 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:38:14 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:57:16 -0000, nemesis
>>> The eye of a needle was how a narrow passageway was known at those
>>> times.
>
>> I think you'll find that's a retrospective explantion. Firstly if it
>> was an actual place it would have one name
>
> I think you misread, Phil. Nemesis was saying "the eye of a needle" was
> slang for "alleyway." Not that it was a specific alleyway.
Well the commonplace misconception was that it was a specific alleyway,
but you're correct Nemesis wasn't specific in those terms.
> The explanation *I* heard was that the original text said "camel-hair
> rope" rather than just "camel", but I have no idea where I heard that.
A possible mistranslation kamilos (camel) 'should' have been kamelos
(rope) then add in all the retrospective about how it was a camel-hair
rope blah blah; none of which explains why camel got substitued for
elephant later unless the Jews themselves didn't understand the derivation.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/13 04:08:
> And lo on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:34:54 -0000, nemesis
> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>
>> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>> So either God's a 'Worship Me or I'll beat you up' bully or a 'I'll help
>>> the tribe who showers Me with the most faith' mercenary (or both)?
>>
>> Faith, love, respect and fear are to be expected from those who devote
>> their lifes to God's will.
>
> Except I'd put faith and love, and respect and fear in two entirely
> seperate categories otherwise we end up with the conclusions that...
>
Respect and fear realy don't deserve to be grouped. Apparent respect comming
from fear is no respect at all, as it soon become obvious as soon as the fear
aspect fades, apparent respect mutate into hate. True respect comes from
understanding. True respect breed more respect, and reduce fear.
Respect can be paired with love, as both can grow without the presence of the
other, and both can lead to the other.
So, you can have "faith", love and respect on one side, and fear and hate on the
other side.
A very simple principle:
Do unto others as you'd like other to do unto you.
It can replace any religion, and a great many laws. It can be used as a
reference to diferensate between "good" and "evil". ANYBODY who, at least try
to, live by that principle won't wilingly commit any crime.
What I like about it, is that it's a positive principle.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
People who go to conferences are the ones who shouldn’t.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:42:12 -0000, Alain
<ele### [at] netscapenet> did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/13 04:08:
>> And lo on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:34:54 -0000, nemesis
>> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>> So either God's a 'Worship Me or I'll beat you up' bully or a 'I'll
>>>> help
>>>> the tribe who showers Me with the most faith' mercenary (or both)?
>>>
>>> Faith, love, respect and fear are to be expected from those who devote
>>> their lifes to God's will.
>> Except I'd put faith and love, and respect and fear in two entirely
>> seperate categories otherwise we end up with the conclusions that...
>>
> Respect and fear realy don't deserve to be grouped. Apparent respect
> comming from fear is no respect at all, as it soon become obvious as
> soon as the fear aspect fades, apparent respect mutate into hate. True
> respect comes from understanding. True respect breed more respect, and
> reduce fear.
> Respect can be paired with love, as both can grow without the presence
> of the other, and both can lead to the other.
> So, you can have "faith", love and respect on one side, and fear and
> hate on the other side.
I failed to explain well. Faith and love are intangibles "Why do you love
X?", "Why do you have faith in Y?" they're both something you can't really
answer - you just do. Fear and respect have answers "I respect X because
he's proven himself" "I fear Y because I've seen what he can do". You
don't just fear or respect someone or something (experiments with spider
pictures notwithstanding).
> A very simple principle:
> Do unto others as you'd like other to do unto you.
> It can replace any religion, and a great many laws. It can be used as a
> reference to diferensate between "good" and "evil".
Um I'm a sado-masochist (no I'm not really) who gets off on pain therefore
I should go around hurting people because that's what I'd want them to do
to me?
> ANYBODY who, at least try to, live by that principle won't wilingly
> commit any crime.
> What I like about it, is that it's a positive principle.
