Re: Making money from Java

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Peter Lacey" <lacey@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Judson McClendon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > It might also be a good idea to point out that the Bible misquotes
>>>> > itself (KJV Luke 4:17-19, Jesus reading from the book of Isaiah
>>>> > 61:1-2):
>>>> > similar but not identical.
>>>>
>>>> What part of "Since Jesus, as God, inspired Isaiah to write what he
>>>> did, He
>>>> was also free to paraphrase what Isaiah wrote." don't you understand.
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> Well, you tell me: the verb involved is "read". You might also tell me
>>> what the purpose would be of Jesus/God "paraphrasing" his own words.
>>> You might also tell me why you say he's paraphrasing.
>>
>> Peter, the Old Testament (which was the only 'Bible' available in Jesus'
>> time) was written in Ancient Hebrew. The New Testament is written in
>> Greek and Aramaic. If you know or have been exposed to more than one
>> language, you will know that it is sometimes difficult, perhaps even
>> impossible to express *exactly* the same statement in two languages.
>
> No it isn't....
>
> "This is bull***"
> "Dieses ist Bull***"
> "C'est connerie"
> "???bull*** ????"
>
> It depends entirely on the statement.

Thanks, I didn't know you thought I was so obtuse as not to know that. :-)

>>But my point was that, Jesus, being the actual author of all Scripture
>>(through inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the He is certainly free to
>>articulate those Scriptures in any way He sees fit. From what rational
>>standpoint would a finite created being be able to challenge his infinite
>>Creator's actions? ;-) There's far less distance between a microbe and a
>>man (both being finite) than between a finite man and infinite God. That
>>gulf is vast beyond human comprehension. God can bridge the gap to us, but
>>man could never bridge the gap to God, without God's help. Nor could man
>>understand God, or anything about God, without Divine revelation. For a
>>man to think otherwise is the epitomy of conceit and foolishness. :-)
>>
>
> Judson, I have kept out of this because I see it as a pretty tedious
> thread, with no minds about to be changed, even though some of the
> viewpoints and opinions expressed are "interesting".
>
> However, with the above you may have gone too far.
>
> It isn't even logical. There is no conceit or foolishiness in seeking to
> understand God. It is a necessary path to growth.(Whether you succeed in
> reaching the understanding or not...)
>
> Yet, you have defined God to be ineffable, unknowable, infinite and
> therefore unable to be understood.
>
> Er... man is created in His image, and is NOT ineffable, unknowable,
> infinite, or unable to be understood. And throughout the Bible this
> infinite superior being behaves like a spoilt brat. Raining frogs,
> destroying cities, and killing children just to show how powerful He is.
> (More like an insecure 6 year old than the Lord God of Hosts. Certainly
> not very infinite when it comes to wisdom, or restraint... )There are many
> bright minds who are capable of dealing with the infinite... why should
> dealing with God be any different?
>
> You are saying that anyone who disagrees with you is either conceited or
> foolish. I say, anyone who says that people who disagree with him are
> either conceited or foolish, has closed his mind and stopped listening. An
> unkind person might call this arrogance.
>
> Draw your own conclusions.

You misrepresent what I am saying. If you choose to believe that a finite
created being can "understand" an infinite, indifferent God with no interest
in being understood, then feel free. But it is indeed the height of human
arrogance and folly to think so. Sorry. :-) You couldn't even inscribe an
infinite number in a finite universe, let alone understand (comprehend) an
infinite God with a finite mind.

But I did not say that it was bad for man to want to understand God, or to
try to understand God, I don't know where you got that from what I said. I
certainly didn't mean to imply that.

