Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: RogerN on 17 Apr 2010 06:15 "D from BC" <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2633081863ee83fb9897db(a)209.197.12.12... > In article <_4KdnSdLNpiaSlrWnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > regor(a)midwest.net says... >> >> Found this for you: >> But why should we allow the atheist to even use the Crusades and such as >> evidence in their claim that most human suffering and death has been >> caused >> by religion. It plainly is not true. >> >> What I want to do is offer a detailed listing of human death from the >> 18th >> century through the 20th century and see if the claim is true. Yes, we'll >> also look at the Crusades, the witch hunts and the Inquisition. >> > > If you think atheists have the best body count in history then why are > prisons with mostly religious prisoners? > http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm Perhaps because some 90% of people have sense enough to believe in God? > The prisons are loaded with the religious. > Catholics and protestants are dominant. > > Christian engineers are ridiculous in having the same religion as most > of the prison population. > > > -- > D from BC > British Columbia Maybe these were people that were brought up Catholic or protestant but didn't really have a relationship with God themselves. Anyway, if some 80% to 90% of the population come from Catholic or protestant families, then the prisons are likely to be filled with the majority claiming to be Catholic or protestant, but actually they are Atheists from a Catholic or protestant families. RogerN
From: D from BC on 17 Apr 2010 16:43 In article <CKCdnb6X06PS4VTWnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, regor(a)midwest.net says... > > Notice verse 41, Peter knew he was telling a parable, that is a story used > to explain something else. Verse 48 explains it, less is required from > those who have less and more is required from those who have been given > more. Just like a boss expects more from his top paid engineer(s) than he > does an inexperienced new hire, is this concept difficult for you? Probably > not, but you must make an effort to misunderstand in order to support your > religious beliefs. > > > > RogerN > For parables, stories or any written language, one has to identify what's literal and what's figurative. Language is sick! That's figurative. I mean 'sick' literally. Not 'sick' as slang for good. There will never be an official book held by 38000 Christian denominations that separates what is to be taken literally or figuratively in the bible. That would imply a flawed bible. Currently the bible is open to subjective interpretation. afaik .. The parable tells slaves to keep doing slave duties when the slave owner is away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Faithful_Servant Christian engineers are ridiculous in believing in a slave age instruction manual for slaves. The bible should be called 'How to Be Happy Chained up a Night.' -- D from BC British Columbia
From: D from BC on 17 Apr 2010 21:25 In article <VuednR9mOusJ41TWnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, regor(a)midwest.net says... > You seem to think God created man so that God could serve someone. Man > chooses to sin and that separates us from God, if we turn from our sin and > go to God then he will act on our behalf. Do you blame a doctor for your > condition if you don't even go to see that doctor? After all, the doctor > could help and didn't, is it the doctors fault that a sick person didn't go > see him? God takes care of his children that come to him. > > RogerN > YOu cannot compare God to a doctor. A doctor is not all-seeing/all powerful. Most people wish/want/need their illness or injury to be treated. Needing to ask for medical attention implies class discrimination. YOu are belittled when the doctor does nothing until you ASK the doctor .. 'Please fix my leg.' You are belittled when God requires to be 'believed' and needs to be ASKED first/prayed to or else no miracle/cure. God's prerequisites violate medical ethics. Example: A person gets rolled into the ER with a broken leg. Doctors don't need to hear 'I believe in you doctor.. Please fix my leg.' Ideally there is automatic respect of human life and the leg gets fixed. (Especially made easier by Canadian medicare.) What might be asked instead is the negative.. 'Would you like me to NOT fix your leg.' Imagine a God that asks first 'Would you like me to NOT fix your flesh eating bacteria infection.' It is unethical when coercion is involved in having a leg fixed. 'I'll fix it ..but first you need to do this and that and this and that.' It's is unethical when coercion is involved to be granted the afterlife (The afterlife fixes the medical condition know as death.) IF a doctor were all-seeing/all-powerful(like god) then that doctor would violate the Hippocratic oath whenever he didn't help people. Even if God exists, God is ridiculously immoral in violating the Hippocratic oath and violating good Samaritan law. All expected behavior for something that doesn't exist. -- D from BC British Columbia
From: John Fields on 18 Apr 2010 20:34 On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:25:00 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >In article <VuednR9mOusJ41TWnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, >regor(a)midwest.net says... >> You seem to think God created man so that God could serve someone. Man >> chooses to sin and that separates us from God, if we turn from our sin and >> go to God then he will act on our behalf. Do you blame a doctor for your >> condition if you don't even go to see that doctor? After all, the doctor >> could help and didn't, is it the doctors fault that a sick person didn't go >> see him? God takes care of his children that come to him. >> >> RogerN >> > >YOu cannot compare God to a doctor. --- Sure you can; who/what's to prevent you from doing it? --- >A doctor is not all-seeing/all powerful. --- See, you just did it... That, then, is a valid comparison. yes? --- >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. --- >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? --- >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. --- >God's prerequisites violate medical ethics. --- Medical ethics came about because of the belief that we are all our brothers' keepers, which I don't think is a secular cornerstone so, rather than violating medical ethics, God's prerequisites founded them. --- >Example: >A person gets rolled into the ER with a broken leg. >Doctors don't need to hear 'I believe in you doctor.. Please fix my >leg.' --- Of course not, since the request is implicit in your allowing yourself to be taken to the ER. --- >Ideally there is automatic respect of human life and the leg gets fixed. >(Especially made easier by Canadian medicare.) --- Funded by atheists, right? --- >What might be asked instead is the negative.. >'Would you like me to NOT fix your leg.' >Imagine a God that asks first 'Would you like me to NOT fix your flesh >eating bacteria infection.' --- That may very well be the cause of death of those who are given the choice and opt out, but if you showed up at the repair facility at all, that would indicate that there was a problem which you'd like something with more expertise than you to resolve, so the question of whether you'd like to be repaired or not is moot. --- >It is unethical when coercion is involved in having a leg fixed. >'I'll fix it ..but first you need to do this and that and this and >that.' --- As I see it, all that's required for your leg to be fixed is that you believe that it _can_ be fixed and then that you turn the repair over to someone who you believe is competent to fix it. If you don't/can't, then you're interposing your lack of trust into the formula for the cure, and fighting with the doctor who _wants_ to get you well, and eventually you'll die. All for the purpose of trying to prove that you're greater than God. --- >It's is unethical when coercion is involved to be granted the afterlife >(The afterlife fixes the medical condition know as death.) --- No, the afterlife _relieves_ the condition known as death, and there's no coercion, there are just rules. Believe in it and you've got it, don't and you don't. --- >IF a doctor were all-seeing/all-powerful(like god) then that doctor >would violate the Hippocratic oath whenever he didn't help people. --- AIUI, the Hippocratic oath doesn't require doctors to try to heal people who don't want to be healed. --- >Even if God exists, God is ridiculously immoral in violating the >Hippocratic oath and violating good Samaritan law. --- So what you want is for God to keep everyone alive who wants to die? --- >All expected behavior for something that doesn't exist. --- If it doesn't exist, then how could its behavior be expected? JF
From: D from BC on 19 Apr 2010 03:29
In article <3l1ns59hs5dnismh3vkdmoedb3vte2p1at(a)4ax.com>, jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > >A doctor is not all-seeing/all powerful. > > --- > See, you just did it... > > That, then, is a valid comparison. yes? > The only thing that compares well with God are all the other Gods invented throughout history. All the invented Gods have superpowers. An all seeing/all powerful God has the capability of being a superdoctor everywhere at once. A superdoctor that doesn't heal people violates the Hippocratic oath by doing nothing whenever someone suffers from say malaria, AIDS or cancer. 99% of time people want to live due to survival instinct. Since the majority is pro-survival, the default action of a superdoctor is to eliminate the malaria, AIDS or cancer. It is most ethical to treat without coercion. It's coercion when one has to make certain brain thoughts (Believe in Jesus) or else the superdoctor(God) watching you 24/7 will do nothing. It is unethical/discrimination for an allseeing superdoctor (God) to refuse medical treatment if there is an incorrect pattern (other religion) or absent pattern (no religion) in the brain. Even if true, God is ridiculous in violating the Hippocratic oath and good Samaritan law by watching terminal cancer patients 24/7 and doing nothing. Christian engineers are ridiculous is believing in any nonsense as long as there's an afterlife involved in the deal. -- D from BC British Columbia |