OT: Religion (WAS: Making money from Java)

"Peter Lacey" <lacey@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43A1B044.A2694988@xxxxxxxxxx
> Actually, there is no point at all in continuing this thread. Judson
> has opened his veins once too often in public. I quote from his post of
> Dec. 10 at 6:48a.m.:
>
> "Even though I >>believe<< the Bible is God's inspired Word, >>>>>>the
> Bible doesn't give us all the answers<<<<".
>
> (>><< added for emphasis).
>
> Judson's belief is of no factual value; it applies only to him and to
> no-one else. The Bible may be God's inspired word, but Judson
> believing it to be so doesn't make it so: nor does anyone else's
> belief. There is, of course, no objective way of verifying his belief.

well, there MAY be a way, we (human-kind) just haven't figured out how
yet. Of course, the chances that we (the posters on comp.lang.cobol) figure
it out *now* is probably slim, but it's note a zero probability. And perhaps
we can have fun slash learn something along the way (I learned not to mix up
christianity and catholicism, for example).

>
> But far more important is the rest of his statement. We may now
> legitimately ask him to specify which answers the Bible actually does
> give, and why; otherwise we may reply to any claim he makes upon the
> Bible's authority by reminding him of this little faux pas.
>
> I haven't yet searched Judson's other messages to see if he's also
> claimed that the Bible does have all the answers. I think he has but
> I'll have to find the example. If I find just one such .......

We gotta be careful here and remind ourselves of why we're all posting
on here in the first place. Is it to mine the archives for any mistake
Judson may have made, and them jump on them and laugh at him? Sometimes I
will say something which is not precisely what I meant. In the context in
which I made it, perhaps the statement was clear, but after a few days,
weeks or months, the discussion might have progressed to a point where we
have to become much more precise about terms.

It's happened to me before: I made a post on a Java newsgroup calling
something an object, when actually it's a *reference* to an object. At the
time, the distinction didn't really matter, but when we start talking about
the difference between passing parameters by value versus passing parameters
by reference, it does.

Things are probably a bit tough for Judson, because it seems that there
are more people who do not believe the same things as Judson does, than
there are who do. He has to keep track of so many different threads, and has
so many minds ganging up and "working against him", so to speak. If I were
in his position, I'd probably find the whole ordeal quite exhausting. I
might have ended up withdrawing, not because I "lost the argument" or
anything like that, but because I have more important things to do (like my
job!)

I don't agree with everything Judson believes. If he's willing to
discuss it, I'm willing to tell him why I don't agree. But my goal here is
not to make this group a hostile environment in which he no longer wishes to
continue posting.

- Oliver


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Religion (WAS: Making money from Java)
    ... > I have no problem with any*one* posting in this forum. ... > matters of theological opinion are treated as matters of observable fact, ... I've been seeing a few posts that have been attacking Judson directly ... all claims Judson makes are logically false. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: String Functions in MF
    ... I went back and ran some tests myself, not quite parallel to what Judson did ... in this reference, but close. ... In TEST-1, although the "function reverse" costs, the INSPECT is able to ... take advantage of machine operators that aren't accessible in the ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)