Filter coefficient calculation In Sigma studio
in [DSP]
|
From: Eric Jacobsen on 11 Feb 2010 23:35 On 2/11/2010 8:50 PM, Michael Plante wrote: > Eric wrote: >> On 2/11/2010 1:41 PM, Michael Plante wrote: >>> The basic rule for interpretation (predicated on >>> believing the Bible) is: if ones encounters an apparent contradiction, >>> his/her interpretation is wrong. Of course, if you don't believe it, > you >>> can interpret it however you want and find all sorts of problems. >> One could put that stipulation, i.e., "if one encounters an apparent >> contradiction, his/her interpretation is wrong", about anything written, >> ever, by anyone, if one wishes to spin it that way. I can make up a >> religion and put that caveat in there and it instantly becomes >> irrefutable, so it's an understandable strategy for believers. >> > > Agreed. It's merely a claim of self-consistency, something many careful > people would claim about their own various viewpoints. More to the point, > it's a claim of a consistent world view, inclusive of the entire set of > propositions you believe to be true, whether each is taken on the basis of > deduction, induction, or irrationality. Given that it's so "expected", > maybe it was excessive of me to point it out. > > But I was surprised to learn there is at least one major religion that > claims quite the opposite: text written chronologically later supersedes > the earlier text. That describes Christianity. The New Testament provides revised interpretation of the Old Testament, sometimes reversing it. -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
From: Michael Plante on 12 Feb 2010 12:34 Eric wrote: >On 2/11/2010 8:50 PM, Michael Plante wrote: >> >> Agreed. It's merely a claim of self-consistency, something many careful >> people would claim about their own various viewpoints. More to the point, >> it's a claim of a consistent world view, inclusive of the entire set of >> propositions you believe to be true, whether each is taken on the basis of >> deduction, induction, or irrationality. Given that it's so "expected", >> maybe it was excessive of me to point it out. >> >> But I was surprised to learn there is at least one major religion that >> claims quite the opposite: text written chronologically later supersedes >> the earlier text. > >That describes Christianity. The New Testament provides revised >interpretation of the Old Testament, sometimes reversing it. Not that I'm aware of, although there may be groups out there that hold that. I'd point you to Matthew 5:17-19, although I admit that may be raising more questions than it answers. I've tried to remain minimally involved with long OT threads, and this one is partly my fault, so if you want the last word, have fun.
From: Richard Owlett on 12 Feb 2010 13:05 Michael Plante wrote: > Eric wrote: >> On 2/11/2010 8:50 PM, Michael Plante wrote: >>> Agreed. It's merely a claim of self-consistency, something many > careful >>> people would claim about their own various viewpoints. More to the > point, >>> it's a claim of a consistent world view, inclusive of the entire set of >>> propositions you believe to be true, whether each is taken on the basis > of >>> deduction, induction, or irrationality. Given that it's so "expected", >>> maybe it was excessive of me to point it out. >>> >>> But I was surprised to learn there is at least one major religion that >>> claims quite the opposite: text written chronologically later > supersedes >>> the earlier text. >> That describes Christianity. The New Testament provides revised >> interpretation of the Old Testament, sometimes reversing it. > > Not that I'm aware of, although there may be groups out there that hold > that. I'd point you to Matthew 5:17-19, although I admit that may be > raising more questions than it answers. > > I've tried to remain minimally involved with long OT threads, and this one > is partly my fault, so if you want the last word, have fun. > I would also mention Revelation 22:18.
From: Jerry Avins on 12 Feb 2010 13:08 Michael Plante wrote: > Eric wrote: >> On 2/11/2010 8:50 PM, Michael Plante wrote: >>> Agreed. It's merely a claim of self-consistency, something many > careful >>> people would claim about their own various viewpoints. More to the > point, >>> it's a claim of a consistent world view, inclusive of the entire set of >>> propositions you believe to be true, whether each is taken on the basis > of >>> deduction, induction, or irrationality. Given that it's so "expected", >>> maybe it was excessive of me to point it out. >>> >>> But I was surprised to learn there is at least one major religion that >>> claims quite the opposite: text written chronologically later > supersedes >>> the earlier text. >> That describes Christianity. The New Testament provides revised >> interpretation of the Old Testament, sometimes reversing it. > > Not that I'm aware of, although there may be groups out there that hold > that. I'd point you to Matthew 5:17-19, although I admit that may be > raising more questions than it answers. > > I've tried to remain minimally involved with long OT threads, and this one > is partly my fault, so if you want the last word, have fun. There is the dispensation from circumcision, for example. Although Deuteronomy declares homosexuality, pork and shellfish to be abominations, only the first of those survives in Christianity. (There is no explicit revision that I'm aware of.) The New Testament doesn't seem to consider Saturday a holy day. Follow up on "No longer shall it be said, 'An eye for an eye, ...." The Old Testament requires than anyone who works or rides on Saturday be stoned to death. If ride, the horse is to be stoned to death as well. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
From: Eric Jacobsen on 12 Feb 2010 17:04
On 2/12/2010 11:08 AM, Jerry Avins wrote: > Michael Plante wrote: >> Eric wrote: >>> On 2/11/2010 8:50 PM, Michael Plante wrote: >>>> Agreed. It's merely a claim of self-consistency, something many >> careful >>>> people would claim about their own various viewpoints. More to the >> point, >>>> it's a claim of a consistent world view, inclusive of the entire set of >>>> propositions you believe to be true, whether each is taken on the basis >> of >>>> deduction, induction, or irrationality. Given that it's so "expected", >>>> maybe it was excessive of me to point it out. >>>> >>>> But I was surprised to learn there is at least one major religion that >>>> claims quite the opposite: text written chronologically later >> supersedes >>>> the earlier text. >>> That describes Christianity. The New Testament provides revised >>> interpretation of the Old Testament, sometimes reversing it. >> >> Not that I'm aware of, although there may be groups out there that hold >> that. I'd point you to Matthew 5:17-19, although I admit that may be >> raising more questions than it answers. >> >> I've tried to remain minimally involved with long OT threads, and this >> one >> is partly my fault, so if you want the last word, have fun. > > There is the dispensation from circumcision, for example. Although > Deuteronomy declares homosexuality, pork and shellfish to be > abominations, only the first of those survives in Christianity. (There > is no explicit revision that I'm aware of.) > > The New Testament doesn't seem to consider Saturday a holy day. > > Follow up on "No longer shall it be said, 'An eye for an eye, ...." The > Old Testament requires than anyone who works or rides on Saturday be > stoned to death. If ride, the horse is to be stoned to death as well. > > Jerry It's easily more explicit. In addition to what Jerry points out, Acts 10 and 11 describe in detail how Peter is educated directly by God that many aspects of the OT law no longer apply, due to the cleansing by Christ. I don't know how else to describe that but that the events of the New Testament lead to supercession of the law of the OT. Follow up on, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com |