Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 28 Apr 2010 18:06 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:12:43 -0700, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:55:21 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:00:47 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt >><Zarathustra(a)thusspoke.org> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 06:32:45 -0500, John Fields >>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:04:30 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <rag9t5h3isj0qsqqs9j2sfsvavj8t8io4g(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 21:13:14 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >In article <mtOdnYAbK4_GdE_WnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, >>>>>> >regor(a)midwest.net says... >>>>>> >> 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 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >That idea devalues earth life and increases the value of the afterlife. >>>>>> >That might encourage Christians to just wait/long or look forward to >>>>>> >dying due to be being momentarily inconvenienced on earth by God. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> And once you've done _your_ time here, what do you have to look forward >>>>>> to? >>>>>> >>>>>> JF >>>>> >>>>>To being on earth. >>>>>The molecules in my cells look forward to be free to go their separate >>>>>ways. >>>>>60% of the water vapor from my body looks forward to blowing in the >>>>>wind. Some of it may become rain, some of it may become drinking water >>>>>and some of it may feed plants. >>>>>The ammonia,carbon,salt,phosphorus and calcium in my body/brain look >>>>>forward to taking part again in the ecology. >>>>>I am of the earth and for the earth. >>>> >>>>--- >>>>That's how God has set things up; read Genesis 3:19 >>>> >>>>But what about your fire? >>>> >>>>JF >>> >>>fdkdt599unf5ur5ki19rq5k99p1d2jukno(a)4ax.com >>> >>> We are sooooooo insignificant. >> >>Yes, you are insignificant, DimBulb. > > > You are so stupid that you were unable to look at the news article >referred to. You're *always* wrong, AlwaysWrong.
From: RogerN on 28 Apr 2010 18:59 <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:d7cht5hqhbqj7qu88skt37vio41gliv7uv(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:11:31 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> > wrote: > >>In article <k5WdnQ8FpaCQF0rWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, >>regor(a)midwest.net says... >>> >>> It seems you go out of your way to misrepresent the Bible and what >>> Christians believe. Do you do this on purpose or are you really that >>> blinded? Perhaps you consider yourself wise? >> >>Genesis is a cook book with a recipe to punish people. > > We can tell how much agony you're in. > > <snip more of the Dimwit from BC's garbage> Unfortunately all Dimwit from BC does is make up BS and try to attribute it to Christians. Here is the entire argument of DfromBC in a single statement. "Since I'm to stupid to understand the Bible and how to apply it, it is ridiculous that those thousands of times smarter than me can understand it". That's it, that is the bottom line. We are trying to explain it to him but he is just plain too stupid to understand it. God, please give DfromBC more brains than the average peanut, I know this would be a great miracle! It's pretty sad when you have to make a thread to claim superiority to Christians and then you have to try to attribute your own ignorance to Christians to make your point. RogerN
From: RogerN on 28 Apr 2010 19:03 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:o8igt5hftcpe6g2egf7flrfish4nudk2l5(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:28:03 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> > wrote: > >>In article <eae9t59i67b133qpkahm3envu31bo8to17(a)4ax.com>, >>jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... >>> Subject: Re: Can Christian Electronic Designers Design? >>> From: John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> >>> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design >>> >>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:35:57 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >In article <svq5t5d3sfde5oltdng81rnks2cv44258s(a)4ax.com>, >>> >jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... >>> >> Classic 'straw man' fallacy: >>> >> >>> >> You anthropomorphize God and then vilify the image you create for not >>> >> acting in ways of which you approve. >>> > >>> >It doesn't matter if God is quasi-human or totally alien. >>> > >>> >People have reasons to be ethical. >>> >God has no reasons for anything. >>> >Without reasons there is no ethics. >>> >A God free from providing reasons is free of ethics. >>> >A God free of ethics is evil. >>> >>> --- >>> It really pisses you off that God's rules apply to you but your rules >>> don't apply to God, huh? >>> --- >>> >> >>God has no rules. > > --- > What's being talked about is rules that apply to you, not rules that > apply to God. > > Rules that apply to God we know very little about. > --- > >>God is capable of 1st born baby killing at any time and will still get >>praised. > > --- > By those who benefited from His act, of course. > > Wouldn't you be happy if you were imprisoned unfairly and somebody did > something drastic to free you? > --- > >>Try to list rules that God follows. > > http://ldolphin.org/Maincov.html > > JF One thing we do know about God is that he can not lie. See if DfromBC can understand the book of Esther and see where a God that cannot lie fits in. RogerN
From: RogerN on 28 Apr 2010 19:14 "Jon Kirwan" <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote in message news:hjl6t5hk6mrl4lcf15hgtpdup8top2qnt1(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:28:14 -0500, "RogerN" > <regor(a)midwest.net> wrote: > >>"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. > > Okay. This, by the way, doesn't mean we agree more broadly > on the intent. It just means that we can find a mutually > agreeable minimum interpretation. I was hoping we could at > least set down ONE brick between us into a foundation that we > could build upon. I think it means more than the above. You > may not. But it is important to find some common ground, I > think. Nice that we have it. > >>> (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. > > I don't mean to move the discussion away. Part of what I'm > trying to do is to get you reading and studying. We don't > have to agree on anything. But when you engage yourself and > work for your opinion, it's worthy of anyone's reading time > no matter where you come down. > > I enjoy informed debate most especially when we disagree, > because that is when I get to learn from you and hopefully in > the end improve my opinions. You make me a better person and > I appreciate that, a lot. > >> 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. >><snip> > > No. That presumes a great deal not in evidence _here_. > > For example, although the two of us now can agree on a > minimal interpretation of the Establishment Clause, this does > NOT mean we agree in totality about original intent. Worse, > that focuses only on the intent of the signatories as > representatives of their respective States at the time of the > signing. It doesn't delve into any of the history and > varying opinions leading up to that signing, the hidden > agendas that may still have been present to motivate hopes > about how those words might be 'adjusted' in future times, > nor does it deal with near-term refinements that took place > soon after -- both in terms of the opinions of the authors > themselves, or those who, upon first seeing some of how this > particular clause might play out, change their opinions. > > And if that weren't enough, the "meaning" of an Amendment > isn't only determined by original intent, either. The judge, > in her decision you read, deals with this point, as well. > Original intent, assuming you can reach it at all, _informs_ > but does not _determine_. > > The Supreme court uses at least these five different > approaches. (These are from my head, I didn't go search > around for them. You might find them discussed on the web, > though. I can hope so.) > > (1) Textual/syntax arguments, which appeal to the > unadorned language of the text and without > any 'original intent' analysis to speak of -- > on the theory that the document is the > controlling agreement and that it means what > it says and not what some folks may have read > into it at the time); > > (2) Historical arguments, appealing to an historical > background, such as specific appeals to the > intentions of framers, as lit by their many > writings on the subject (this gets to 'original > intent', on the assumption that it is even > possible to find such a thing -- doubtful in > some cases when differing strong opinions are > abundant); > > (3) Structural arguments, analyzing the particular > structures established by the Constitution, > such as the tripartite division of the national > government or the separate existence of both > state and nation as political entities and/or > the structured role of citizens within the > political order (a bit of an abstraction, > but useful in understanding the _thrust_ of > intent where specific details may be lacking); > > (4) Doctrinal arguments, focusing on implications > of prior cases decided by the Supreme Court > (namely, stare decisis); > > (5) Prudential arguments, which emphasize the > consequences of adopting any proffered decision > in any given case; > > For example, #5 ruled in the case of the 2nd Amendment. The > original intent was to strike fear into the federal gov't > about the possibility of using a federal military in taking > over a State. (At least four of the Federalist papers > address themselves to this point, clearly.) This meant no > standing, overly trained federal military, as well. But that > is destroyed as we have a standing federal military. And it > meant parity in weaponry (equal in relative threat) and today > that would mean anti-aircraft missles and nuclear weapons and > so on in State militias. > > By the way, the constitutional authority Professor Laurence > Tribe (who doesn't support the individual right to arms) > confirms that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not > just a State right. See "American Constitutional Law, 2nd > ed., 1988." He writes in part, "...the debates surrounding > congressional approval of the second amendment do contain > references to individual self-protection as well as to > states' rights." > > However, in 1939, the US Supreme Court made a determination > on prudential arguments that some weapons simply aren't going > to be allowed. Sorry. Too dangerous. Done and over. Long > gone. Bye bye to the 2nd Amendment's original intent. > > It happens. Law evolves. > > The point of all this is to emphasize that you need to > understand that the Establishment Clause may, for example, > have already meant the rest of what you write about (the > 'endorsement' comment from Justice O'Conner) above but you > just don't realize it, yet. Or that the prevailing argument > about which of the above mentioned five considerations are > the more important ones and that the result has been changed > by Congressional action, unchallenged Presidential action, US > Supreme Court interpretations, etc. > > You need to consider these possibilities and not assume, from > our agreement on one tiny subset interpretation, that the > rest of what you write is given or even obvious to me. We > have placed down ONE brick in a foundation. You have > inserted more bricks into that foundation without my > agreement and moved on quickly without giving each of us time > to find agreement on them. > > So slow down a bit. We need to take this a step at a time. > > Jon What happened Jon? I read 66 pages of the judges decision, you made a reply and then refused further discussion? So what is the original reason that Churches are not taxed? Isn't it because they do indeed server a secular purpose? And prayer is a part of that religion that does serve a secular purpose? How is it that months back you told me that Christians have absolutely zero persecution in this country but your own wife has been beaten for her faith? Were you deliberately lying? I don't understand how you can deny Christian persecution and then claim it for your own wife, and it happened in the Vietnam era? You and I need to forget what we learned about the Bible and get to know the author a little better. As far as people with possessions getting into Heaven, Jesus said for man it is impossible but for God all things are possible. RogerN
From: RogerN on 28 Apr 2010 19:18
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:3vegt5lspc4qpfhluq51tjkuekibg6gj4m(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 20:18:02 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> > wrote: > >>In article <omidt5tdtas4e25ci423nuocjbkj9d5ine(a)4ax.com>, >>jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... >>> >>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:04:30 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >In article <rag9t5h3isj0qsqqs9j2sfsvavj8t8io4g(a)4ax.com>, >>> >jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 21:13:14 -0700, D from BC >>> >> <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >In article <mtOdnYAbK4_GdE_WnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, >>> >> >regor(a)midwest.net says... >>> >> >> 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 >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >That idea devalues earth life and increases the value of the >>> >> >afterlife. >>> >> >That might encourage Christians to just wait/long or look forward to >>> >> >dying due to be being momentarily inconvenienced on earth by God. >>> >> >>> >> --- >>> >> And once you've done _your_ time here, what do you have to look >>> >> forward >>> >> to? >>> >> >>> >> JF >>> > >>> >To being on earth. >>> >The molecules in my cells look forward to be free to go their separate >>> >ways. >>> >60% of the water vapor from my body looks forward to blowing in the >>> >wind. Some of it may become rain, some of it may become drinking water >>> >and some of it may feed plants. >>> >The ammonia,carbon,salt,phosphorus and calcium in my body/brain look >>> >forward to taking part again in the ecology. >>> >I am of the earth and for the earth. >>> >>> --- >>> That's how God has set things up; read Genesis 3:19 >> >>But that's not all. >>A not scientifically supported soul magically goes to a not >>scientifically supported dimension occupied by a not scientifically >>supported alien with super powers. > > --- > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. > > Arthur C. Clarke > --- > >>> But what about your fire? >>> >>> JF >> >>When some of the molecules I once used become part of a tree used for >>firewood. > > --- > Cheater. > > JF That will probably be the closest he'll ever get to electronics designer, if an electronics designer roasts marshmallows on the fire he was made into wood for! RogerN |