dansguardian/christian parental controls question - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on dansguardian/christian parental controls question - Ubuntu ; Wes Groleau wrote: > 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 200

Thread: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

  1. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Wes Groleau wrote:
    > 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.
    >



    Okay but me me stating that I don't understand why someone would do that
    is not disrespectful its a lack of understanding.
    Then when someone else steps in and accuses anyone who would do such a
    thing of mind washing their children, then it just went from there. All
    I was pointing out is that they do not own rightness and they need to
    show respect. Only close minded people refuse to accept that other
    people have a right to live their life the way they see fit and in that
    science and faith are not exclusive of each other except in the close
    minded. Which are on both sides of the issue. Then others decided top
    take a word out here and a word out there and say I was saying something
    else.
    Personally I don't have time to download huge files of lists to filter
    through and check to see if what they don't like or do like fits my
    personal values. I believe on a more hands on approach. I do not and
    will not say your ways is wrong. If I say I don't understand it it is
    for the gaining of knowledge not a belittlement.
    caver1

  2. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Keep in mind that all of these writings were originally written by a bunch of people who wanted to control others and make some money.  And the ones who originally believed this stuff wanted to be controlled out of fear and were easily led.  That is why they say a fool parts with his money.

    caver1 wrote: Wes Groleau wrote:
    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.



    Okay but me me stating that I don't understand why someone would do that is not disrespectful its a lack of understanding.
    Then when someone else steps in and accuses anyone who would do such a thing of mind washing their children, then it just went from there. All I was pointing out is that they do not own rightness and they need to show respect. Only close minded people refuse to accept that other people have a right to live their life the way they see fit and in that science and faith are not exclusive of each other except in the close minded. Which are on both sides of the issue. Then others decided top take a word out here and a word out there and say I was saying something else.
    Personally I don't have time to download huge files of lists to filter through and check to see if what they don't like or do like fits my personal values. I believe on a more hands on approach. I do not and will not say your ways is wrong. If I say I don't understand it it is for the gaining of knowledge not a belittlement.
    caver1

  3. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:58:20 -0400, caver1 wrote:

    >>> And another thing, the rules did not change 2000 years ago. stonerfish

    >
    >
    > Nobody said they did. To what are you Refering?


    Many feel that you must accept jesus as your savior if you want to get to
    heaven. Supposedly that guy was born about 2000 years ago. So before
    his birth the rules to get into heaven were different than after his
    life.

    stonerfish

  4. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    jellybean stonerfish wrote:
    > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:58:20 -0400, caver1 wrote:
    >
    >>>> And another thing, the rules did not change 2000 years ago. stonerfish

    >>
    >> Nobody said they did. To what are you Refering?

    >
    > Many feel that you must accept jesus as your savior if you want to get to
    > heaven. Supposedly that guy was born about 2000 years ago. So before
    > his birth the rules to get into heaven were different than after his
    > life.
    >
    > stonerfish




    Okay. I see where you are coming from. :0
    caver1

  5. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On 2008-04-11, caver1 wrote:
    > Joe wrote:
    >> On 2008-04-10, caver1 wrote:
    >>> Joe wrote:
    >>>> On 2008-04-09, caver1 wrote:
    >>>>> The stsrt point is the same - faith.
    >>>>> Think about it.
    >>>>> In the beginning there was void, nothingness. Where did everything come
    >>>>> from? God made it.
    >>>>> or
    >>>>> In the beginning there was nothing a void. then all of a sudden there
    >>>>> was a Big Bang and everything was made-by chance.
    >>>>> where was everything before either of these? both sides put their
    >>>>> faith in everything was made from nothing.
    >>>>> They are only mutually exclusive in the close minded.
    >>>> No, Science does not say that everything came from nothing. Science
    >>>> says that something was always there. A small piece of that something
    >>>> was a black hole. That black hole collapsed on it's singularity. The
    >>>> singularity exploded, and produced our known universe.
    >>>
    >>> Basically the start point is the same. Christian belief states that
    >>> there was no beginning. So It depends on where you put your faith.
    >>>

    >>
    >> No, not true in the least. Christian belief states that the beginning
    >> is when God says it was. The 6 days of creation, and the day of rest.
    >> Before that, there was nothing but God, who was always there. That is
    >> a bit different.

