www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Re: [~ot] why is programming so fun?

reply Simen Kjaeraas <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:
John Reimer Wrote:
 This God has not only set the standard that defines evil but has also 
 promised to judge all evil finally.  And he also defined how one is
 saved from this evil.   Does Epicurus decide for himself what he sees 
 as evil in the process of "disproving" God?  What does Epicurus
 perceive "evil" to mean?
 
 The strange thing is that people continue to complain about evil but 
 refuse to turn away from it in their own lives, or to adopt the plan
 that frees them from that bondage to it.

Ah, but which religion is correct, then? Muslims will claim christians are infidels, christians will say the same of hindus, etc, and none of them have any more proof than the next. Speaking of hindus, my parents shared a nice story after their visit in India. They were invited off the street to a wedding, and asked if it was a hindu wedding, as they were christians. The host answered, "The gods are the same for everyone", and let them in. -- Simen
Jun 05 2008
parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Simen,

 John Reimer Wrote:
 
 This God has not only set the standard that defines evil but has also
 promised to judge all evil finally.  And he also defined how one is
 saved from this evil.   Does Epicurus decide for himself what he sees
 as evil in the process of "disproving" God?  What does Epicurus
 perceive "evil" to mean?
 
 The strange thing is that people continue to complain about evil but
 refuse to turn away from it in their own lives, or to adopt the plan
 that frees them from that bondage to it.
 

are infidels, christians will say the same of hindus, etc, and none of them have any more proof than the next. Speaking of hindus, my parents shared a nice story after their visit in India. They were invited off the street to a wedding, and asked if it was a hindu wedding, as they were christians. The host answered, "The gods are the same for everyone", and let them in.

Do you wish to argue on behalf of Islam and Hinduism? The topic of discussion was not Christianity verses these religions. It was a discussion about theism and atheism. It seems you prefer to move the topic off its original focus for some reason. Is this meant to concede the God exists, and now we should discuss the most likely form in which he exists? :) -JJR
Jun 05 2008
next sibling parent reply "Chris R. Miller" <lordSaurontheGreat gmail.com> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

John Reimer wrote:
 Hello Simen,
=20
 John Reimer Wrote:

 This God has not only set the standard that defines evil but has also=



 promised to judge all evil finally.  And he also defined how one is
 saved from this evil.   Does Epicurus decide for himself what he sees=



 as evil in the process of "disproving" God?  What does Epicurus
 perceive "evil" to mean?

 The strange thing is that people continue to complain about evil but
 refuse to turn away from it in their own lives, or to adopt the plan
 that frees them from that bondage to it.



 are infidels, christians will say the same of hindus, etc, and none of=


 them have any more proof than the next.

 Speaking of hindus, my parents shared a nice story after their visit
 in India. They were invited off the street to a wedding, and asked if
 it was a hindu wedding, as they were christians. The host answered,
 "The gods are the same for everyone", and let them in.

Do you wish to argue on behalf of Islam and Hinduism? The topic of=20 discussion was not Christianity verses these religions. It was a=20 discussion about theism and atheism. It seems you prefer to move the=20 topic off its original focus for some reason. Is this meant to concede=

 the God exists, and now we should discuss the most likely form in which=

 he exists? :)

What's to say that - if He exists - we could even comprehend the form of = His existence, be it physical in our sense of spiritual in the "higher"=20 religious sense. There are differing dogmas in the manifestations of=20 the existence of the Supreme Being. Classical Christians adhering to=20 the Nicaean Creed would tell you that God is in everything and yet=20 nowhere. Mormons will tell you to hie to Kolob. Along those lines, CS Lewis made some excellent inferencing about the=20 omnipresence of God when he made the analogy that God is like a writer.=20 The characters in the story (us) are not in any specific point in=20 time, because to God (the writer) they are in every point in time, held=20 in memory at each point. From this we can at least infer that God would = be capable of existing in a kind of extended physical state such that=20 time would not have effect upon Him - otherwise time would pass for God=20 just as it does for us, which would negate the ability of God to be=20 omniscient. To try and force Lewis' analogy closer to being on-topic, when you write = a program, you write code for a specific and finite point in the=20 execution of the program. However, in your comprehension and=20 understanding of that application the state in which the application is=20 in is in both the beginning and the end. You know where it came from,=20 where it "is," and where it's going. Similarly, Lewis hypothesizes that = we must all be like applications to God, and that He perceives us in an=20 entirely different way than we do the world. Either way, we can bicker about religion all day long, and never get=20 anywhere because religion is a completely subjective topic. It's=20 different because it's at its core it's a belief, therefore there is no=20 intrinsically right or wrong answer. There's only the answer of the=20 individual, which looses its "correctness" the moment it leaves scope of = the individual. Personally I think it's good for people to believe in a = God, since the whole "Gospel" concept has a tendency to make people more = interested in civility and in making themselves better, whether it be=20 motivated by a love of Jesus, a fear of Allah, or from fear of Karmic=20 retribution, or whatever else you may peradventure to believe.
Jun 05 2008
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com.au> writes:
Chris R. Miller wrote:
 Either way, we can bicker about religion all day long, and never get 
 anywhere because religion is a completely subjective topic.  It's 
 different because it's at its core it's a belief, therefore there is no 
 intrinsically right or wrong answer.   There's only the answer of the
 individual, which looses its "correctness" the moment it leaves scope
 of the individual.

