dansguardian/christian parental controls question - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on dansguardian/christian parental controls question - Ubuntu ; Joe wrote: > On 2008-04-11, Wes Groleau wrote: >> Joe wrote: >>> You didn't read the link, did you? Occam's Razor states that the >>> explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as >>> possible. The insertion of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 200

Thread: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

  1. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-11, Wes Groleau wrote:
    >> Joe wrote:
    >>> You didn't read the link, did you? Occam's Razor states that the
    >>> explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as
    >>> possible. The insertion of God into the process is a huge assumption,

    >> William of Ockham was a pragmatist.
    >> The simplest explanation is the best? Define "best."
    >> Define "simplest."
    >>
    >> The preferred model is the one that best balances predicting
    >> things you need to predict against the difficulty of predicting
    >> them. Getting the right answer most of the time without working
    >> too hard at it.
    >>
    >> Which is entirely different from saying it is "true."
    >>
    >>> since there is no evidence of such a being...

    >> Of course, all sides of the argument will define "evidence"
    >> so that it doesn't include anything that supports the other
    >> side.
    >>

    >
    > Not at all. Evidence, you know, something you can show to support
    > your theory. Not a made-up figment of the imagination...
    >




    Then show proof that any science proves that God does not exist.
    You cannot do it. You can prove that some beliefs of some people are not
    right but you cannot prove that God does not exist. But how many
    different beliefs are there in this world?
    Being a lack of proof a scientist has to keep an open mind as to the
    possibility that God does exist until otherwise proven different or all
    of his experiments will be no good as he formed the answer before the
    experiment was concluded. Which means he may have left something out.
    So show respect to a person regardless or their beliefs. Even someone
    who is wrong deserves that.
    caver1

  2. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Wes Groleau wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >> .... The bible states that God is energy.

    >
    > Citation?



    Right now I can't remember for sure but it is in Isaiah.


    >> wrong. Yet the order of creation in the bible agrees with science.

    >
    > I know the citation this time. Genesis 1-3. It's too vague to
    > be dogmatic about this, but I don't think the order matches the
    > most common evolutionary timelines.


    Actually it goes beyond that but thats not the point.
    I said nothing about time lines. There are many interpretations as to
    how long they are.

    > One interesting point: there was light .... first day.
    > And on which day were the sun and moon created?



    They were created according to the Bible before the 6 creative days of
    life on earth.



    > It was said that God is a huge assumption.
    >
    > Isn't it also a big assumption to declare that there exists
    > some inviolable natural law that we don't fully understand
    > but that we do know beyond any shadow of doubt that there
    > exists no being capable of deviating from said law?



    So being there of such assumptions how can anyone belittle someone for
    those beliefs especially when you don't even know what they are?


    >> This thread was about parental controls. I still cannot see how anyone
    >> can trust the upbringing of their children to someone they don't know.
    >> They should be doing those controls themselves.

    >
    > Presumably, they acquire the "module" from someone they trust
    > shares their values. Then, they may or may not customize it
    > to suit themselves.
    >
    >


    How do they know if they can trust a person they no nothing about. He
    might be a polygamist. Here I am asking. To me a Parent needs to do
    their own monitoring not leave it up to someone else.

  3. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    caver1 wrote:
    > John F. Morse wrote:
    >> Dogma Discharge wrote:
    >>> "Bruce Sinclair"
    >>> wrote in message news:ftjlvk$fm9$1@aioe.org...
    >>>> In article , "Cork Soaker"
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>> : FWIW, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
    >>>>> Yes they are.
    >>>> I have known religious scientists. Yes, good ones.
    >>>> The good ones keep the belief systems separate. It is possible.
    >>>
    >>> It is indeed possible to have this, although I would go as far to
    >>> say that religious scientists have some serious internal issues to
    >>> deal with. For instance; I believe that Evolution directly conflicts
    >>> with Genesis, and seeing as it's (Evolution) an observed fact and
    >>> known to be true, the book of genesis is in some serious ****e.

    >> There is no conflict that I see. You are free to believe whatever you
    >> want, but I'm curious: Where do you see it?
    >>> Religious beliefs = Self Delusions. Why delude ur kids, why keep
    >>> them from information? Far be it from me to give anyone advice on
    >>> how to raise their kids, but for Gods sake (snicker) at least give
    >>> them a fighting chance and let them have the truth, science is
    >>> nothing but observed facts, religion is based on nothing but faith,
    >>> which of the 2 are you going to feed?

