> The fact that lesser mammals don't have [morality]
Why does that imply that man is amoral?
> I keep seeing the diminishing power of God
Nah, that's just the diminishing power of some folks' will to debate.
> created by the Roman empire as a political tool
Can you present some evidence for this assertion? Christians were cruelly persecuted by the Roman governments for all sorts of reasons - because the Romans thought that natural disasters were caused by Christians offending the Roman Gods, because of the Christian opposition to slavery, because a Christian was loyal to God, not to the State, etc.
Right, but "feared" in this context means "respected and felt awe and wonder towards". See definition 3 of "fear" here - http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.
> how can he know what will happen
Because God exists outside of time - he doesn't see things in past/present terms like we do.
>still sacrificing poor little lambs at > this stage
Yup, sin must be paid for.
> That's nice of them to say that.
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean that - common grace doesn't save people - it just provides some good things for everyone to enjoy. It doesn't mean everyone is going to heaven.
> how do you know what is right unless > God tells you
God gave everyone a conscience that contains some knowledge of what's right and wrong. Of course, we all have a sin nature, too, which is the dominant factor.
> It's all about power. Where was > the Grace of God then?
Christians sin just like everybody else.
> They could never be called on it.:)
Ha! Well said, never thought of that. Of course, many other male witnesses are also recorded, the women were just the first to see Jesus.
Nice one though.
> there are so many different and > contradictory things in the bible.
Are there?
> The fact that it's internally > inconsistent doesn't mean that it's true.
Certainly, internal inconsistency is by no means a mark of truth. But what things in the Bible do you find inconsistent?
> Don't mistake someone elses incompetence > at story telling for veracity.;-)
If the Bible is just a story, it's quite ridiculous - could have left out Leviticus and Numbers with no harm done. But if it's true....
I was thinking about this some more... here are two views:
- what's good for society is right - I want what I want when I want it
I think we'd agree that the first view is "better" than the second. But why? How can we judge which moral code is better? I mean, who says that "it helps society" is better than "I want it"?
"Who sez?" seems to be the operative question. If the answer is "Tom Copeland sez", big deal, who cares. If the answer is "God sez", well, that seems a bit different.
> Hari Seldon
Nice:-). Fun stuff, those Foundation books.
> the *evidence* is being manipulated > *after the fact* by God.
Yup, that seems to be a bit out of character.
> just makes all Christians look like fools
I think these folks are refusing to research these topics because they're afraid Christianity will be proved wrong. This is, of course, precisely the wrong mindset. Things that are true will stand up to close examination.
> I really don't have a vested interest > in proving there is (are) no God(s)
Don't you? I mean, if God existed and would send me to hell unless I was wearing a red shirt, I would wear a lot of red shirts. And if God doesn't exist, why am I wasting my time going to church?
Seems like knowing what the deal is with God - does he exist or not, what does he want me to do - is a fairly important matter.
> some evidence for a) the existence of a Deity
Some would say that the existence of the universe is evidence for this.
> they're gonna come and shake things up
Ah, but the Bible says that happened about 2000 years ago. The Bible says that it's going to happen again, too.
> the death of innocent children in earthquakes
Right, if God is good, why is there evil? Because God gave man the ability to sin, and man did, and thus we live in a fallen world.
> Well that's interesting that you > accept something and then require it > to be proved false.
Were I to find evidence that Christianity was false, I hope that I'd examine that evidence with an open mind. Lots of evidence so far points to it being true.
> How would one go about designing a way to > test Christianity ?
One could examine its claims and see if they make sense.
- God exists - OK, could be, there's a lot of universe out there - Man is sinful - yup, seems reasonable - God speaks to us through the Bible - hm, checking Biblical historical veracity, etc., OK - Jesus Christ came to earth, died, rose from the dead - whew, farfetched, there's historical evidence for his existence, no video footage though
That sort of thing?
> to sort of give and take parts of the religion.
I think that's always been true... for example, many preachers supported slavery, which is blatantly opposed to many Biblical teachings.
> the set of beliefs as they have been changed
That's why it's important to stick with what the Bible says and not follow the current theological trends.
I think there's room for disputes, though - I mean, stuff like using wine vs using grape juice for Communion. Or infant baptism.