>>>> > Also; the only independent mention of Jesus
>>>> > is in jesephus, in an entry which is now almost universally agreed to
>>>> > be
>>>> > a later interpolation.
>>>>
>>>> I'll have to save that particular comment as the most uninformed
>>>> statement I
>>>> have seen in quite a while. :-)
>>>
>>> Possibly; I don't know what you have seen in quite a while.
>>>
>>>> Peter, it has been said that if every
>>>> single copy of the Bible were destroyed, it would be possible to
>>>> reconstruct
>>>> the entire Bible simply from references in other ancient texts. :-)
>>>
>>> That may also be so, although I'd be dubious about the New Testament.
>>> Still, you haven't answered what I wrote: that there is no INDEPENDENT
>>> mention of Jesus except in Josephus. Julius Caesar is mentioned in
>>> sources other than his own writings.
>>
>> That statement is simply false.
>>
>>>> Greenleaf's curiosity, and he spend several months studying the issue.
>>>> The
>>>> result is a small (128pg) book by Greenleaf called "The Testimony of
>>>> the
>>>> Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered
>>>> in
>>>> Courts of Justice." In the book Greenleaf closely examines the evidence
>>>> and
>>>> makes a determination regarding its validity. I will let Greenleaf
>>>> speak for
>>>> himself, but he was quite certain of the outcome. :-)
>>>
>>> It must be a remarkable little book. From Biblical evidence alone, you
>>> can't tell me Jesus' birth year or month; you can't give a consistent
>>> list of the twelve disciples; you can't tell me why one family would
>>> have two living daughters named Mary; and you can't tell me whether the
>>> last supper was on Passover or the day before. Nor can you tell me the
>>> name of the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.
>>>
>>> Old testament: why does poor old Pharoah have such a bad reputation;
>>> after all, for the last four of the plagues, he was ready to let the
>>> Israelites go, but God hardened his heart then punished him again.
>>> What's the point of that? Did you, when you got married, take a year
>>> off to cheer up your wife (Deut.24:5)?
>>>
>>> (If anybody want to know the source of these statements, contact me
>>> off-group).
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you are willing to do some real study to find the truth, and want to
>>>> know
>>>> where the evidence is, then I recommend the book "Evidence That Demands
>>>> a
>>>> Verdict" by Josh McDowell.
>>>
>>> As it happens, I have it. I found it very difficult to read because of
>>> his idea of argument.
>>>
>>> Never mind. I'm an agnostic by decision, because there isn't enough
>>> information available to the mortal man. The Bible is insufficient in
>>> and of itself simply because it condemns everybody not fortunate enough
>>> to hear (or have heard before the time of Jesus) of it. Further, there
>>> are impossible difficulties with the "eternity" required by Christian
>>> theology. I don't dispute that there was a man named Jesus. He may
>>> even have done all the things that the Bible says he does. But since I
>>> wasn't there at the time (and you weren't either) we have to subject the
>>> Bible as history to the same sort of open-minded skepticism that we
>>> would to any other document of equal antiquity.
>>>
>>> (You haven't commented on my concept of how the holy words of God would
>>> be written, I notice).
>>>
>>> The Bible and the Koran are both the words of God, according to their
>>> followers. I have to throw the towel in at that point because - again -
>>> there isn't enough available information to make a rational choice.
>>>
>>> I've had experience with discussions like this before. My brother is of
>>> your school of thought, although he's had to mellow a bit with age. I
>>> find that he never quite answers the question and is adept at shifting
>>> the subject. Nor will he answer questions about what things in Greek
>>> actually say: for instance: KJV: Genesis 7:20 - "fifteen cubits upwards
>>> did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered". What EXACTLY
>>> is the translation of the original Greek? (A cubit is usually taken to
>>> be 18"; so it wasn't all that much of a flood. Either that or the
>>> mountains were pretty puny then. You can get out if it by assuming that
>>> the verse means that the waters were 15 cubits higher than the mountains
>>> - but since the Bible doesn't actually say so you can't claim it as
>>> Truth. Nor does the Bible state where that much water came from - Mount
>>> Ararat is over 17,000 feet high - or where it went). In any case,
>>> what's been accepted by faith is never admitted to be open to question -
>>> thence the unsatisfactory discussions.
>>>
>>> Answer if you like, Judson; further questioning or commentary on my part
>>> would be pointless. Our standards of proof are utterly incompatible. I
>>> think you're wrong but that's your privelege.
>>
>> The difference between us is that I know God personally. Nothing special
>> about me, God is eager to have a relationship with all of us. With you as
>> much as with me or anybody else. We were created for this very purpose.
>
> Was He lonely then? Did He need respect and admiration? Not very well
> adjusted is He? I guess that explains His irrational behaviour in the OT.