    >> I certainly wouldn't feed my children (or anyone) "religion."
    >>
    >> But I'd gladly provide scientific theory, and Bible-based theory, so
    >> they could make up their own mind what they wanted to BELIEVE by FAITH.
    >>
    >> That's inclusive too, and not "one or the other."

    > That is what I was trying to point out. trying to stay vague, which
    > was a mistake, so as not to get into a religious debate as not matter
    > how precise you get there will always be someone who disagrees. But
    > both deserve respect as a human and neither has the right to lamb bast
    > the other for those beliefs. One side does not hold the rights to that
    > wrong.
    > That was all I was trying to point out.
    > caver1



    I can sympathize with you in not wanting to take an Ubuntu Linux
    newsgroup down any "religious" lane. There are groups for "arguing"
    those points for sure. You think this group gets the flames, take a look
    at the "religious" groups!

    I try not to argue. Besides it's not my ideas anyway. I just provide the
    Biblical references, since that is all any of us have to use for either
    pro or con. All I can possibly do is explain why I believe in a certain
    thing, knowing that future circumstances and the Holy Spirit may change
    my beliefs when the need arises.

    Even 1 Corinthians 13:11 shows this logic: When I was a child, I talked
    like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I
    became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

    Far too much to know at any one time, and far too much to know even
    during a lifetime. John 21:25: Jesus did many other things as well. If
    every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world
    would not have room for the books that would be written.

    Did you know I am a scientist (or was when I officially worked before
    retiring)? Actually involved several disciplines, as far ranging as
    astronomy, biology, computers, electrical/electronic, environmental,
    geology, hydrology, meteorology, speleology, ....

    I have no conflicts whatsoever with Genesis' creation and evolution. Not
    knowing with certainty (there is no proof) whether creation happened in
    six 24-hour days or not, or whether man has walked the Earth far longer
    than someone's guess that we were all created just 6000 years ago. Not
    knowing what is unprovable doesn't bother me. I figure it is just
    another of those things Satan tries to confuse us with, so we can argue
    and not keep our eyes focused on Jesus.

    I mean, what really is a "day" in our terms? One revolution of our
    planet. This makes the sun "rise" and later "set."

    On which day was the sun created in Genesis? The fourth day!

    Genesis 1:14-19: 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of
    the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs
    to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the
    expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God
    made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser
    light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in
    the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day
    and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it
    was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

    That would be the day we know, since the sun and moon were created. But
    Genesis 3-5 shows the period of God's day, before He created the sun:

    3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw
    that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5
    God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And
    there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

    He "called" them "day" and "night" for *His* purpose. Since there was
    not yet a sun, His days #1 through #4 could have been a zillion years
    long! Maybe at least enough time for dinosaurs to roam and then
    disappear before the original clock slowed down! ;-)

    Why then the reference in verses 14-19? Perhaps to give us a reference
    we could understand and use.

    I do know one thing for a fact, you and I did not come from any ape. We
    came from our mothers, who were human beings, just like their mothers,
    etc. The apes are still walking and dragging their knuckles as always,
    and other than Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall, we don't cohabit. If they
    evolved into humans, why are they still peeling bananas in the zoo?

    I also do not believe in the "Big Bang." So-called scientists, like that
    loony TV star, believe everything started from one point in a huge
    explosion, and galaxies are traveling at a high rate of speed away from
    that point. If so, why are there astronomers now finding galaxies going
    through other galaxies? What could have changed the course of galaxies
    traveling outward from a super bang?

    Is the Big Bang a fact or just a theory? Maybe I should ask, is it a
    theory or just a hypothesis?

    I can't even find that "cosmologist's" name in astronomy sources. Shows
    how important he was. He just went out in a big bang, and he found that
    as he often stated, that's all there is.

    Oh.... Carl Sagan.

    BTW, to be fair, Pat Robertson is also a loony, along with a good
    portion of the US Congress.

    Now, what was it about Ubuntu that you asked? ;-)


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  4. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:09:11 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:
    >
    >> This "punishment" was not for eating some fruit, but for disobeying and
    >> not trusting God to provide for us. Doe's it not still happen in 2008?
    >> People openly stating they don't "need" any God, and they can do it
    >> themselves on their own power and smarts. Just look at this planet. Open
    >> your mind!

