Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: RogerN on 24 Apr 2010 08:51 "D from BC" <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote in message news:MPG.263c3fa0f14130cc9897f8(a)209.197.12.12... > In article <3l1ns59hs5dnismh3vkdmoedb3vte2p1at(a)4ax.com>, > jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... >> >You are belittled when God requires to be 'believed' and needs to be >> >ASKED first/prayed to or else no miracle/cure. >> >> --- >> What you seem to have missed is that those who are doing the curing know >> you don't want to die and have, for the most part, asked God to help >> them save your life, even if you don't believe in God. >> --- >> > > It doesn't matter who's doing the praying/asking. > It's the praying/asking that is the problem. > > The Hippocratic oath is a 'Just do it' ethic due to most people wanting > to be fixed by a doctor/surgeon. > A doctor doesn't wait to be asked when a person is spurting blood > everywhere in front of him. > IN contrast, God waits to be asked when a person is spurting blood > everywhere in front of him. (omnipresence) > God uses coercion. 'I'll do it but you have to pray...' > God DOES NOT have a 'Just do it' ethic. > God is so extravagant that he needs/wants/demands to be prayed to/asked > otherwise God does the evil action of doing nothing. > God's power is more important that altruism. It's disgusting. > > Christian engineers are ridiculous in that not only is prayer > ineffective but is also nonessential due to Gods omnipresence, > omnibenevolence and omniscience. > It's obvious to God what you'd pray if you were to pray. > Even to God, National prayer day is pointless. > > Mythbusters on prayer. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOEPQlJA2-A > > > > -- > D from BC > British Columbia But from your perspective death is the end, from God's perspective death is no more serious than a runny nose. What is the ratio of someone living 5 days compared to infinity versus 100 years compared to infinity? RogerN
From: ClassicV on 24 Apr 2010 09:08 > Well that might be true if you exclude the pain of getting beaten for > hours sold, flogged, having big nails driven through your wrists and > feet, the emotional cost of all that plus the betrayal of a close > friend, abandonment by everyone, and total rejection by his nation, > mockery, humiliation, shame and the pain of dying of congestive heart > failure,while naked and splayed out for public view with both shoulders > dislocated. There is a growing amount of rediscovered evidence that 1) Judas was instructed, by Jesus, to identify him to the Romans so that he could revert to his real form ... that of a spirit rather than human. 2) He wasn't rejected by his nation .. only the Jewish clerics. > > > It is described as a scared mystery. It is fully accepted that this > appears and indeed is illogical to our way of understanding. > Mystery is good. There is a lot going on around us that can't be explained by science ... yet, and I hope it remains that way.
From: RogerN on 24 Apr 2010 09:28 "Jon Kirwan" <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote in message news:9s65t51iaq3hq3qn7hcb8n2vc9tdt94t6c(a)4ax.com... > Let's start with a basic question or two. Maybe we can agree > on some initial points. > > (1) Do you agree or disagree? "As an absolute minimalist > point of view, the Establishment Clause was intended by the > signatories to the US Constitution at the time of signing it > to, at bottom, prohibit the federal government from declaring > and/or supporting a national religion, as existed in many > other countries at that time?" Agree. > (2) What is the first case where the Supreme Court set out > to interpret the Establishment Clause, have you read it, and > if so what about the majority decision in that case is still > noteworthy and important today? What significant ground is > broken, aside from the mere fact that it was the first case > taking on this task? > > I have a hunch we won't even get this far, perhaps not even > on one of these let alone both. And if not, then I think you > and I have some serious research ahead of us before we can > proceed, at all. > > Jon I'll have to look up part 2. Without name calling, in the judges decision, the establishment clause was stretched to endorsement, endorsement was stretched to "no secular purpose" and at the judges will was stretched to acknowledgement. To relate this to electronics, this like having a signal and making different claims about it by only changing the potential of the ground clip, and then claiming the output changed. The judge stepped from the constitutional "Establishment" to "Endorsement" to "Acknowledgement" to "No secular purpose" to "Lemon test". The only constitutional one was "Establishment", but she declared the national day of prayer unconstitutional because she can stretch the truth to say it endorses, acknowledges, and/or serves no secular purpose. By the end, the judges decision is firmly grounded in mid-air. As far as getting far, if the only way you can be "right" is by wearing those that disagree with you down by sending them on wild goose chases then I would conclude that you don't have a good foundation for your opinion. I read the 66 page judges decision as you demanded and I even commented on the multiple places she changes the requirements. What I learned by reading the decision is that I was right from the start, but now you think I should read everything she cited in her decision. Then after showing you every decision was based on stretching the establishment clause, you would want me to read every decision that was cited in those cases. And if I were to continue to play your game long enough