[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[Tower Ty]

What a load of drivel this is

I see you did not dare answer me .

Just where do you think your god might be standing .
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080606.html

I'd say if so he must be pretty busy








John Reimer Wrote:

> 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
> 
>