Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: Jon Kirwan on 12 Apr 2010 01:28 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:46:21 +1000, David Eather <eather(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: >On 11/04/2010 8:27 AM, Jon Kirwan wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 06:58:59 +1000, David Eather >> <eather(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: >> >>> On 30/03/2010 9:35 AM, D from BC wrote: >>>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so... >>>> Time for another mega-troll. >>>> >>>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering? >>>> How can Christian electronics designers still do a good job with >>>> Christian concepts in their head. This seems like a mind combo that can >>>> have an impact and lead to potential problems. >>>> >>> <snip> ... but some points were funny...<end snip> >>> >>> What a Christian believes is this: >>> >>> That anyone who believes in the redemption paid for by Christ is given >>> the gifts of eternal life, and to be known as a son of God. >> >> Hi, David. (Thanks for all the earlier help in .basics.) >> >> Roman Catholics consider themselves Christian and that isn't >> what their catechism says about the situation (the big green >> book.) See: >> >> http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/ >> >> specifically, >> >> http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.shtml#1281 >> >> "... all those who, without knowing of the Church but >> acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God >> sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be >> saved ..." >> >> (I went to Catholic schools during the week, catechism on >> saturdays, church on sundays, for more years than I like to >> remember. Western side of the US, which somehow seems to >> have been trained more in the liberation theology side of the >> Catholic faith than the eastern side of the US, from my >> experience.) >> >> And there are related belief systems, Orthodox of various >> varieties, that I don't know about but which may agree, >> generally. >> >> Don't forget that Christians themselves, for century after >> century, had differing beliefs about Jesus which ran the >> gamut. Various enclaves pretty much argued with each other >> by "mail," without any real conclusions about it, for a few >> centuries until Constantine, late summer of 325 AD, pretty >> much forced them all to start focusing on getting their >> collective act together. It wasn't until the 5th ecumenical, >> circa 565 AD I think, that the final stake was driven into >> the last "heresy" and, in my opinion, immediately led to the >> creation of Islam from the faction they ousted that year -- >> those Christians in northern Africa. >> >> One might wonder about the souls of those early Christians, >> eh? >> >> So perhaps even stated the way you chose isn't inclusive >> enough to actually define 'christian' well. >> >>> The other stuff you are getting so heated up about is not what >>> Christianity is about. For some people it is more important, for others >>> less so, but it does not define "Christianity" >> >> I haven't come across a definition of Christianity, yet, that >> holds up well to scrutiny. Lots of people feel they are in a >> position to try, though. >> >> Jon >> > >I posted to help clear up some matters made unclear by some ill-spirited >postings in this thread. Hehe. Plenty to fit that. From some points of view, I'd be included in that list. >Anyone unsure of their faith may see a whole >bunch of things, some of which they don't believe, and some they do, and >conclude that since they can't swallow everything perhaps they are not >Christians or do not have eternal life, which is not the case. I put the >simplest case that defines a Christian. I'm not sure what the simplest case is. Having read some of the ideas that were strongly held by Christian enclaves before the 5th ecumenical circa 565AD pretty much terminated anyone not towing a single line, I'm not sure anyone today can put a _single_ simple touch to it. There are several distinct simple ideas, which probably to most today are thought to be incompatible with each other. (Though I can well imagine some folks making interesting arguments that they aren't, at all, in conflict... probably love to hear that one.) Many Christians at the time believed he was mortal and didn't physically rise from the dead in 3 days, for example. It's an interesting history, the early period from around 65AD to perhaps 300AD, as a lead in to the defining ecumenical councils that spanned from 325AD to 565AD (memory serving.) There were more after, but nothing quite like those leading up to the creation of Islam as a reaction to the resulting schisms. >If God has made / allowed other ways for people to enter eternal life >that's OK with me. I made no comment on that. I only commented on what >made someone a Christian, which is a belief in Christ. I think it is hard for some to accept the idea that innocent babies, or young children still yet unable reason, or developmentally disabled adults even, might be denied fair treatment even by rather modest extent human moral standards. >I also didn't comment on what made a "Baptist", "Catholic", "Lutheran", >"Shaker", "Quaker" or any other denomination. Honestly, I don't think >God cares about that stuff. When Jesus spoke about the relationship he >had with his Father and the relationship the Father wanted with >believers the words used most often expressed a close and personal >relationship. "Daddy" might be the best English translation and you see >that style of relationship all through the gospels and new testament, >but most especially in the judgement free acts of forgiveness through >out the gospels. I didn't imagine more out of your statement than an attempt to find a single common ground. My point to you was that there is probably not even one single point upon which all Christians agree. I think it is best found in the Sermon on the Mount, discussed primarily in Matthew and Luke. But even there I know there isn't agreement. I'd be interested to find a single common point. If you find one, I'd be happy to see how it flies. Jon >It's even in the old testament as well, in places like 1 Kings 19:9-12 >where God shows his nature to Elijah as a quite whisper, or 2 Chronicles >30:18-21 where God shows he would rather be near his people than worry >about if they have done everything according to the Law.
From: D from BC on 12 Apr 2010 02:56 In article <Ur6dnfaDJat9XlzWnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, regor(a)midwest.net says... > So you're saying the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd day had no evening and morning or > established time for a day but God made the days retroactive when he created > a day with the sun and moon? Did you ever think it would be possible that Yup. > if someone lived on a planet that rotated at a different speed, they would > have a day with a different length of time than we have on earth. You > seem > to think the earth is in the center and the sun orbits the earth. > Bronze age bible writers had no explanation as to why the sun appeared to go up and down. A 'day' is an easy time period for goat herders. You're making 'day' mean something else. Before radiometric dating, were people getting genesis wrong? Were people interpreting day to mean 24 hours before the age of the earth and the universe was estimated. Where they believing in the wrong detail? How can you trust any word in the bible now. Words in the bible are being reinterpreted to fit the science. A day is not a day ??? Other words might mean something else. If so, you should read the bible with doubt and skepticism. A word meaning today might end up meaning something different tomorrow. A book that creates 380000 Christian denominations means it's a ridiculous book where people try to make sense of biblical nonsense. -- D from BC British Columbia
From: David Eather on 12 Apr 2010 04:17 On 12/04/2010 3:28 PM, Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:46:21 +1000, David Eather > <eather(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: > >> On 11/04/2010 8:27 AM, Jon Kirwan wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 06:58:59 +1000, David Eather >>> <eather(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: >>> >>>> On 30/03/2010 9:35 AM, D from BC wrote: >>>>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so... >>>>> Time for another mega-troll. >>>>> >>>>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering? >>>>> How can Christian electronics designers still do a good job with >>>>> Christian concepts in their head. This seems like a mind combo that can >>>>> have an impact and lead to potential problems. >>>>> >>>> <snip> ... but some points were funny...<end snip> >>>> >>>> What a Christian believes is this: >>>> >>>> That anyone who believes in the redemption paid for by Christ is given >>>> the gifts of eternal life, and to be known as a son of God. >>> >>> Hi, David. (Thanks for all the earlier help in .basics.) >>> >>> Roman Catholics consider themselves Christian and that isn't >>> what their catechism says about the situation (the big green >>> book.) See: >>> >>> http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/ >>> >>> specifically, >>> >>> http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.shtml#1281 >>> >>> "... all those who, without knowing of the Church but >>> acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God >>> sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be >>> saved ..." >>> >>> (I went to Catholic schools during the week, catechism on >>> saturdays, church on sundays, for more years than I like to >>> remember. Western side of the US, which somehow seems to >>> have been trained more in the liberation theology side of the >>> Catholic faith than the eastern side of the US, from my >>> experience.) >>> >>> And there are related belief systems, Orthodox of various >>> varieties, that I don't know about but which may agree, >>> generally. >>> >>> Don't forget that Christians themselves, for century after >>> century, had differing beliefs about Jesus which ran the >>> gamut. Various enclaves pretty much argued with each other >>> by "mail," without any real conclusions about it, for a few >>> centuries until Constantine, late summer of 325 AD, pretty >>> much forced them all to start focusing on getting their >>> collective act together. It wasn't until the 5th ecumenical, >>> circa 565 AD I think, that the final stake was driven into >>> the last "heresy" and, in my opinion, immediately led to the >>> creation of Islam from the faction they ousted that year -- >>> those Christians in northern Africa. >>> >>> One might wonder about the souls of those early Christians, >>> eh? >>> >>> So perhaps even stated the way you chose isn't inclusive >>> enough to actually define 'christian' well. >>> >>>> The other stuff you are getting so heated up about is not what >>>> Christianity is about. For some people it is more important, for others >>>> less so, but it does not define "Christianity" >>> >>> I haven't come across a definition of Christianity, yet, that >>> holds up well to scrutiny. Lots of people feel they are in a >>> position to try, though. >>> >>> Jon >>> >> >> I posted to help clear up some matters made unclear by some ill-spirited >> postings in this thread. > > Hehe. Plenty to fit that. From some points of view, I'd be > included in that list. > >> Anyone unsure of their faith may see a whole >> bunch of things, some of which they don't believe, and some they do, and >> conclude that since they can't swallow everything perhaps they are not >> Christians or do not have eternal life, which is not the case. I put the >> simplest case that defines a Christian. > > I'm not sure what the simplest case is. Having read some of > the ideas that were strongly held by Christian enclaves > before the 5th ecumenical circa 565AD pretty much terminated > anyone not towing a single line, I'm not sure anyone today > can put a _single_ simple touch to it. There are several > distinct simple ideas, which probably to most today are > thought to be incompatible with each other. (Though I can > well imagine some folks making interesting arguments that > they aren't, at all, in conflict... probably love to hear > that one.) Many Christians at the time believed he was > mortal and didn't physically rise from the dead in 3 days, > for example. It's an interesting history, the early period > from around 65AD to perhaps 300AD, as a lead in to the > defining ecumenical councils that spanned from 325AD to 565AD > (memory serving.) There were more after, but nothing quite > like those leading up to the creation of Islam as a reaction > to the resulting schisms. > >> If God has made / allowed other ways for people to enter eternal life >> that's OK with me. I made no comment on that. I only commented on what >> made someone a Christian, which is a belief in Christ. > > I think it is hard for some to accept the idea that innocent > babies, or young children still yet unable reason, or > developmentally disabled adults even, might be denied fair > treatment even by rather modest extent human moral standards. > >> I also didn't comment on what made a "Baptist", "Catholic", "Lutheran", >> "Shaker", "Quaker" or any other denomination. Honestly, I don't think >> God cares about that stuff. When Jesus spoke about the relationship he >> had with his Father and the relationship the Father wanted with >> believers the words used most often expressed a close and personal >> relationship. "Daddy" might be the best English translation and you see >> that style of relationship all through the gospels and new testament, >> but most especially in the judgement free acts of forgiveness through >> out the gospels. > > I didn't imagine more out of your statement than an attempt > to find a single common ground. My point to you was that > there is probably not even one single point upon which all > Christians agree. > > I think it is best found in the Sermon on the Mount, > discussed primarily in Matthew and Luke. But even there I > know there isn't agreement. > > I'd be interested to find a single common point. If you find > one, I'd be happy to see how it flies. I thought I did. "That anyone who believes in the redemption paid for by Christ is given the gifts of eternal life, and to be known as a son of God." While it is a bit of a paraphrase of John 3:16, it is what Christ himself said. I know other Christian groups will add other things and different things to it, but I think they all agree on that one point. After all, you can't be a Buddhist unless you believe he (Buddha) was Buddha ... > > Jon > >> It's even in the old testament as well, in places like 1 Kings 19:9-12 >> where God shows his nature to Elijah as a quite whisper, or 2 Chronicles >> 30:18-21 where God shows he would rather be near his people than worry >> about if they have done everything according to the Law.
From: David Eather on 12 Apr 2010 04:21 On 11/04/2010 3:22 PM, D from BC wrote: > In article<y9ednRpS-74Ie13WnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d(a)supernews.com>, > eather(a)tpg.com.au says... >> >> On 30/03/2010 9:35 AM, D from BC wrote: >>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so... >>> Time for another mega-troll. >>> >>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering? >>> How can Christian electronics designers still do a good job with >>> Christian concepts in their head. This seems like a mind combo that can >>> have an impact and lead to potential problems. >>> >> <snip> ... but some points were funny...<end snip> >> >> What a Christian believes is this: >> >> That anyone who believes in the redemption paid for by Christ is given >> the gifts of eternal life, and to be known as a son of God. >> >> The other stuff you are getting so heated up about is not what >> Christianity is about. For some people it is more important, for others >> less so, but it does not define "Christianity" > > Christianity is about cherry picking from a slave age book. > > >> >> >> D from BC, >> >> As far as people doing good or evil goes, we all understand that choice >> is one of, if not the, basic freedom. When people do evil, it is they >> who do evil - even if they try to put Gods name on it. > > People do people things such as full good, semigood/semievil or full > blown evil. ex: kill 5 to save 10 is semigood/semievil. > >> >> God is not going to force you into a mould, any more than you would put >> a pet dog inside a robot that forces it to greet you in the morning > and >> brings your slippers in the evening. >> >> If you have a genuine objection you want to explore, PM is welcomed. > > There is no good reason as to why to believe in a god. > Christian engineers are ridiculous without good reasons. > > An interesting argument you make. You speak of good and evil. But if there is no eternal life or judge of absolute morality (right and wrong) then there are no consequences of good or evil and indeed there is no good and evil, only what works to the advantage of survival of the fittest. And yet even you speak in terms of good and evil.
From: RogerN on 12 Apr 2010 07:03
"D from BC" <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote in message news:MPG.262c63ef35b8ac229897b7(a)209.197.12.12... > In article <Ur6dnfaDJat9XlzWnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > regor(a)midwest.net says... >> So you're saying the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd day had no evening and morning or >> established time for a day but God made the days retroactive when he >> created >> a day with the sun and moon? Did you ever think it would be possible >> that > > Yup. > >> if someone lived on a planet that rotated at a different speed, they > would >> have a day with a different length of time than we have on earth. You >> seem >> to think the earth is in the center and the sun orbits the earth. >> > > Bronze age bible writers had no explanation as to why the sun appeared > to go up and down. > A 'day' is an easy time period for goat herders. > > You're making 'day' mean something else. > Before radiometric dating, were people getting genesis wrong? > Were people interpreting day to mean 24 hours before the age of the > earth and the universe was estimated. > Where they believing in the wrong detail? > > How can you trust any word in the bible now. > Words in the bible are being reinterpreted to fit the science. > A day is not a day ??? > Other words might mean something else. > If so, you should read the bible with doubt and skepticism. > A word meaning today might end up meaning something different tomorrow. > > A book that creates 380000 Christian denominations means it's a > ridiculous book where people try to make sense of biblical nonsense. > > > -- > D from BC > British Columbia The Bible straight out tells you that a day with God is as 1000 years, that's not making it mean something that isn't already in the Bible. Toward the end there is supposed to be 1000 years of peace, this could represent the day of rest, the 7th day. So in the Biblical timeline for man there could be 6 ea 1000 year "days" and the last 1000 years of peace. As for your claimed 380000 denominations, there are a few essential beliefs and many non-essentials that are taken differently. These kinds of things often come about because someone wants to get a new revelation and human pride. Seems like people naturally look for a reason to group and divide. Within a state we divide by city, within the country we divide by state, internationally we divide by country, we just tend to take sides, in Christianity we divide by denomination, in religion we divide by Christian, Islam, Buddhist, etc. . RogerN |