    >
    > Pagans love this planet, by definition. Christians do not, for them the
    > world is just a temporary place to prepare them for heaven.
    >
    > "The world is the land of satan. The chosen ones will rise to heaven and
    > the world will end soon." Allows the believer to do whatever he wants to
    > the planet, as long as he is going to heaven, it doesn't matter.
    >
    > "The earth is sacred. Our children will need this planet for eternity,
    > we are all stuck here together." Forces the believer to think of the
    > effect his actions have on the planet and all its people, for eternity.
    >
    > Which belief system is better for the planet?
    >
    > Also, now that you have me going......
    >
    > God is not insecure. He does not want his creations to kneel to him or
    > pray. He wants us to be self-sufficient. He wants us to think for
    > ourselves, and use our own moral compass to guide us. And further more,
    > the bible is not a "Reference", it is a work of fiction. If you listen
    > to god, not your preacher or bible, you will hear what I am saying.
    >
    > Oh, now don't go saying that satan will confuse you if you don't follow
    > the bible. As you do know the devil is a master of deception. How do
    > you know that he did not force those men to write that book to keep
    > people away from the true light?.....
    >
    > And another thing, this name calling thing. Why do people feel the need
    > to package an infinite force such as god, and say you must pray to him,
    > by some name. If you get the wrong name, you are praying to the wrong
    > god....Total bull****.
    >
    >
    > And another thing, the rules did not change 2000 years ago.
    >
    > stonerfish




    Being that you don't know you nor anyone else has any right to belittle
    anyone else's beliefs. But many do. Show respect. Ask question but be
    respectful. Being respectful does not mean that you have to believe the
    same as someone else.
    caver1
    caver1

  5. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:09:11 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> This "punishment" was not for eating some fruit, but for disobeying and
    >>> not trusting God to provide for us. Doe's it not still happen in 2008?
    >>> People openly stating they don't "need" any God, and they can do it
    >>> themselves on their own power and smarts. Just look at this planet. Open
    >>> your mind!
    >>>

    >>
    >> Pagans love this planet, by definition. Christians do not, for them
    >> the world is just a temporary place to prepare them for heaven.




    That's not true across the board. Ask Al gore if he is pagan.
    Many,not all, that are destroying the earth are not Christian, ie China.
    True many Christians believe that it is their right to do as they
    please. But the ignore the part that God said he will destroy those
    destroying the earth.


    >> "The world is the land of satan. The chosen ones will rise to heaven
    >> and the world will end soon." Allows the believer to do whatever he
    >> wants to the planet, as long as he is going to heaven, it doesn't matter.




    Only some Christians believe that. There are many interpretations. So
    you talk someelses word for what the Bible says. Easy way to be mislead.
    I have a bridge to sell you. Or maybe you want to follow Jones?



    >> "The earth is sacred. Our children will need this planet for
    >> eternity, we are all stuck here together." Forces the believer to
    >> think of the effect his actions have on the planet and all its people,
    >> for eternity.
    >>
    >> Which belief system is better for the planet?




    Many people believe what tickles their ears not what truth actually is
    that way they ease their conscience. Why do you think there are so many
    religions?



    >> Also, now that you have me going......
    >>
    >> God is not insecure. He does not want his creations to kneel to him
    >> or pray. He wants us to be self-sufficient. He wants us to think for
    >> ourselves, and use our own moral compass to guide us. And further
    >> more, the bible is not a "Reference", it is a work of fiction. If you
    >> listen to god, not your preacher or bible, you will hear what I am
    >> saying.
    >> Oh, now don't go saying that satan will confuse you if you don't
    >> follow the bible. As you do know the devil is a master of deception.
    >> How do you know that he did not force those men to write that book to
    >> keep people away from the true light?.....
    >>
    >> And another thing, this name calling thing. Why do people feel the
    >> need to package an infinite force such as god, and say you must pray
    >> to him, by some name. If you get the wrong name, you are praying to
    >> the wrong god....Total bull****.
    >>
    >> And another thing, the rules did not change 2000 years ago.
    >> stonerfish



    Nobody said they did. To what are you Refering?