    >
    >
    >
    > Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth......
    >
    > It wasn't until after that that the 6 days,however you want to interpret
    > the length of them, began. The 6 periods talk about his creation on
    > earth not the creation of.
    >


    It doesn't matter. There still is a beginning, created by God. It
    being before the first day of "creation" is meaningless, it wasn't
    always there. Only God was.

    >
    >
    >> I do not accuse you of what you think I do, but I do accuse you of a
    >> lack of understanding, and in all probability, your understanding
    >> lacks on both sides of the aisle.
    >>
    >> You may want to take that as an insult, and you shouldn't. It is mere
    >> statement of what you present here. Perhaps you are trying to spread
    >> your argument too thin to try to make it work, but in reality, Science
    >> requires no faith. The entire foundation of religion is faith.
    >> Nowhere near the same thing.

    >
    >
    >
    > As those fighting against religious faith, or faith in God, or whatever
    > you want to call it. Yes they do have a faith. they have a faith that
    > there is no God. They have no proof. That is a faith.
    >


    Again, you show a lack of understanding of the scientific method, or
    of how "proof" works. It is impossible to prove a negative. Science
    does not say there is no God. Science says there is no evidence of
    God. That is a different thing, but you seem unable or unwilling to
    comprehend that...

    >
    >> You are unlikely to tell me anything that will change that statement.
    >> I studied for 4 years at a Jesuit College. I spent a lot of time
    >> studying several religions, including the one that I participated in
    >> at the time (Catholosizm). I am a confirmed Catholic, and now I am an
    >> Atheist simply because of what I learned of religion. I am not a
    >> scientist (I am a computer geek at the core), but I do spend a bit of
    >> time reading the works of some of the better popular physicists out
    >> there, and have a slightly better than layman understanding from that
    >> angle, as well. I am not arguing with you to put down your ideas or
    >> beliefs, but simply to point out your mis-statements.

    >
    >
    > I was not and have not put out what I believe. You will never be able to
    > tell by what I have written here. I stayed vague, which was a mistake,
    > to stay away from one side or the other. What I was trying to point out
    > that ones that do not believe the way you do do not have the right to
    > degrade you or your beliefs. And it is done on both sides.


    You satyed vague, but you also said some patently false things. I
    never attacked your "beliefs", but you certainly have taken it that
    way, which may say more about your beliefs than you would be willing
    to...

    > That is what was happening to the OP look at the beginning of the thread.
    > No matter what you put down as to what you think the truth is someone is
    > going to disagree with you so I was trying to stay away from that.
    >


    You cannot disagree with Truth. It just is. You can disagree with
    beliefs. And that is an important part of civilized society. The
    problem is that you are reading any discourse as an attack. There is
    no need for that.


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  6. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On 2008-04-11, caver1 wrote:
    > Joe wrote:
    >> On 2008-04-10, caver1 wrote:
    >>> Joe wrote:
    >>>> On 2008-04-09, caver1 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Here is where you are jumping to conclusions. Where did I ever say God
    >>>>> exists?
    >>>>> There are equally closed minds on both sides.
    >>>>> Both say that everything came from nothing.
    >>>>> Even Quantum mechanics.
    >>>>> Every one says the size of the Universe is impossible for the human mind
    >>>>> to comprehend. Try imagining nothing thats even harder.
    >>>>> Both sides rely on a certain amount of faith.
    >>>>> It is a little mind that belittles someone for their beliefs. And
    >>>>> neither side is free of that little mindedness.
    >>>> No, science does not rely on faith, nor does it state that everything
    >>>> came from nothing. Science is a search. It starts with the
    >>>> understanding that we do not know everything, and works towards
    >>>> figuring out as much as we can in a search for knowledge.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> No that is where the close minded on the religious side are wrong. Even
    >>> the truly opened minded of the religious know that not everything is known.
    >>>

    >>
    >> 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.
    >> They may try to fudge it a bit to fit more with reality by saying that
    >> God's 6 days are like millions to us, but they still use that story as
    >> the be all and end all. The "zealots" will claim that all of science>
    >> is a lie and that the history of the world only encompasses the last
    >> 6000 years...