So I shouldn't steal from a store because I wouldn't like the store
stealing from me... except the store isn't a person (except perhaps
legally) so why should I care?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> Only if you presume the very old religion that started out claiming that
> Satan was God's helper, then later blamed everything on him and made up
> a silly, and over time increasingly complicated and bloody explanation,
> for what he did and where he was sent, instead of the Satanists, who
> would argue that Satan was the one that **never** deceived anyone, and
> thus its your God that is evil.
fucked up world!
best wishes...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Y'know in modern times if someone were within an inch of sacrificing
> their child and claimed God told them to do it, they'd be placed in a
> mental health facility quicker than you could blink.
Is this the same modern times which overload children and teens with all kinds
of demonic imagery in disguise of good entertainment? And then eventually
makes teens shoot people in schools or malls just like they do in the
videogames?
Why aren't all this people in a mental health facility? oh, it would make
economy come to a halt...
> Makes me think perhaps the Bible is full of crazies. :)
ever thought that maybe it passed through Abraham's, Moses's or others heads
that they were insane? Yet, they persisted on their faith. I guess the
Message was far more convincing than that of your average psychopath's
delirium...
I'm leaving this thread, won't be reading any more messages from it. Every
Christian have a limit of tolerance for twisted logic shouts and verborragic
blasphemies against God...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:56:32 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> did spake, saying:
>
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>> Therefore there is no Hell.
>>
>> Yep. And all the carvings on the cathedral where Jesus is guesturing
>> to Satan (who surprisingly looks *just* like Loki, Pan, and Bacchus)
>> to drag the unbelievers off in chains to hell? That's just decoration.
>
> Who are you going to believe - God or a bunch of artists? ;-)
Sharks and dolphins look surprisingly similar, too. Doesn't make them
particularly closely related.
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4760c463$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > Just wondering.
>
> I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with nudity, considering being
> embarrassed of being nude is what got Adam and Eve ratted out in the
> first place.
>
Well, no. It was one of the silly excuses they used for what sort of
"wrong stuff" they suddenly realized after. Later on you have the son of
a woman that got raped, as a result of her rapist seeing her bathing,
ruling a great nation of believers, while the rapist gets killed in some
huge war or something. I.e., she didn't do anything wrong, and was
rewarded, he got an early grave. Even later, and at least one Christian
nudist group uses this as justification for their life style, God
ordered one of his various prophets to go naked before the people to
preach, and was told, when the prophet whined about if it was
appropriate, "As long as its done in humility, its not a sin."
Mind you, I personally think that the whole idea of nudity being wrong
is about "shame", not humility, in the first place. If you are not aware
that its wrong, you have no reason to either flaunt it, or be shamed by
it, so can only be humble. Its when some moron starts telling you that
a) you need to dress, because people just don't do that sort of thing,
and b) some naughty bits shouldn't ever be seen by the other sex, that
you get **both** the idea that there is something to flaunt and show
off, as well as the idea that there is some shame in others seeing it,
or you letting them see it.
But yeah, its probably the single oldest (if you presume it was written
in *any* sort of chronological order to the rest) bullshit sin on a long
list of ones, for which the supposed solutions to the supposed problems
only either make the problem worse, or in this case, might *actually* be
responsible for creating most of them in the first place.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I'm leaving this thread, won't be reading any more messages from it. Every
> Christian have a limit of tolerance for twisted logic shouts and verborragic
> blasphemies against God...
Wow. Worshiping a God that can't even protect your faith from a
discussion. Or, apparently, from his own evil creations.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <op.t299mxaoc3xi7v@news.povray.org>,
phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk says...
> > A very simple principle:
> > Do unto others as you'd like other to do unto you.
> > It can replace any religion, and a great many laws. It can be used as a
> > reference to diferensate between "good" and "evil".
>
> Um I'm a sado-masochist (no I'm not really) who gets off on pain therefor
e
> I should go around hurting people because that's what I'd want them to do
> to me?
