Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: D from BC on 23 Apr 2010 05:08 In article <3l1ns59hs5dnismh3vkdmoedb3vte2p1at(a)4ax.com>, jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > >Most people wish/want/need their illness or injury to be treated. > >Needing to ask for medical attention implies class discrimination. > > --- > Total and utter nonsense. > > Asking for medical attention, when you know you need it, is the > responsible action which a normal person would take. > --- > If a person has to be stared at by the medical staff ..especially while pumping blood all over the floor .. and nothing happens until the 'ASK' happens then it's class discrimination. There's a difference between doctors serving by request(asking) and serving by Hippocratic oath(Just do it). Serving by request(asking) implies a social class that requires a reason to be asked before doing anything. There is no reason for it to be necessary for a blood spurting person in an ER to be stared at by the staff until he asks. Serving by Hippocratic oath matches the class of the patient. Asking is not necessary unless it's not obvious to the doctor. It's class discrimination when an all seeing God is not on the side of people. God doesn't help unconditionally. God is in another class and has some unknown need to be prayed to/asked and to be believed. Boy: 'My leg is broken' God: 'Say the magic words' Boy: 'Why do I need to say the magic words?' Even if true, an all watching God is evil in violating the Hippocratic oath and is ridiculous in being omniscient yet still needing to be prayed to and asked. Christian engineers are ridiculous in having a God that is a poor model of good. -- D from BC British Columbia
From: RogerN on 23 Apr 2010 06:53 "Jon Kirwan" <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote in message news:gvn2t5tne7vnv77r1vh0gl8rfb3g2sdjog(a)4ax.com... > Roger, when you say that you've read the judge's decision, > we'll talk about it. Until then, I'm not interested. There > is a lot of detail in the 66 page decision that needs to be > addressed between us and there is no point talking until > you've brought yourself up to speed on at least that much. > > Calling her names isn't the right way to deal with this. > Dealing with her points would be interesting to me. > > Repeating your opinion before informing yourself and > addressing your opinions to her statements, or calling her > names (or others) isn't interesting to me. > > Jon I have to play your way or you won't discuss it. What I read of the judges decision (several pages till about 11:30PM, have to get up at 5AM) was well reasoned but what I wrote are the facts totally independent of the judges decision. RogerN
From: D from BC on 21 Apr 2010 23:44 In article <JoSdnRkYCMTAKFLWnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, regor(a)midwest.net says... > > "D from BC" <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.263936dcd75e41929897eb(a)209.197.12.12... > > In article <plqus5d82erhcvjojrbtc70d31qb5a602a(a)4ax.com>, > > jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > >> >Even if true, God is ridiculous by doing nothing. > >> > >> --- > >> Tou have no clue what God is or isn't doing, and it's _you_ who's > >> ridiculous in expecting God to live up to _your_ expectations. > >> > > > > The bible has God doing lots of things in the bible. > > Now God does nothing.. That's a strange change. > > Perhaps it's the presence of HD camcorders and digital cameras and cell > > phone cameras. > > There's more evidence that God does nothing compared to evidence that > > God does something. > > > > Prayer doesn't work especially for zero probability events. > > There's been no recent defiances of physics such burning bushes, parted > > seas and killing of 1st born. > > No amputees have had their legs or arms grow back. > > > > Christian engineers are ridiculous in naming what's unknown as God. > > > > > > -- > > D from BC > > British Columbia > > > > At least you're consistent, consistently wrong! Recovering from cancer is not a zero probability event. Some people do recover. If you are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer you have a 90% chance of dieing within 5 years. A zero probability event is amputees growing legs and arms back. God is most qualified to do a zero probability event. Nowhere in modern medical history has anyone grown arms or legs back. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATFfZkIkrq8&feature=related > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH1SlSB9uH8&feature=related > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXrZO_S-4hU&feature=related > > > > RogerN Cancer recovery videos are not as impressive as arms and legs growing back. AFAIK.. Some people can loose arms and legs due to cancer. Where are the videos of arms and legs growing back? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npT5WHhXuCU There's no following video where she has a new leg. Christian engineers are ridiculous to think that if they lost a leg/arm/eye, God could make it grow back. -- D from BC British Columbia
From: D from BC on 22 Apr 2010 01:42 In article <GPmdnWflYYOV_lPWnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, regor(a)midwest.net says... > It's not a national Christian prayer day, it's national prayer day. It > wasn't considered unconstitutional in 1975, or when Washington called for it > in 1795, or any other time in the history of the United States until some > libtarded woman judge decided it was unconstitutional in 2010. What does it > mean that the same founding father that penned the very words "separation of > church and state" attended church services in a government building, gave > money to missionaries, and had a military band play in the church service? > It means that libtards are changing the meaning to mean what it never meant. > The constitutional words are missing, separation of church and state isn't > in the constitution. Libtards have taken the words that congress shall make 'The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:' 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment Making a law that respects an establishment of religion means there won't be silly laws like fining/jailing guys with an illegal uncircumcision. Nor will congress make silly laws such as prohibiting grotesque figures of a dead guy on a cross. > no law concerning the establishment of religion, and changed it to > separation of church and state. It's all about making something mean what > it never meant to push the libtard agenda. > > RogerN > >
From: Jon Kirwan on 22 Apr 2010 03:00