> manipulate evidence in light of their > religious beliefs
> my world view isn't tied to a belief > in the way morality comes about.
Well.... isn't it? I mean, isn't your world view tied to the belief that God did not promulgate a specific moral code?
> if evidence comes around that shows you > that morality isn't God-given, then you > either have to rationalize the evidence, > or give up your belief.
Right, certainly, if Christianity were proved false, it would be false.
> This social contract, and variations > thereof, have, for generations,
Hm. Are right and wrong based on tradition? There's a long history of slavery in many countries... does that mean slavery is OK?
> kept people of all sorts of theistic and > atheistic faiths from going on rampages.
Has it?
> Mark 16:16,17,18
Those verses are referring folks in Jesus' time, not in our time.
> Christians aren't supposed to be > vunerable like the rest of us.
To the contrary, in John 16:33, Jesus says "In the world ye shall have tribulation".
> Because without something that can love, > it does not exist
Very interesting. I think I agree. Cool.
> Much like that other artificial > construct, God.
Ah well, agreement was fun while it lasted.
> would do more than send his son to earth
Would he? Hard to say.
> some of the scripture has been dated > at years before jesus' birth
Sure, tons of it, the entire Old Testament.
> when all he needs to do is turn the sky red
Nah, it would be passed off as a hallucination or something.
> Even if thousands or millions or > billions of people are suffering and > dying, he does nothing.
This is a classic question - if God is good, why does evil exist? The Bible tells us that God created the world good, but man sinned and now we're all sinners.
> they are called upon to live by and die by
Who does the calling, and whose moral code do we use? Now we're back to how we determine which moral code is right.
> Mark 11:22
The "mountain into the sea" thing is a metaphor.
> the faithful should have miracles > at their disposal always if they ask > nicely enough
Nope, only if the things requested are in God's will.
> we don't have much more than physics > working the way they are supposed to.
> Christian Bale had difficulty acheiving > "suspense of disbelief"
Speaking of Christian Bale, "Equilibrium" was an excellent flick in which he did a great job. It's definitely worth a high place in your Netflix queue...
Yup - "don't talk about religion and politics!". Long conversations seem to want to go that way though... as soon as anyone says "right" or "wrong" or "why", things tend that way....
> the aberrant code is "less moral" on an > absolute scale, since it failed to > help that society survive.
One difficulty for me seems to be that this argument can only be applied in retrospect. I mean, if a society controls most of the world - i.e., the USSR in the 1950s - is that society the one that can make the rules?
On the other hand, I bet you'll respond that "no, because the USSR was killing millions of its own people, and so was deviating from the pattern of successful societies and was thus sowing the seeds of its own demise". Hm.
> allows for almost any logical argument > to be cut off at the pass
I know what you mean. Fossil evidence? God put 'em there. Carbon dating? God can change it. Big bang? God's method of creation. And so forth.
> the Nazis caused a situation where other > societies cooperated in their destruction.
Yup, that makes sense. I don't know. Have to consider that one further.
> I can revise my ideas on *how morality > comes about*
Ah, OK, I see your point. Hm. Yup, you or I could reject Christianity (or Catholicism or whatever) and turn to atheism or secular humanism or Islam or some such. Of course, our belief or lack thereof wouldn't make any of those religions untrue.
> the best part of this discussion is > trying to come up with a reason why > my test is useful
Cool - I'm having to think thru things a bit more as well. I don't think I realized quite how little I'd thought about this stuff:-)
That's a difficult one to figure out. It seems to oppose a lot of what the rest of the Bible has said. I've heard it explained as "God was testing Abraham's" faith; whew, that's a doozy.
> what of those societies which have never > heard of God and yet get along fine > with each other
Some folks believe that the Bible teaches that there is "common grace" - that is, although the world is fallen, God still provides some good things - the arts and sciences, varying amounts of blessings on various people, etc.
> What of those who do profess to follow > the teachings of Judeo-Christianity
Couple things on that one. If someone claims to be a Christian, we should look at their life and see if their actions support that claim. Also, Christians are sinful, so they will sin on a regular basis.
> "the Crusades"
Just a though on the Crusades - at the time various peoples were sweeping up from north Africa and across eastern Europe, burning and pillaging, as it were. So while the Crusades were probably wrong, it's kind of understandable that folks in Western Europe were getting a little squirrely.:-)
> you can sin in thought
Oh sure. No doubt about it. Sheesh, if folks could see what I'm thinking I'd be embarrassed as all get out.