    >
    >
    > For someone who refuses to read God's Word, the Bible (all we have now),
    > you certainly claim to know it all.
    >
    > How can this be? Where did you obtain all of your knowledge? Were you
    > there?
    >
    > Perhaps from the tree?
    >


  6. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >> John F. Morse wrote:
    >>> caver1 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Basically the start point is the same. Christian belief states that
    >>>> there was no beginning. So It depends on where you put your faith.
    >>>>
    >>>> The point is many on Both sides are very close minded and little
    >>>> minded.
    >>>> Instead of having your "beliefs" and leaving the others alone many
    >>>> have to prove and belittle the other for their beliefs.
    >>>> You can be considered one of those. I say that because you accuse me
    >>>> of havind a religious bent and I never said or gave hint if I
    >>>> believed in god or not.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I certainly don't want to even take part in any silly debate on
    >>> "religion," but I do want to point out that your comment about
    >>> "Christian belief states that there was no beginning" is totally
    >>> false. You obviously are trying to show some intelligence in the
    >>> subject, but just are not yet up to speed with the true facts as
    >>> opposed to opinion.
    >>>
    >>> You used and violated a prime example of your "close[d] minded and
    >>> little minded" example here, as well as violating your own idea to
    >>> keep your "beliefs" to yourself, and belittling the OP on his belief(s).
    >>>

    >>
    >> I don't either But I beg to differ as Christian belief states that God
    >> has no beginning no end.
    >> If the one who "started everything" has no beginning then there is none.
    >> May your belief is that is not true but in general that is the case
    >> and that is what the bible states.
    >> The close mined are those that have to "bad mouth" others for their
    >> belief instead of letting it go and show them respect as a human being.
    >> caver1

    >
    >
    > Oh, sorry, Caver.
    >
    > I thought you were talking about the beginning of the world, knowing
    > very well there is the creation story. My error.
    >
    > Genesis 1:1 states: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    >
    > You are correct that He has always been -- at least as observers could
    > understand Him. The Genesis 1:1 verse describes the Creation of what we
    > can see, but God was already here.
    >
    > Now compare these verses:
    >
    > Rev. 1:8 -- "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is,
    > and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
    >
    > Rev. 2:16 -- He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega,
    > the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink
    > without cost from the spring of the water of life.
    >
    > Rev. 22:13 -- I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the
    > Beginning and the End.
    >
    > The last two above clearly state that God is the Beginning and the End.
    > The first one adds that He Is. You remember he told Moses, "I AM" in
    > Exodus 3:14: God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to
    > say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
    >
    > Alpha represents the beginning, while Omega is the last Greek letter.
    >
    > Then John 1:1-5 states: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
    > with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
    >
    > Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has
    > been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The
    > light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
    >
    > Read those two paragraphs a few times until you get a good grasp on what
    > they are clearly stating about the Word.
    >
    > 1. The Word was here (existed) in the beginning.
    >
    > 2. The Word was with God.
    >
    > 3. The Word was God.
    >
    > 4. The Word was with God in the beginning.
    >
    > 5. The Word created everything that has ever existed.
    >
    > It sounds like the "Word" might be God's voice, but there is more to it.
    >
    > John 1:14 tells us Who the Word is.
    >
    > For those readers without a Bible, here is a link:
    >
    > http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31
    >
    > Notice verse 14.
    >
    > Remember Christmas? ;-)
    >
    >



    Not to find fault but why celebrate Christmas. The only thing Christ
    said to do in rememberence of him was the last super.
    caver1

  7. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:11:39 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:
    >
    > You don't really believe that giving your soul to jesus will put you in
    > heaven do you? I mean come on.
    >
    >> For someone who refuses to read God's Word, the Bible (all we have now),
    >> you certainly claim to know it all.
    >>

    >
    > The bible is not god's word. If the bible is all you have to guide you
    > then you are in a heap of spiritual trouble.
    >
    > I didn't say I didn't read the bible. I have read it. When I was a bit
    > younger, I went to a church and thought I was flawed because I didn't
    > have jesus in my heart. I was worried I would go to hell. There were a
    > few years where the guilt was strong, and I was very depressed. I even
    > would try to pray to jesus, I kept begging him to come into me, and turn
    > off my doubt. I grew up, and now know better. I don't know it all, but
    > I know Santa Claus isn't real.
    >
    >> How can this be? Where did you obtain all of your knowledge? Were you
    >> there?