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:42:30 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >In article <GPmdnWflYYOV_lPWnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, >regor(a)midwest.net says... >> It's not a national Christian prayer day, it's national prayer day. It >> wasn't considered unconstitutional in 1975, or when Washington called for it >> in 1795, or any other time in the history of the United States until some >> libtarded woman judge decided it was unconstitutional in 2010. What does it >> mean that the same founding father that penned the very words "separation of >> church and state" attended church services in a government building, gave >> money to missionaries, and had a military band play in the church service? >> It means that libtards are changing the meaning to mean what it never meant. >> The constitutional words are missing, separation of church and state isn't >> in the constitution. Libtards have taken the words that congress shall make > >'The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the >Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States >Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause >together read:' >'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or >prohibiting the free exercise thereof...' >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment > >Making a law that respects an establishment of religion means there >won't be silly laws like fining/jailing guys with an illegal >uncircumcision. >Nor will congress make silly laws such as prohibiting grotesque figures >of a dead guy on a cross. None of this matters to Roger. Worse, so far as I can tell, he's actually ignorant and doesn't care to change any of that. He hasn't read the decision, but feels totally free to name-call and label people "libtards" (as well as the judge, too.) This is exactly what happened when the 1952 law was first passed, as well. People were labeled communist, anti- American, and so on if they didn't get in line and support the bill. Billy Graham gave a speech in Washington DC and said he wanted "the leaders of our country today kneeling before the Almighty God in prayer." Percy Priest, the next day, introduced the bill into the House. In Congress, opposition to the bill was quite literally (not just by inference, but explicitly with words saying so) equated with being a communist and anti-American. We all know about that particular sad period of McCarthyism in our history. I gather Roger feels perfectly good, though. He doesn't seem to care about outsiders of his religion. Has no empathy for them. Hates them, I think. He is unable to follow Jesus' admonishment, as well, about hating. He is very much like Billy Graham in many ways, I grow to imagine now. Which reminds me of a true story that happened to my wife. Bill Graham is a man I will remember till the day I die. My wife is a Christian (yes, that's a fact) and yet she was almost killed in Chicago because of Billy Graham. She was opposed to the Vietnam War and that was a crime in Billy's eyes. She and a few others came to one of Billy's rallies wearing t-shirts that spoke their opposition to the war -- a belief born of their Christian love and beliefs. There was a cruel moment early on in his sermon when Billy turned to the several thousand in front of him and said, "There are some people here who may cause trouble." He then looked squarely at this tiny group of about ten people wearing t-shirts against the war, and added, "When the time comes, we know what to do." She tells me they had no idea they were causing trouble being there. They were expressing their political beliefs with these t-shirts and at the same time they were also expressing their religious beliefs by being there and listening. But they didn't plan on being noticed that much -- about like what you might expect if you went to a fair with a political t-shirt, perhaps. Certainly, they didn't expect his personal and public attention to them. The sermon was about blood and the bible. A long, long discussion about blood and blood and blood. She and her friends grew increasingly frightened as the sermon wore on. When the sermon was over, and people started to leave, the crowd immediately (right outside the gates) turned on them and a number of them were beaten up and very seriously injured. He knew exactly what he was asking for. It will NOT be forgotten. In any case, Roger is acting in ways that provide much of what we need to understand about why the establishment clause exists. Harsh name-calling, harsh and vile judgments, denigration of others, etc. It's why that clause was in the FIRST amendment. It was that important. Luckily, folks then were smart enough to figure this issue out well enough to know how to design something to help us live together As the judge mentions in her decision, which I still assume Roger hasn't read and will never read, in Sep. 1774, John Jay and John Rutledge (both of whom would one day become Chief Justices of the Supreme Court) objected to the idea of opening sessions with prayer on the grounds that the Congress was "so divided in religious Sentiments that we could not join in the same Act of Worship." As I've cited before, in 1785 when the interim Continental Congress was desperately struggling with the details of surveying the land they'd won in the war with Britain and trying to determine how land in townships would be used. The proposal to require one square mile for religious purposes, in addition to one square mile for educational purposes, was unable to pass. Not enough of the members wanted the religious entanglements and that part of the bill had to be removed before it could be passed. The National Day of Prayer is a symbol of division, not unity (see the May 12th, 2007 editorial in Albany Times Union, by Matt Cherry, titled, "Using day of prayer to divide us," for more on that point. There is no valid secular purpose, it is nothing short of lending government support to religion, it is divisive, it splits us up instead of bringing us together, it causes people to be called communists, anti-American, or worse, and is everything that is wrong about mixing up religion and state. The judge showed courage and wisdom and intelligence in the decision she wrote. Roger should at least read it before spouting off. I don't expect him to agree and I wouldn't want him to, in fact. But there is no point debating with an uneducated viewpoint where he won't even listen to other points of view and consider them and deal with them, fairly. If he doesn't show the least willingness to do that much, why should he expect others to listen to his points made without education or knowledge or information -- nothing other than visceral bone-jarring emotional responses is NOT the way to respect others or learn about their points of view so that they can be addressed. Let him first read the decision. Until then, there is nothing to say to him about this decision and his violent, cruel, ignorant name-calling. It's just a child ranting and being stupidly stubborn about being uninformed and uncaring about others, besides. Jon |