> Yet if I profess faith, and yet > perform no virtuous acts, can I be truly > said to have Faith
Worse yet - the Bible says that even our righteous acts are tainted with sin. Actually, to me that sounds right - I know that even when I'm doing something real nice, I've usually got some selfish motive, or am thinking bad thoughts, or something. Which leads us nicely into...
> "saved by grace not by works"
The Bible says "while you were dead in your sins, God made you alive with Christ". The Bible says that we cannot achieve salvation thru working real hard, or going to church, or giving a lot of money away. The only way for me to get to heaven is for God to reach down and pull me up.
I've heard it said that _this_ is what makes the Bible "the good news". There are many religions that say "you must toil thru this long and hard path, and at the end you will receive enlightenment. But don't screw up, or you'll be unworthy!". Christianity says "yup, you're unworthy - but God has placed your sins on Jesus and they are no longer on your account". That's what makes the Bible "good news" - we cannot earn our way into heaven; it's up to God.
> the *mortal sin* that it once was
Catholic theology draw a distinction between mortal and venial sins. I'm not sure that the Bible supports this distinction... to me, the Bible seems to refer to it all as just plain sin.
> allow as acceptable an act that was > once immoral.
Hm. Yup, it does seem like a lot of Christians - myself included - have compromised on that one.
> this is a pet peeve of mine
Yup, the Old Testament contains a lot of stuff - stonings and such - that I don't understand. I should study this stuff more.
On the treatment of women in the Bible - here's an odd one. The Bible says that the first people to see Jesus after he rose from the dead were women. The Bible reports that quite matter of factly, even though at the time women were not allowed to testify in court. This kind of speaks towards the truth of the Bible - if someone were making it up, they could do better than that:-)
> lots of variety, but localized > homogeneity (within groupings)
Yup, that does seem to be the way things work OK. Birds of a feather and all that.
But wait - how can you say what they did was wrong? I mean... by what yardstick are you determining right and wrong?
> no artificial construct is going to save you
We agree at last:-)
> And a lot of good christians died
True - but the Bible doesn't claim that Christians will be immune from trouble. This is a fallen world we live in, and Christians are as vulnerable as any.
> Is love a being? No, it too is an > abstract construct.
You're right... I'm not sure what I was getting at there.
> seems to be conveniently undetectable > in all ways
Yup, it'd be nice if God would show up once a month or so and say "look, here I am!". That doesn't seem to be his style, though.
> the only apparant manipulation of > the world allowed for
If the assumption that God created all things is granted, then it follows that he can do whatever he wants. I realize you don't grant that assumption, just wanted to line that up.
> The laws of physics always state what happens,
Well... Newtonian certainty has given way to Heisenberg uncertainly... but your point is well taken.
> I have yet to hear of a "miracle"
Yup, some folks think that the miracles Jesus did were the last miracles. I don't know about that one; haven't studied it at all.
> giving up the responsibility for > thinking about things - one of our greatest gifts.
I hear you, and that's a good point about being responsible for thinking about things. I certainly don't want to abdicate that responsibility.
I guess the freedom comes from knowing that, say, losing my temper at my children is wrong - I don't have to rationalize my temper loss or blame it on my upbringing or something, I can simply admit that I was wrong, ask for forgiveness, and move on.
That's not a good example, I'm still thinking about that one.
> capacity for an individual or group > of individuals to survive
I think the evidence agrees with you - that is, societies that follow a certain moral code will tend to survive. I think that's because societies that follow moral codes that oppose God's law are by definition bound to have problems. Just like if someone doesn't believe in gravity, that's OK - but they should stay away from high places:-)
> That's irreducible,because harm is > defined in terms very similar to "bad"
Yeah, it's kind of a "I know it when I see it" sort of thing.
> can we really say they are a moral Christian
True, as the Bible says, "faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead".
> how many people now work on the Sabbath
Hm. True, although you could make a decent argument to the effect of "we're saved by grace not by works". Also, if a Christian sins, that does not invalidate Christianity. Nonetheless, your point is well taken.
> rules under which people operate to > get along with each other.