    >
    > I told you. I know, because I know, because god told me. That my boy is
    > faith. I don't get my god from a book. As a matter of fact, I find that
    > book insulting to god. It portrays him as an insecure, lonely entity
    > with a need for others to submit to his authority. I could list verses
    > to show my point, but I think you know the passages, and probably think
    > that these are good traits for a god?



    The Bible is not insulting to God. Man's many interpretations of it make
    God out to be a liar, when it is men who want control over other men
    that misuse the Bible.
    The Bible was,and is, as are other holy books, misused by men who want
    to control. They state that you need to fear, you are going to hell to
    burn forever, When a war comes around you need to hate and kill you
    partners in faith because they live in another country. Why because
    thats they only way they can keep their power in those countries.
    Hitler and the Catholic church are a good example. The Protestants are
    not guilty free. Martin Luther hated the common man.
    Many churches in the past did not want their followers to even read the
    Bible. They said it was because it was to holy but the truth was it was
    a way for them to keep their power.
    Why do you think God called them Harlots and Jesus called them
    hypocrites and they Bible says that religion will be done away with?
    caver1



    >> Perhaps from the tree?

    >
    > No, but some plants and fungus once in a while do help. Erasing the
    > preconditioning of my youth was not easy. I managed to rise above it.
    > But I am one of the exceptions.
    >
    > stonerfish
    >


  8. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    caver1 wrote:
    > John F. Morse wrote:
    >> caver1 wrote:
    >>> John F. Morse wrote:
    >>>> caver1 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Basically the start point is the same. Christian belief states
    >>>>> that there was no beginning. So It depends on where you put your
    >>>>> faith.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The point is many on Both sides are very close minded and little
    >>>>> minded.
    >>>>> Instead of having your "beliefs" and leaving the others alone many
    >>>>> have to prove and belittle the other for their beliefs.
    >>>>> You can be considered one of those. I say that because you accuse
    >>>>> me of havind a religious bent and I never said or gave hint if I
    >>>>> believed in god or not.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I certainly don't want to even take part in any silly debate on
    >>>> "religion," but I do want to point out that your comment about
    >>>> "Christian belief states that there was no beginning" is totally
    >>>> false. You obviously are trying to show some intelligence in the
    >>>> subject, but just are not yet up to speed with the true facts as
    >>>> opposed to opinion.
    >>>>
    >>>> You used and violated a prime example of your "close[d] minded and
    >>>> little minded" example here, as well as violating your own idea to
    >>>> keep your "beliefs" to yourself, and belittling the OP on his
    >>>> belief(s).
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I don't either But I beg to differ as Christian belief states that
    >>> God has no beginning no end.
    >>> If the one who "started everything" has no beginning then there is
    >>> none.
    >>> May your belief is that is not true but in general that is the case
    >>> and that is what the bible states.
    >>> The close mined are those that have to "bad mouth" others for their
    >>> belief instead of letting it go and show them respect as a human being.
    >>> caver1

    >>
    >>
    >> Oh, sorry, Caver.
    >>
    >> I thought you were talking about the beginning of the world, knowing
    >> very well there is the creation story. My error.
    >>
    >> Genesis 1:1 states: In the beginning God created the heavens and the
    >> earth.
    >>
    >> You are correct that He has always been -- at least as observers
    >> could understand Him. The Genesis 1:1 verse describes the Creation of
    >> what we can see, but God was already here.
    >>
    >> Now compare these verses:
    >>
    >> Rev. 1:8 -- "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who
    >> is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
    >>
    >> Rev. 2:16 -- He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the
    >> Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give
    >> to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life.
    >>
    >> Rev. 22:13 -- I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,
    >> the Beginning and the End.
    >>
    >> The last two above clearly state that God is the Beginning and the
    >> End. The first one adds that He Is. You remember he told Moses, "I
    >> AM" in Exodus 3:14: God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what
    >> you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
    >>
    >> Alpha represents the beginning, while Omega is the last Greek letter.
    >>
    >> Then John 1:1-5 states: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
    >> was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
    >>
    >> Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that
    >> has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
    >> The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood
    >> it.
    >>
    >> Read those two paragraphs a few times until you get a good grasp on
    >> what they are clearly stating about the Word.
    >>
    >> 1. The Word was here (existed) in the beginning.
    >>
    >> 2. The Word was with God.
    >>
    >> 3. The Word was God.
    >>
    >> 4. The Word was with God in the beginning.
    >>
    >> 5. The Word created everything that has ever existed.
    >>
    >> It sounds like the "Word" might be God's voice, but there is more to it.
    >>
    >> John 1:14 tells us Who the Word is.
    >>
    >> For those readers without a Bible, here is a link:
    >>
    >> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31
    >>
    >> Notice verse 14.
    >>
    >> Remember Christmas? ;-)
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Not to find fault but why celebrate Christmas. The only thing Christ
    > said to do in rememberence of him was the last super.
    > caver1



    That one-liner was not meant to celebrate anything (see the smiley). It
    was to infer just Who is mentioned in verse 14, and that He came to live
    amongst us.