I would be reading every document ever written in the history of the Earth and you would probably claim your proof is in the documents that no longer exist. You and I already agree on number 1 What religion is established by the national day of prayer? Is establishing a religion equal to endorsing or acknowledging a religion? Does the establishment clause say anything about the "must serve a secular purpose"? I'm not arguing that other decisions are not in agreement with the judges decision, my argument is that these decisions are wrong when they change the meaning of the constitution, they change the original intent. Thomas Jefferson was among the least religious of the founding fathers but he attended church in a government building, secular purpose? No Lemon to squeeze there. Thomas Jefferson also gave government money to missionaries, and he's the person that wrote the very words that religion haters love to quote "Separation of church and state". Actually there many many many things that our founding fathers did that would not fly today with the redefined constitution. RogerN
From: John Fields on 24 Apr 2010 10:23 On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:08:52 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >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. --- That smells like a red herring to me, since my reply addressed your statement that: "Most people wish/want/need their illness or injury to be treated. Needing to ask for medical attention implies class discrimination." Which is ludicrous on its face, as I politely pointed out, and has nothing to do with emergency medical treatment. --- >There's a difference between doctors serving by request(asking) and >serving by Hippocratic oath(Just do it). --- Oh, my, but you _do_ seem to have a remarkable grasp of the obvious! --- >Serving by request(asking) implies a social class that requires a reason >to be asked before doing anything. --- Well, maybe not as remarkable a grasp as I thought... For instance, it should be obvious that if you need, say, a dozen eggs, you'd go to the store and buy them instead of waiting for the dairy manager to read your mind and deliver them to you. The same holds true for ordinary medical care, which any sane person asks for as is needed. Neither situation has anything to do with class, it's just the normal way normal humans do things. YMMV. --- >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. --- That should also be obvious, of course. If you need emergency medical care, the assumption is that you'd _want_ to be treated even if you couldn't ask, so the good doctor goes ahead and does what he can to fix you without waiting for explicit approval. --- >Serving by Hippocratic oath matches the class of the patient. --- More fuzzy thinking, since following the Hippocratic oath makes the class of the patient moot. --- 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. --- Classic 'straw man' fallacy: You anthropomorphize God and then vilify the image you create for not acting in ways of which you approve. That makes me think that you're not really an atheist, but that you hate God so much for not following your rules you've decided to sublimate that hate by talking yourself into believing that God doesn't exist: "I mean, how could someone who allows babies to be raped by priests exist?" and calling all who believe in God, fools, thereby exalting your belief/non-belief set to the point where it can't be argued against. JF
From: John Fields on 24 Apr 2010 10:53
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:53:23 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >In article <3l1ns59hs5dnismh3vkdmoedb3vte2p1at(a)4ax.com>, >jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... >> >> >YOu are belittled when the doctor does nothing until you ASK the doctor >> >. 'Please fix my leg.' >> >> --- >> More nonsense from a small-minded, somewhat malignant egotist. >> >> Should the doctor follow you around and subjugate his life to your whims >> on the basis that you _might_ stub your toe and are too proud to ask for >> help when you do? >> --- >> > >A God has the power to watch you 24/7. God is all powerful and has the >power to be a superdoctor that's watching you 24/7. >When God fails to 'just heal it' unconditionally it is a violation of >the Hippocratic oath. This is God being evil by inaction. >Real or not and with or without God's reasons, God is evil by default >for billions of inactions of unconditional kindness. >When a God requires to be prayed to/ASKED for healing then God is not >being unconditional kind. >It's petty and belittling for one to ask God 'pretty please ..pretty >please fix my leg.' when God is fully aware of the situation and just >due to pettiness and for no reason .. needs to hear 'pretty please'. >God is more evil if he needs to be prayed to/asked when someone is >unable to pray/ASK due to unconsciousness, coma, dementia or brain >injury. >'He died cause he was unconscious and couldn't pray to/ask God for >medical help.' > >The Hippocratic oath is a 'just do it' ethic. >God is not a 'just do it' God. God has red tape. >God is more evil than doctors. > >Christian engineers are ridiculous is thinking an omnibenevolent God is >more good than doctors. --- If we cut to the chase, then reductio ad absurdum on all of your rants to date boils down to that if God existed he'd operate under your rules and never let anyone die, or be sick, or poor, or unhappy, or anything else of which you disapprove. Nice try, but no cigar, since God pretty much calls the shots and His rules were in place long before you got here. Don't like the rules? God gave you free will, change them if you can. JF |