The sticking point for me is that without an external force, how do we judge between opposing rulesets? And now we're back to the "useful for society thing". Oh well:-)
> to think homogenously
I don't know... there are a lot of different religions out there. There's one God, there's no God, we're all Gods, everything's God... and these ideas have consequences. I think there's a lot of variety out there...
> now I'm raving
Notice how our posts are getting longer and longer now? We've moved well past the initial "bullet point" posting style:-)
On a government project a couple of years ago - HPUX, plain old C, Pro*SQL, and an Oracle 7.3 DB. And a text user interface, again written in pure C. The job security implications alone were staggering!
> only a minute percentage of the > OSS projects get the required attention > to make them "good code" or "good design".
And that's OK. Why? Because it takes 10 seconds to start an "open source" project. All you have to do is say "I'm starting a Microsoft Exchange replacement!" and put up a web page. If you make progress, people will come and help you out. If you don't they won't, and that's fine.
So the good projects float to the top and more people work on them. As it should be.
> far outweighs OSS in man hours
Fortunately, software quality or usefulness isn't determined by the number of hours needed to produce it.
Slashdot Mirror
> The fact that lesser mammals don't have [morality]
Why does that imply that man is amoral?
> I keep seeing the diminishing power of God
Nah, that's just the diminishing power of some folks' will to debate.
> created by the Roman empire as a political tool
Can you present some evidence for this assertion? Christians were cruelly persecuted by the Roman governments for all sorts of reasons - because the Romans thought that natural disasters were caused by Christians offending the Roman Gods, because of the Christian opposition to slavery, because a Christian was loyal to God, not to the State, etc.
> how much he really feared God
:)
;-)
Right, but "feared" in this context means "respected and felt awe and wonder towards". See definition 3 of "fear" here - http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.
> how can he know what will happen
Because God exists outside of time - he doesn't see things in past/present terms like we do.
>still sacrificing poor little lambs at
> this stage
Yup, sin must be paid for.
> That's nice of them to say that.
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean that - common grace doesn't save people - it just provides some good things for everyone to enjoy. It doesn't mean everyone is going to heaven.
> how do you know what is right unless
> God tells you
God gave everyone a conscience that contains some knowledge of what's right and wrong. Of course, we all have a sin nature, too, which is the dominant factor.
> It's all about power. Where was
> the Grace of God then?
Christians sin just like everybody else.
> They could never be called on it.
Ha! Well said, never thought of that. Of course, many other male witnesses are also recorded, the women were just the first to see Jesus.
Nice one though.
> there are so many different and
> contradictory things in the bible.
Are there?
> The fact that it's internally
> inconsistent doesn't mean that it's true.
Certainly, internal inconsistency is by no means a mark of truth. But what things in the Bible do you find inconsistent?
> Don't mistake someone elses incompetence
> at story telling for veracity.
If the Bible is just a story, it's quite ridiculous - could have left out Leviticus and Numbers with no harm done. But if it's true....
> it just seems too neat and tidy
:-). Fun stuff, those Foundation books.
I was thinking about this some more... here are two views:
- what's good for society is right
- I want what I want when I want it
I think we'd agree that the first view is "better" than the second. But why? How can we judge which moral code is better? I mean, who says that "it helps society" is better than "I want it"?
"Who sez?" seems to be the operative question. If the answer is "Tom Copeland sez", big deal, who cares. If the answer is "God sez", well, that seems a bit different.
> Hari Seldon
Nice
> the *evidence* is being manipulated
> *after the fact* by God.
Yup, that seems to be a bit out of character.
> just makes all Christians look like fools
I think these folks are refusing to research these topics because they're afraid Christianity will be proved wrong. This is, of course, precisely the wrong mindset. Things that are true will stand up to close examination.
> I really don't have a vested interest
> in proving there is (are) no God(s)
Don't you? I mean, if God existed and would send me to hell unless I was wearing a red shirt, I would wear a lot of red shirts. And if God doesn't exist, why am I wasting my time going to church?
Seems like knowing what the deal is with God - does he exist or not, what does he want me to do - is a fairly important matter.
> some evidence for a) the existence of a Deity
Some would say that the existence of the universe is evidence for this.
> they're gonna come and shake things up
Ah, but the Bible says that happened about 2000 years ago. The Bible says that it's going to happen again, too.