    I guess a person's mind-set must be in tune though. Christmas to me is
    the celebration of Christ's birth. The start of His ministry.

    To many others, it is a season to go berserk in the mall.

    So it probably was a poor choice of words to use for so many readers
    with unknown backgrounds.


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  9. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    : Quantum theory is the study of the very small, caver. Quantum is
    : exactly what describes the process that started the big bang. The
    : problem scientists have had for quite some time is the transition.
    : You have the theories of how atoms interact on the level of particles,
    : which is much different than Relativity, which describes how objects
    : interact in big-space.
    :
    : In recent years, the two theories have begun to be tied together into
    : string theory. It is likely the end of the discussion. Once strings
    : are fully understood, it is very possible that we will have a pretty
    : complete understanding of how the univers started. Soon, CERN will be
    : doing an experiment in which 2 particles will collide after a trip
    : through a 14 mile long accelerator. When they hit, it is expected
    : that they will produce a mini black hole, which will provide a lot of
    : energy, and will also provide answers to a lot of these questions.
    :

    I'm looking forward to that experiment. Very much.



  10. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    : Cork Soaker, not even a valid name.

    PMSL. Ok.



  11. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question



    : caver1 wrote:
    : >.... The bible states that God is energy.
    :

    You do know the "Bible" was burned, reprinted and badly translated, to suit
    the church's power over idiots like you, don't you?

    I mean, everyone knows this to be true. But you people just keep changing
    your mind about things, even though it's supposedly set-in-stone.



  12. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    : Is that how someone with an "open mind" responds?
    :

    No, I got bored.

    You don't need a closed mind to know when someone is talking ****.



  13. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question



    "John F. Morse" wrote in message
    news:uXvLj.167625$cQ1.33530@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...


    > I have that personal relationship with God -- I am a "born-again
    > Christian" as many would probably label me. But I hate religion. It is
    > nothing but trouble as most have posted here in this, er, Ubuntu group. As
    > you can see, even discussing "religion" starts problems. ;-)


    So you are one of those that takes the Bible literally then?


  14. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > : caver1 wrote:
    > : >.... The bible states that God is energy.
    > :
    >
    > You do know the "Bible" was burned, reprinted and badly translated, to suit
    > the church's power over idiots like you, don't you?
    >
    > I mean, everyone knows this to be true. But you people just keep changing
    > your mind about things, even though it's supposedly set-in-stone.
    >
    >




    Its idiots like you on both sides that are wrong.
    You have no idea what I believe in as I have purposely kept it out of this.
    Science has done the same thing.
    The point of this is not who is right or wrong but if you don't agree
    just walk away and show the other respect.
    Obviously you have none.
    The OP did not ask for a discussion on the merits of science and
    religion. He ask for a particular piece of software.
    Then, you can decide who by looking at beginning, start lambasting for
    his beliefs.
    That was wrong and shows no respect.
    caver1

  15. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > : Is that how someone with an "open mind" responds?
    > :
    >
    > No, I got bored.
    >
    > You don't need a closed mind to know when someone is talking ****.
    >
    >



    So saying that all should respect others is ****?
    No wonder your world is so screwed up.
    What does respect have to do with religion or science?
    caver1

  16. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-11, Wes Groleau wrote:
    >> Joe wrote:
    >>> This is not the case. Not by a long shot. Any devout Christian knows
    >>> exactly how everything was created. It is spelled out in the Bible.

    >> This Christian thinks that you don't know much
    >> about Christians nor about the Bible.

    >
    > Care to spell it out more accurately?


    Spell what out? YOU said _any_ knows exactly how.
    I offered the counter example: me.

    You said it is spelled out in the bible. Rather than
    asking me to quote the entire bible, why don't you just
    give the reference to any passage that "spells it out" ?