>
Bingo! lol The problem is of course that people that really *believe*
that the golden rule means what they think it does are naive to the
point of blindness about what it *really* means. A sociopath can't make
such a distinction, since they don't recognize other people as being
*anything* like them. They literally can't make the connection between
harm to themselves being the same as harm to another. And other people
won't be as bad as that, but its not hard at all to imagine thinking, "I
would wish someone killed me if I cheated on my wife, so I am going to
kill people I know are cheating on their wives.", or any number of other
similar conclusions, which, by the golden rule, are **perfectly**
reasonable. All the golden rule means is that anything is justified,
including mass murder, so long as the person committing it is 100% in
agreement that **he** should be treated the same way, for the same
supposed offense.
Those of us that recognize this know that a better standard, which
implies basic respect for others, and a mutually agreed definition of
what *that* means, is needed. One rule, which says nothing about what
the basic standard should be, or who gets to define it, or how you
determine right or wrong, save by if the person doing it *thinks* other
should treat them the same way, so its OK to do it to others, is
useless.
> > ANYBODY who, at least try to, live by that principle won't wilingly
> > commit any crime.
> > What I like about it, is that it's a positive principle.
>
> So I shouldn't steal from a store because I wouldn't like the store
> stealing from me... except the store isn't a person (except perhaps
> legally) so why should I care?
>
Nah, that would at least make sense. The real problem is that the
definition of crime is arbitrarily based on the presumption that the
person committing and act **knows** how they should treat others, and
thus, by that standard, can only commit a crime if they do what is
contrary to that understanding. Yet, by that same definition, a Muslim
who murders his neighbors wife is "not" committing a crime at all, so
long as *he* is sure that he would want his own wife killed in the same
fashion, for the same supposed offense. Or any other similar example.
In the end, its nothing but authoritarianism in disguise. Someone else
defines the rules of what you can/should/are allowed to do to people,
based on their actions/intent/statements or other criteria, and if
everyone, except the victim, agrees that those *are* the rules, and that
such action is acceptable if it was instead applied to them, no crime,
against man or god has happened. Its only if the person committing the
act disagrees with it, but does it anyway, that the golden rule comes
into force. And since you will never find two people that are *ever*
100% identical in their assumption about what someone else "can" do to
them, and some won't accept "any" punishment for "any" crime at all (and
you get those types, who will even protest sending someone to jail for
life, after committing 10 murders), its impossible to apply such a rule,
without making other rules to define what the rule is **supposed** to
mean.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.476175fc922777eb773c9a3e0@news.povray.org>,
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Y'know in modern times if someone were within an inch of sacrificing
> > their child and claimed God told them to do it, they'd be placed in a
> > mental health facility quicker than you could blink.
>
> Is this the same modern times which overload children and teens with all
kinds
> of demonic imagery in disguise of good entertainment? And then eventuall
y
> makes teens shoot people in schools or malls just like they do in the
> videogames?
>
No, its the modern society where "good Christians" can't imagine their
poor children every doing anything wrong, ignore every possible warning
sign of a problem, until the teen goes nuts and starts looking for ways
to hurt people, then blames the video game that the teen in question
asked them to buy him for his birthday for *everything* that happened.
See, if your version was true, then we would be seeing entire schools
full of children going on murder sprees, not just the obscure loner that
***everyone***, especially their own parents, ignored, didn't want to
see, never bothered to talk to, and didn't think needed counseling
nearly as much as some other little snit that, I don't know.., might
have been permanently traumatized by finding out that Fred and Barnie
where cartoon characters, and people didn't actually ride dinosaurs. I
means, making sure that someone that has *no* problems at all, other
than that something maybe mildly offended them, is *so much* better a
use of school resources than helping the guy who sits in a corner,
glares at everyone, jokes about killing people and... Oh, never mind.
You are obviously one of the endless line of people that will ignore
***everything*** that went wrong, including parents that didn't bother
to so much as look in the kids room once in a while, or pay any
attention to their kids, or how they developed morally, and will instead
just blame it on a few irrelevant bits of stupid BS, which **failed** to
cause the same problem in the other hundreds of kids at the school, all
of whom probably played the same games, or the literally millions nation
wide that did so.
I mean, demonic images and violent games must be horrible inefficient
for spreading evil, given that it effects what... 0.000001% of the
people that ever see them, or play the games? Give me a fracking break.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