> the death of innocent children in earthquakes
Right, if God is good, why is there evil? Because God gave man the ability to sin, and man did, and thus we live in a fallen world.
> Well that's interesting that you
> accept something and then require it
> to be proved false.
Were I to find evidence that Christianity was false, I hope that I'd examine that evidence with an open mind. Lots of evidence so far points to it being true.
> How would one go about designing a way to
> test Christianity ?
One could examine its claims and see if they make sense.
- God exists - OK, could be, there's a lot of universe out there
- Man is sinful - yup, seems reasonable
- God speaks to us through the Bible - hm, checking Biblical historical veracity, etc., OK
- Jesus Christ came to earth, died, rose from the dead - whew, farfetched, there's historical evidence for his existence, no video footage though
That sort of thing?
> to sort of give and take parts of the religion.
I think that's always been true... for example, many preachers supported slavery, which is blatantly opposed to many Biblical teachings.
> the set of beliefs as they have been changed
That's why it's important to stick with what the Bible says and not follow the current theological trends.
I think there's room for disputes, though - I mean, stuff like using wine vs using grape juice for Communion. Or infant baptism.
> manipulate evidence in light of their
> religious beliefs
Yup, not good.
> constant or not.
Hm. Is this kind of like what the code is doing?Because that seems to compile OK. Or is there more to it than that?
> both of which depended on the same boolean value
Hm. That's interesting. Was the boolean value a constant?
If you want to see a bunch of open source projects' code evaluated (just quality checks, not bugs), take a look at:
PMD-WEB
Lots of Java projects being checked for unused code. Fun stuff!
Here's a duplicate code report (generated by CPD) for a checkout from the APACHE_2_0_BRANCH as of about a month ago. Time for some refactoring....
> my world view isn't tied to a belief
> in the way morality comes about.
Well.... isn't it? I mean, isn't your world view tied to the belief that God did not promulgate a specific moral code?
> if evidence comes around that shows you
> that morality isn't God-given, then you
> either have to rationalize the evidence,
> or give up your belief.
Right, certainly, if Christianity were proved false, it would be false.
> We were not born as a species(and nor are we
> born as humans) with an innate knowlege
> of morality, so we had to create it on
> our own.
What evidence can you present that man was not created with morality? And if we were not, why would we create morality?
> Matematics are passive
That makes sense. Cool.
> Morality, on the other hand,
> was soley invented
Invented by God, yes. But not by man.
> as a hole in the philosophy of ancient
> man weighted upon our intellect
Yup, philosophy without God is... well... inconclusive.
> This social contract, and variations
> thereof, have, for generations,
Hm. Are right and wrong based on tradition? There's a long history of slavery in many countries... does that mean slavery is OK?
> kept people of all sorts of theistic and
> atheistic faiths from going on rampages.
Has it?
> Mark 16:16,17,18
Those verses are referring folks in Jesus' time, not in our time.
> Christians aren't supposed to be
> vunerable like the rest of us.
To the contrary, in John 16:33, Jesus says "In the world ye shall have tribulation".
> Because without something that can love,
> it does not exist
Very interesting. I think I agree. Cool.
> Much like that other artificial
> construct, God.
Ah well, agreement was fun while it lasted.
> would do more than send his son to earth
Would he? Hard to say.
> some of the scripture has been dated
> at years before jesus' birth
Sure, tons of it, the entire Old Testament.
> when all he needs to do is turn the sky red
Nah, it would be passed off as a hallucination or something.
> Even if thousands or millions or
> billions of people are suffering and
> dying, he does nothing.
This is a classic question - if God is good, why does evil exist? The Bible tells us that God created the world good, but man sinned and now we're all sinners.
> they are called upon to live by and die by
Who does the calling, and whose moral code do we use? Now we're back to how we determine which moral code is right.
> Mark 11:22
The "mountain into the sea" thing is a metaphor.
> the faithful should have miracles
> at their disposal always if they ask
> nicely enough
Nope, only if the things requested are in God's will.
> we don't have much more than physics
> working the way they are supposed to.
Who created physics?
> "Fahrenheit 451"
Ah, true, hadn't even thought about that connection. Quite right, though, lots of flamethrowing going on.