There is absolutely nothing subjective about it. Either there is a god, or gods, or there is not. Like the question, is there life on Mars? We can all have different opinions, but it doesn't change the facts. Just because we're ignorant of something, doesn't make it a matter of opinion.
Jun 06 2008
parent Chris R. Miller <lordSaurontheGreat gmail.com> writes:
Don Wrote:

 Chris R. Miller wrote:
 Either way, we can bicker about religion all day long, and never get 
 anywhere because religion is a completely subjective topic.  It's 
 different because it's at its core it's a belief, therefore there is no 
 intrinsically right or wrong answer.   There's only the answer of the

> of the individual. There is absolutely nothing subjective about it. Either there is a god, or gods, or there is not. Like the question, is there life on Mars? We can all have different opinions, but it doesn't change the facts. Just because we're ignorant of something, doesn't make it a matter of opinion.

While ultimately the truth is absolute, there is no way we have of scientifically proving the existence of God - probably due to his existence on a "higher" or otherwise undetectable plane. Call it a dimension, heaven, whatever. He's undetectable to our sensors, capt'n. Perhaps if we remodulate the deflector dish? Given in impossibility of scientifically proving God, all religion therefore becomes of the subjective matter. Does that make sense, or is my reality distortion field showing? ;-)
Jun 06 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
 Hello Simen,
 
 John Reimer Wrote:

 This God has not only set the standard that defines evil but has also
 promised to judge all evil finally.  And he also defined how one is
 saved from this evil.   Does Epicurus decide for himself what he sees
 as evil in the process of "disproving" God?  What does Epicurus
 perceive "evil" to mean?

 The strange thing is that people continue to complain about evil but
 refuse to turn away from it in their own lives, or to adopt the plan
 that frees them from that bondage to it.

are infidels, christians will say the same of hindus, etc, and none of them have any more proof than the next. Speaking of hindus, my parents shared a nice story after their visit in India. They were invited off the street to a wedding, and asked if it was a hindu wedding, as they were christians. The host answered, "The gods are the same for everyone", and let them in.

Do you wish to argue on behalf of Islam and Hinduism? The topic of discussion was not Christianity verses these religions. It was a discussion about theism and atheism. It seems you prefer to move the topic off its original focus for some reason. Is this meant to concede the God exists, and now we should discuss the most likely form in which he exists? :)

Well, would it be irrelevant or forbidden, in this discussion?
Jun 06 2008
parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Georg,

 John Reimer wrote:
 
 Hello Simen,
 
 John Reimer Wrote:
 
 This God has not only set the standard that defines evil but has
 also promised to judge all evil finally.  And he also defined how
 one is saved from this evil.   Does Epicurus decide for himself
 what he sees as evil in the process of "disproving" God?  What does
 Epicurus perceive "evil" to mean?
 
 The strange thing is that people continue to complain about evil
 but refuse to turn away from it in their own lives, or to adopt the
 plan that frees them from that bondage to it.
 

christians are infidels, christians will say the same of hindus, etc, and none of them have any more proof than the next. Speaking of hindus, my parents shared a nice story after their visit in India. They were invited off the street to a wedding, and asked if it was a hindu wedding, as they were christians. The host answered, "The gods are the same for everyone", and let them in.

discussion was not Christianity verses these religions. It was a discussion about theism and atheism. It seems you prefer to move the topic off its original focus for some reason. Is this meant to concede the God exists, and now we should discuss the most likely form in which he exists? :)


Oh, I've come to doubt there is anything irrelevant or forbidden in this newsgroup. :) I am merely pointing out that we weren't comparing types of god-centric belief systems to begin with. And to move over to it now is to leave the discussion of atheism/materialism behind. It would seem kind of difficult and unusual for the athiest/agnostic/naturalist to start arguing on the behalf of a belief system that he doesn't actually believe in, instead of for his own worldview which is the usual course of things. It just comes across as dodging the discussion to do so, that's all. If he wants to, however, that is fine. -JJR
Jun 06 2008
prev sibling parent Tower Ty <towerty msn.com.au> writes:
So John can you describe anything you have seen  in your life that has given
you the slightest real indication that your faith is justified?

Any logical person would judge the truth of something by their own set of
experiences in life.  To do otherwise would be blatently stupid. So what makes
you so adament that you are right.

Answer if you dare.
Jun 06 2008