You can ask God those questions when you see Him. :-)

>>God became a man and died on a Roman cross to provide a way for our
>>offenses against Him to be forgiven, marked "Paid in Full".
>
> Why did they require a blood sacrifice in order to be forgiven? Why
> couldn't Jesus just say "Hey, folks, look, there's a much better way than
> all this robbing and killing and rampaging that's going on. Be kind to one
> another. Forgive the people who rip you off, have a kind and loving heart.
> You'll be amazed at how much better the world could be. Oh, and my Father
> (who is really me, but we'll wait until you've all learned to read before
> going into that one...) says, if you turn over a new leaf all the previous
> wicked stuff you did will be wiped clean. Clean slate. You can have as
> much chance at Heaven as those Pharisees and High Priests have... level
> playing field, everybody equal, just behave better..."
>
> Then, there would be no need for all the ensuing nastiness, with perfectly
> good temple veils being rent and darkness on the land and Mel Gibson
> having to exorcise his Catholic School upbringing...
>
> What kind of God requires His own son to be tortured to death to pay off
> the debt of Mankind?
>
> Just forgive it. We can do it with Third World debt, and we are far from
> infinite, wise, omnipresent, or omnipotent.

We are far from Holy as well. :-)

>>It's easy to meet God.
>
> My understanding is that anyone who has since Moses, never returns to
> talk about it...

Perhaps your 'understanding' is not without a tiny flaw here and there, eh?
:-)

>> All you have to do is to ask with a sincere heart (you have to really
>> mean it) for God to reveal Himself to you. A lot of people have met God
>> that way,
>
> And a lot of people have deluded themselves that way, too. I've attended
> at least two Billy Graham Revivals (very good shows) and seen the power of
> mass hysteria working...
>
>> "God, if you are really there, then reveal Yourself to me." Then get
>> ready, because once you meet God for real, and His Holy Spirit comes to
>> live within you, you don't have to guess, you *KNOW* that God is real. I
>> speak to God, and He speaks to me.
>
> So, He has bridged the gap because you couldn't? But you did by asking,
> even though you previously stated it wasn't possible. There was this
> infinite all powerful Being who decided He might as well have a chat with
> Judson. And to what purpose would that be? Presumably He knows what you're
> going to say before you say it, and He already knows what His response
> will be before He makes it. Kind of a pointless conversation isn't it? And
> He's doing this all the time with legions of the faithful... well, I guess
> if you are infinite you have to try and pass the time somehow... Maybe He
> should just start another pointless thread on CLC... maybe He has... maybe
> this is it...

Once again, you *entirely* distort what I said. I said precisely this: "God
can bridge the gap to us, but man could never bridge the gap to God, without
God's help." God made it possible for me (or anyone else) to reach Him by
becoming a man and dying on a cross to pay the penalties of our sins that
separate us from a Holy God, then enabling us through the power of His Holy
Spirit to receive Jesus as our savior. The power that bridges the gap
between God and man is God's power, not ours. We are helpless and defensless
before a Holy God, without His own intervention. Every day of my life I
thank God that He did make that intervention in Jesus Christ.

>> But, this is a personal thing between God and each of us. God is not
>> going to force Himself on anybody who doesn't want Him.
>
> Ah, so there IS free will? But if He's infinite there cannot be... any
> choice I make will include God, and will have been foreseen by God. It
> seems to me that He's finite when it suits your argument and infinite when
> that suits your argument.

You're twisting the issue again. Before God created the universe, He knew
everything. He knew every thought, every action, every subatomic particle by
name, and every interaction all of them would have until the end of time. He
knew *everything*. But for His own reasons, He has chosen to give man free
will. God decided that man would have a choice to believe in Him or reject
Him. I don't know why God did it this way, I am a finite created being,
after all. :-)

>> All of us have a choice, we can reject God and spend eternity without
>> God, or receive God and spend eternity with God.
>
> Or, you could just die and have your atoms redistrubuted back to the
> Cosmos from whence they came, with NO eternity (other than the Laws of
> Thermodynamics, guaranteeing the eventual heat death of the Universe....
> NOT eternal, but certainly a very long time (unless you're infinite, of
> course, in which case the life of the Universe would be the blink of an
> eye...))

If you are correct and I am wrong, I will die and cease to exist and never
know the difference. But if I am right and you are wrong, you will spend an
eternity apart from God in never ending torment. That's not a very good bet,
no matter *what* the odds.

>>If you want to meet God, He is ready and waiting. But the choice is up to
>>each of us. Personally, I would rather spend eternity with Someone who was
>>willing to die for me, even before I knew Him. :-)
>
> Even if you were right, I wouldn't want to spend eternity with someone who
> was ready to die for me before I met him... it shows a marked lack of
> judgement, on his part. Besides, I never asked him to die for me (I
> wouldn't ask that of anyone... )quite happy to take responsibility for my
> own transgressions, thanks.

It was only before you knew Him. God knew you from before the foundation of
the world. But God certainly gives you that option. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."


.