> Christian Bale had difficulty acheiving
> "suspense of disbelief"
Speaking of Christian Bale, "Equilibrium" was an excellent flick in which he did a great job. It's definitely worth a high place in your Netflix queue...
> it gets pretty uncomfortable
Yup - "don't talk about religion and politics!". Long conversations seem to want to go that way though... as soon as anyone says "right" or "wrong" or "why", things tend that way....
> the aberrant code is "less moral" on an
> absolute scale, since it failed to
> help that society survive.
One difficulty for me seems to be that this argument can only be applied in retrospect. I mean, if a society controls most of the world - i.e., the USSR in the 1950s - is that society the one that can make the rules?
On the other hand, I bet you'll respond that "no, because the USSR was killing millions of its own people, and so was deviating from the pattern of successful societies and was thus sowing the seeds of its own demise". Hm.
> allows for almost any logical argument
> to be cut off at the pass
I know what you mean. Fossil evidence? God put 'em there. Carbon dating? God can change it. Big bang? God's method of creation. And so forth.
> the Nazis caused a situation where other
:-)
> societies cooperated in their destruction.
Yup, that makes sense. I don't know. Have to consider that one further.
> I can revise my ideas on *how morality
> comes about*
Ah, OK, I see your point. Hm. Yup, you or I could reject Christianity (or Catholicism or whatever) and turn to atheism or secular humanism or Islam or some such. Of course, our belief or lack thereof wouldn't make any of those religions untrue.
> the best part of this discussion is
> trying to come up with a reason why
> my test is useful
Cool - I'm having to think thru things a bit more as well. I don't think I realized quite how little I'd thought about this stuff
> ones only son, Isaac
:-)
:-)
That's a difficult one to figure out. It seems to oppose a lot of what the rest of the Bible has said. I've heard it explained as "God was testing Abraham's" faith; whew, that's a doozy.
> what of those societies which have never
> heard of God and yet get along fine
> with each other
Some folks believe that the Bible teaches that there is "common grace" - that is, although the world is fallen, God still provides some good things - the arts and sciences, varying amounts of blessings on various people, etc.
> What of those who do profess to follow
> the teachings of Judeo-Christianity
Couple things on that one. If someone claims to be a Christian, we should look at their life and see if their actions support that claim. Also, Christians are sinful, so they will sin on a regular basis.
> "the Crusades"
Just a though on the Crusades - at the time various peoples were sweeping up from north Africa and across eastern Europe, burning and pillaging, as it were. So while the Crusades were probably wrong, it's kind of understandable that folks in Western Europe were getting a little squirrely.
> you can sin in thought
Oh sure. No doubt about it. Sheesh, if folks could see what I'm thinking I'd be embarrassed as all get out.
> Yet if I profess faith, and yet
> perform no virtuous acts, can I be truly
> said to have Faith
Worse yet - the Bible says that even our righteous acts are tainted with sin. Actually, to me that sounds right - I know that even when I'm doing something real nice, I've usually got some selfish motive, or am thinking bad thoughts, or something. Which leads us nicely into...
> "saved by grace not by works"
The Bible says "while you were dead in your sins, God made you alive with Christ". The Bible says that we cannot achieve salvation thru working real hard, or going to church, or giving a lot of money away. The only way for me to get to heaven is for God to reach down and pull me up.
I've heard it said that _this_ is what makes the Bible "the good news". There are many religions that say "you must toil thru this long and hard path, and at the end you will receive enlightenment. But don't screw up, or you'll be unworthy!". Christianity says "yup, you're unworthy - but God has placed your sins on Jesus and they are no longer on your account". That's what makes the Bible "good news" - we cannot earn our way into heaven; it's up to God.
> the *mortal sin* that it once was
Catholic theology draw a distinction between mortal and venial sins. I'm not sure that the Bible supports this distinction... to me, the Bible seems to refer to it all as just plain sin.
> allow as acceptable an act that was
> once immoral.
Hm. Yup, it does seem like a lot of Christians - myself included - have compromised on that one.
> this is a pet peeve of mine
Yup, the Old Testament contains a lot of stuff - stonings and such - that I don't understand. I should study this stuff more.
