the concepts (for example the
> 'one'ness of god...) well, than it applies to Christians only.
> in an analogy - you cannot say that my perfectly working D.1 based
> application is wrong because your D.2 compiler does not compile it, or
> even that your version is better. for example, I do not like the
> current D2 const concept and do not wish to use it and you cannot
> claim that I'm wrong based on your use of the D2 const. it may work
> for you but it doesn't have to work for everyone.
> 


Does not an athiest see any view of God as "wrong"?  As an athiest, if you 
personally are looking at all the beliefs in a "god" as pure silliness, then 
you most certainly will believe one view of a god is no more wrong than another 
(because they apparently are all wrong).  But you most likely /will/ be most 
sympathetic to the one you identify with.  I'm pointing out that we must 
go beyond discussing mere perspectives of God and start getting a more rigid 
understanding of who he is, why we are here, and where we are going.  I claim 
that rejecting the Christian God is fatal, even if it is a choice that one 
is certainly allowed to make.  As an analogy, a murderer may have the "choice" 
to kill his victim in that he is capable of acting out the incident, but 
even so he will have to experience the consequences of that action when he 
is caught and handed over to a just judge.

If this is the case, one should be careful to investigate the Christian worldview 
thoroughly because it defines sin, the consequences of sin, and how one can 
be saved from bondage to it.  This is in contrast to most other religions 
that may claim "all ways can lead to truth": such a statement effectively 
eliminates consequences, responsibility, and sin from the picture and renders 
this world, once again, a murky existance of subjective feelings with no 
way to be confident in anything beyond an inductive principle of undefined 
reliability.

(What follows is not preaching, but I suppose people that have had the possibly 
unpleasant experience of viewing some tv evangelists and such are senstitive 
to anything quoted from scripture): Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, 
and the life; no man comes to the Father except through Me."  This is the 
absolute claim of the Christian Bible.  This Jesus also talked about hate 
being the same as murder, adultery the same as looking on a woman to lust 
after her, and divorce and remarriage being the same as ongoing adultery. 
 These claims are important because they point out man's degenerate state, 
the need to be saved from it, the consequences of dieing in sin, and the 
only source of such salvation from that sin.  Meanwhile many people exist 
with depression, hopelessness, and disallusionment within their own worldview 
(or some claim) lack thereof ... and /still/ rail against the God of the 
Bible because they don't like the options offered or think such an existance 
is unfair.  Mostly the argument reduces to that they just don't like this 
God. It's perplexing given the fact the gift of reconciliation to this God 
is indeed amazing, and without this God, our meaning for existance is murky 
at best.


> The bible is very clear to the reader only if you read the children's
> edition with illustrations. to say that "the Bible is actually
> astoundingly clear in its message and leaves very little to
> imagination for the reader." is like saying the D2 const regime is
> simple, understandable and clear in its message.
> 
> --Yigal
> 


Maybe we'll be able to bring this back on topic eventually.  That was a brave 
attempt!  :-D

-JJR





More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list