    --
    Wes Groleau
    "Grant me the serenity to accept those I cannot change;
    the courage to change the one I can;
    and the wisdom to know it's me."
    -- unknown

  17. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    caver1 wrote:
    > You can prove that some beliefs of some people are not right


    Only if the person you are "proving" it to accepts
    your definition of proof. If a syllogism is involved,
    that person must agree on your premises.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Promote multi-use trails in northeast Indiana!
    http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/

  18. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    John F. Morse illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > I have no conflicts whatsoever with Genesis' creation and evolution. Not
    > knowing with certainty (there is no proof) whether creation happened in
    > six 24-hour days or not, or whether man has walked the Earth far longer
    > than someone's guess that we were all created just 6000 years ago. Not
    > knowing what is unprovable doesn't bother me. I figure it is just
    > another of those things Satan tries to confuse us with, so we can argue
    > and not keep our eyes focused on Jesus.


    Actually John, I have a little sympathey with your viewpoint. It is
    difficult to argue with vagueness. For me, the beliefs of all the
    various religions of this planet are just vague enough t be
    scinetifically accurate.

    The one thing that does bother me is the age of the earth. We know,
    scientifically, that it is at least 4.55 billion years old. This is
    due to the "a mass must be at least the age of it's oldest part".

    Or is it?

    We also have the scientific "young earth" method which measures
    helium production and loss in the atmosphere and ironically
    dates the earth at around 3.5m years.

    Which is right?

    Or is it the bible, which dates the earth at a factor
    of a millionth of the "old earth" method. Or roughly 4,000 years BC.

    I've got a headache.

    Anyone got any aspirin?

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  19. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    caver1 wrote:
    >>> wrong. Yet the order of creation in the bible agrees with science.

    >>
    >> I know the citation this time. Genesis 1-3. It's too vague to
    >> be dogmatic about this, but I don't think the order matches the
    >> most common evolutionary timelines.

    >
    > Actually it goes beyond that but thats not the point.
    > I said nothing about time lines. There are many interpretations as to
    > how long they are.


    I know that. You said the _order_ in the Bible agrees with science.
    Is "science" unanimous on the order? No matter. Does science
    say the order was
    Light, day and night
    then atmosphere,
    then dry land,
    then plants,
    THEN sun, moon, and stars,
    then sea life and birds,
    then cattle, creeping things, and beasts of the earth,
    then a male human,
    then a female human
    ?

    >> One interesting point: there was light .... first day.
    >> And on which day were the sun and moon created?

    >
    > They were created according to the Bible before the 6 creative days of
    > life on earth.


    It may or may not be true, but it's not what Genesis says (Gen. 1:14-19)


    >>> This thread was about parental controls. I still cannot see how
    >>> anyone can trust the upbringing of their children to someone they
    >>> don't know.
    >>> They should be doing those controls themselves.

    >>
    >> Presumably, they acquire the "module" from someone they trust
    >> shares their values. Then, they may or may not customize it
    >> to suit themselves.

    >
    > How do they know if they can trust a person they no nothing about. He


    They don't. Maybe I should have said "someone they think shares their
    values"

    > might be a polygamist. Here I am asking. To me a Parent needs to do
    > their own monitoring not leave it up to someone else.


    I download HUGE lists of domains of various categories.
    Then _I_ decide which ones to actually use for filtering.
    And then I go further and edit those lists.

    I have no doubt that I am blocking a few sites that
    I don't want to block, and missing a few that should
    be blocked. Those few are out of millions, though.

    It's like killfiles. Mine probably blocks an occasional
    worthwhile post. But since there's already more
    worthwhile posts than I have time to read, it doesn't
    bother me.

    In both cases, if I become aware that something is not
    handled the way I prefer, I decide whether it's worth
    the trouble of tweaking the filters.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Nutrition for Blokes: Re-engineering your diet for life
    http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/QG/

  20. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Wes Groleau wrote:
    > caver1 wrote:
    >> You can prove that some beliefs of some people are not right

    >
    > Only if the person you are "proving" it to accepts
    > your definition of proof. If a syllogism is involved,
    > that person must agree on your premises.
    >



    I understand where you are coming from but in some cases its not the
    proof that needs to be proved. But the acceptance by a closed minded person.
    That is the crux of a lot of this. Many on both side thinks the others
    are being unreasonable and will not listen. To them it is always the
    other side.
    caver1

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast