Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: Jon Kirwan on 12 Apr 2010 08:27 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:17:05 +1000, David Eather <eather(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: >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. But I __carefully__ pointed out that it doesn't even require that belief, if you are Roman Catholic. Perhaps you didn't read the text I posted? A Roman Catholic following the catechisms of the faith doesn't believe that eternal life is only what one gets as a result of such beliefs. They would believe that eternal life comes without that requirement, too. (As stated in the case which provides an exception to #1274, namely the posted #1281 reference.) Further, if you read just a little earlier in the citation I gave you, namely #1274, you would see this "Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life." Note, not a word about believing in redemption -- it's about baptism, which in Catholic circles takes place essentially "at birth" and has nothing whatever to do with a belief, at all. So even that definition fails. >After all, you can't be a Buddhist unless you believe he (Buddha) was >Buddha ... Buddha himself said he was only one who found one of many possible ways and that his only hope, if he were to allow himself one at all, is that some might find his own life useful in their own search for a path. There certainly isn't a requirement to believe in Buddha to be a Buddhist, from my outsider's point of view. A Buddhist holds that this world isn't reality, anyway. So I'm not sure what the meaning would be to one, even if the discussion were entertained for a time. They might find it an interesting question leading to some better understanding, though. Jon > > >> >> 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 13:53 In article <hbudnSD14rHQwl_WnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d(a)supernews.com>, eather(a)tpg.com.au says... > 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. > And what if people don't believe in Christ? Does God's mechanistic death system use illegal power like a criminal holding a gun to your head? Believe or BANG!. (Or perhaps they go to Rogers 'Hell Lite' for slightly evil people.) What happens if you don't believe in Christ/God? Or.. Do you believe in Christ/God just in case. (That's another can of worms.) It's ridiculous to be driven by fear and ignorance of that which shows no evidence. Christian engineers are ridiculous in acquiring unnecessary paranoia from Christian concepts. -- D from BC British Columbia
From: David Eather on 12 Apr 2010 14:12 On 12/04/2010 10:27 PM, Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:17:05 +1000, David Eather > <eather(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: > >> 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. > > But I __carefully__ pointed out that it doesn't even require > that belief, if you are Roman Catholic. Perhaps you didn't > read the text I posted? A Roman Catholic following the > catechisms of the faith doesn't believe that eternal life is > only what one gets as a result of such beliefs. They would > believe that eternal life comes without that requirement, > too. (As stated in the case which provides an exception to > #1274, namely the posted #1281 reference.) > > Further, if you read just a little earlier in the citation I > gave you, namely #1274, you would see this "Baptism indeed is > the seal of eternal life." Note, not a word about believing > in redemption -- it's about baptism, which in Catholic > circles takes place essentially "at birth" and has nothing > whatever to do with a belief, at all. > > So even that definition fails. > Not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord..." will enter the kingdom of God. It is certainly possible to replace the centrality of Christ with something else. In which case I put it that they are *not* Christians and that is by definition (perhaps liturgists, or ritualists, gnostics or whatever else it is that they have enthroned in their lives). That by the way is not an anti-catholic thing, there are some such individuals in all denominations. Formalised doctrinal error is also not such an uncommon thing, Baptists for example have a famous one (I am a kind of Baptist), Anglicans are forever fighting over them and the epistles spend a lot of time correcting such problems. >> After all, you can't be a Buddhist unless you believe he (Buddha) was >> Buddha ... > > Buddha himself said he was only one who found one of many > possible ways and that his only hope, if he were to allow > himself one at all, is that some might find his own life > useful in their own search for a path. > > There certainly isn't a requirement to believe in Buddha to > be a Buddhist, from my outsider's point of view. Not a belief *in* Buddha, a belief that he was what he said he was and that he believed what he said he believed. Otherwise you would have a different label, none of which I can use as examples because it will upset someone who already uses that label. A Buddhist > holds that this world isn't reality, anyway. So I'm not sure > what the meaning would be to one, even if the discussion were > entertained for a time. They might find it an interesting > question leading to some better understanding, though. > > Jon > <small trim>
From: David Eather on 12 Apr 2010 14:16 On 13/04/2010 3:53 AM, D from BC wrote: > In article<hbudnSD14rHQwl_WnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d(a)supernews.com>, > eather(a)tpg.com.au says... >> 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. >> > > And what if people don't believe in Christ? > Does God's mechanistic death system use illegal power like a criminal > holding a gun to your head? > Believe or BANG!. (Or perhaps they go to Rogers 'Hell Lite' for slightly > evil people.) > What happens if you don't believe in Christ/God? Why ask me? I already said "If God has made / allowed other ways for people to enter eternal life that's OK with me." > > Or.. Do you believe in Christ/God just in case. (That's another can of > worms.) > I already told you why I believe > It's ridiculous to be driven by fear and ignorance of that which shows > no evidence. > Christian engineers are ridiculous in acquiring unnecessary paranoia > from Christian concepts. Show some evidence of that. > >
From: Jon Kirwan on 12 Apr 2010 18:25
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 04:12:41 +1000, David Eather <eather(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: ><snip> > Not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord..." will enter the > kingdom of God. Yes. Even the gospels say as much -- I remember a particular story of someone who upon asking what else they should do is told to give away all they own and join him. The person walks away, at that. >It is certainly possible to replace the centrality of Christ with >something else. But this, I put it to you, means _YOU_ are placing yourself in the position of deciding. I wonder what you think may allow you to do that? By the way, this changes the topic, as well. I was addressing myself strictly to your attempt to define a Christian. My point on that topic is that it cannot be done. There is no single point upon which all Christians turn. Those calling themselves Christians, anyway. It's an impossible task. And if you decide to place yourself in the position of being able to say (to, in effect, be in a position to dictate what is and what is not a Christian), then I have to again ask why you think you are in that position? What makes you special, here? I don't mean to be ornery, except that this is a pretty important point of this debate. I assert there is no single point of dogma that underlies the entire set, { Christian }. You attempted to provide one. I disputed it, with citation (and years of personal experience behind it.) I think that disposes of your point. Unless you feel you are in a position to dictate what is and is not in the set. But if you think so, then I have to wonder why you think so. I think all this must return you to an admission that there is no underlying single point of dogma that all { Christian } members possess. That doesn't mean there isn't a lot in common with many. But it does say that attempting to make absolute statements about the entire set is probably impossible. >In which case I put it that they are *not* Christians I know. But then why should I care if you do assert that? What places you in that position? I went to Catholic schools, white shirt and salt and pepper pants and beat by Mother Superior with a hair-brush on occasion, attended catechism, and even went to a Catholic University (University of Portland) and took a few years of theology training there. Are you suggesting that everything I went through there would place me in the exact same camp as an atheist, so far as you are concerned? Just because you say so? >and that is by definition (perhaps liturgists, or ritualists, gnostics >or whatever else it is that they have enthroned in their lives). That by >the way is not an anti-catholic thing, there are some such individuals >in all denominations. Formalised doctrinal error is also not such an >uncommon thing, But David. I cited you DOCTRINE!! The big green book of Catholic Catechisms isn't some doctrinal 'error'. It is the embodied wisdom of Popes and Jesuits for centuries uncounted. It is the final word on interpretation. There is no other place to go for better than that. That's it. If it is, in your opinion, nothing other than 'formalised doctrical error' then all of Catholicism is, in your opinion. I find that a very strong stance for you to take and one that places you, yourself, above so many others who are probably far, far better read on scripture than you are. Not that this means anything, of course. But you certainly are placing yourself into a pious position that I find at least somewhat ... interesting. I wouldn't dare to do so, myself. And I have at least a little training in finding and researching source materials and translating them. >Baptists for example have a famous one (I am a kind of >Baptist), Anglicans are forever fighting over them and the epistles >spend a lot of time correcting such problems. Well, I still find it a bit shocking that you feel able to exclude and include christians from the set, based entirely on personal belief systems. I tend to allow folks to place themselves into boxes. At least, that way, I'm not pretending I'm smarter. I want you to keep in mind that there are quite a few Roman Catholics in the world who _do_ follow the catechisms and probably would take just a little bit of offense by your assertions they are not Christians. >>> After all, you can't be a Buddhist unless you believe he (Buddha) was >>> Buddha ... >> >> Buddha himself said he was only one who found one of many >> possible ways and that his only hope, if he were to allow >> himself one at all, is that some might find his own life >> useful in their own search for a path. >> >> There certainly isn't a requirement to believe in Buddha to >> be a Buddhist, from my outsider's point of view. > >Not a belief *in* Buddha, a belief that he was what he said he was and >that he believed what he said he believed. Otherwise you would have a >different label, none of which I can use as examples because it will >upset someone who already uses that label. Buddha simply said he believed he had found a path of his own. He __never__ set himself up as a teacher. Others do that, of course. And I'm sure, literature being accurate about it, that he would have objected to any of that. It's wrong to hold anyone above anyone else. In fact, he specifically tried to avoid ANY sense of a position of authority. In Buddhism, each must find their own way. They may find what others have thought about helpful, or not. That is all. It's a remarkably beautiful system of thinking, by the way, and a 180-degree reaction to Hinduism. Where Hinduism has casts and rules and authority and structure, Buddhism does away with each and every shred of all of that. No authority, no heirarchy, no structure. The complete lack of everything that Hinduism has. It's a struggle against it, in fact. And a remarkably pristine and quiet pond, by comparison. Clean, pure, ... well, you get the idea. Jon |