On the treatment of women in the Bible - here's an odd one. The Bible says that the first people to see Jesus after he rose from the dead were women. The Bible reports that quite matter of factly, even though at the time women were not allowed to testify in court. This kind of speaks towards the truth of the Bible - if someone were making it up, they could do better than that
> lots of variety, but localized
> homogeneity (within groupings)
Yup, that does seem to be the way things work OK. Birds of a feather and all that.
Ditto. This is all driven by Ruby scripts.
It's really convenient to be able to loop thru a file with something as readable as:
Great stuff, Ruby.
> what they were doing was wrong
:-)
But wait - how can you say what they did was wrong? I mean... by what yardstick are you determining right and wrong?
> no artificial construct is going to save you
We agree at last
> And a lot of good christians died
True - but the Bible doesn't claim that Christians will be immune from trouble. This is a fallen world we live in, and Christians are as vulnerable as any.
> Is love a being? No, it too is an
> abstract construct.
You're right... I'm not sure what I was getting at there.
> seems to be conveniently undetectable
> in all ways
Yup, it'd be nice if God would show up once a month or so and say "look, here I am!". That doesn't seem to be his style, though.
> the only apparant manipulation of
> the world allowed for
If the assumption that God created all things is granted, then it follows that he can do whatever he wants. I realize you don't grant that assumption, just wanted to line that up.
> The laws of physics always state what happens,
Well... Newtonian certainty has given way to Heisenberg uncertainly... but your point is well taken.
> I have yet to hear of a "miracle"
Yup, some folks think that the miracles Jesus did were the last miracles. I don't know about that one; haven't studied it at all.
> giving up the responsibility for
:-)
:-)
:-)
> thinking about things - one of our greatest gifts.
I hear you, and that's a good point about being responsible for thinking about things. I certainly don't want to abdicate that responsibility.
I guess the freedom comes from knowing that, say, losing my temper at my children is wrong - I don't have to rationalize my temper loss or blame it on my upbringing or something, I can simply admit that I was wrong, ask for forgiveness, and move on.
That's not a good example, I'm still thinking about that one.
> capacity for an individual or group
> of individuals to survive
I think the evidence agrees with you - that is, societies that follow a certain moral code will tend to survive. I think that's because societies that follow moral codes that oppose God's law are by definition bound to have problems. Just like if someone doesn't believe in gravity, that's OK - but they should stay away from high places
> That's irreducible,because harm is
> defined in terms very similar to "bad"
Yeah, it's kind of a "I know it when I see it" sort of thing.
> can we really say they are a moral Christian
True, as the Bible says, "faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead".
> how many people now work on the Sabbath
Hm. True, although you could make a decent argument to the effect of "we're saved by grace not by works". Also, if a Christian sins, that does not invalidate Christianity. Nonetheless, your point is well taken.
> rules under which people operate to
> get along with each other.
The sticking point for me is that without an external force, how do we judge between opposing rulesets? And now we're back to the "useful for society thing". Oh well
> to think homogenously
I don't know... there are a lot of different religions out there. There's one God, there's no God, we're all Gods, everything's God... and these ideas have consequences. I think there's a lot of variety out there...
> now I'm raving
Notice how our posts are getting longer and longer now? We've moved well past the initial "bullet point" posting style
And in the Bible, too.
> you bring back such fond memories.
On a government project a couple of years ago - HPUX, plain old C, Pro*SQL, and an Oracle 7.3 DB. And a text user interface, again written in pure C. The job security implications alone were staggering!
> Caching them as an array is only viable
> if the data is stable during your
> application's execution
Or you can do an optimistic locking kind of thing... which takes a little more effort, but works well as long as everyone isn't updating the same row.
> products like PostgreSQL
+1. Postgres rocks.
> They don't determine quality or
> usefulness, they represent the
> quality and usefulness.
Hm. I don't understand. How does the number of hours spent working on a computer program represent its quality?
> only a minute percentage of the
> OSS projects get the required attention
> to make them "good code" or "good design".
And that's OK. Why? Because it takes 10 seconds to start an "open source" project. All you have to do is say "I'm starting a Microsoft Exchange replacement!" and put up a web page. If you make progress, people will come and help you out. If you don't they won't, and that's fine.
So the good projects float to the top and more people work on them. As it should be.
> far outweighs OSS in man hours
Fortunately, software quality or usefulness isn't determined by the number of hours needed to produce it.