    >
    >
    >
    > That is not true if you go through the gambit of different "Christian"
    > religions there are many interpretations as to the length of those days.
    > Only the closed minded "faithful" knows how everything was created. A
    > God in the Bible does not say how just that he did.


    I guess you are just hard of reading. The how is "God created it".
    There needs to be no other how for religion.

    >
    >
    >>>> Religion starts out by assuming that we do know everything. Anything
    >>>> that we don't have a rational answer for, we just lump into "God made
    >>>> it", and whammo - simple explanation. The two are mutually exclusive,
    >>>> and only one of them is closed-minded.
    >>> If you follow the what I call the non-zealot creationists,for lack of a
    >>> better term, They state that God did create everything but they do not
    >>> know how as God never said.

    >
    >
    >
    > The Bible states that God knows everything and Man will never know as
    > much as God. Your above statement is once again the close minded.
    >


    Ummm, you are replying to your own comment...

    I know what the bible states. To Science, you start out without the
    assumption of a supreme being, thus all knowledge is fair game. We'll
    never know everything, but we'll have fun trying.

    >
    >> They know exactly how. He waved his hands, and it was there. They
    >> have no thirst for further knowledge. God said "let there be light"
    >> and there was. The core of religion is faith in that myth, or others
    >> much like it for systems other than Jewish/Christian. The core of
    >> science is a thirst for understanding of those things that we do not
    >> know now.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> Hell, Science does not even insist that there is no "creator". That
    >>>> is always the possibility. It may just turn out that it is the
    >>>> eventual answer. The difference is that science will not get there
    >>>> without proof. For religion, no proof is needed, and no lack of proof
    >>>> will ever be enough to dissuade.

    >
    >
    >
    > But many "Zealots" do say there is no God and lamb bast those that
    > believe in God. Look at the beginning of this thread.
    > Those do have a faith that there is no God as they have no proof.
    > Only the close minded need no proof
    >


    No, you are missing the entire point of science again. Without proof,
    nothing exists. It is not closed-minded. It is the epitome of
    open-mindedness. You show me evidence of God, I'll believe there is a
    chance he exists. You show more evidence, I'll believe more. Without
    any evidence, he simply isn't there. Science does not work to
    disprove God. There is no need, nor is it possible.

    >
    >
    >
    >>> But many anti religious, science faithful( for lack of a better term) do
    >>> say there was no creator.

    >>
    >> No, they do not. They say that there is no evidence of a creator.
    >> That is much different.

    >
    >
    > Look at the beginng of this thread to those who accuse the one who want
    > Christian parental blocking of brainwashing his kids and there is no God.
    > I did not say all. This is true of both sides. The open minded say there
    > is no proof and leave the others alone.
    >


    It is simply because you do not understand. You want to read
    intentions into people's words when there is none. Until there is
    proof of God, to an Atheist, there is no God.

    >
    > It is impossible to prove a negative in the
    >> world of science. You cannot prove that something never existed.
    >> What you can do, though, is look for evidence of the positive, and
    >> report the lack thereof. It is true that to many in the world of
    >> Science, the religious are looked upon with comedic scorn. The reason
    >> is not that they are saying that there is no God. The reason is more
    >> that they find it amazing that someone would put the whole basis of
    >> their life on something that they have no evidence to show that it
    >> exists.

    >
    >
    > That gives them no reason to degrade them for that. Just as it gives the
    > close minded religious "zealots" do do the same.
    >


    In many cases, it does. Religion can be more than just a "way". It
    can be a very dangerous vehicle. It can be the word that tells you to
    love thy neighbor, or it can be the word that tells you to take 14
    year old wives, by force, rape them, and beat them if they object.
    And it can tell those 14 year olds that they are evil if they tell.
    Even the mainstream religious will look on that "cult" with scorn, but
    they feel victimized when people look at them the same way.

    >
    >>> My point here is At this point there is no ultimate proof either way. So
    >>> any on either side can denigrate the other for their faith and this
    >>> discussion has proven a point that most on either side are very closed
    >>> minded.

    >>
    >> There can be no proof that there is no God (or anything else for that
    >> matter). Your view is wrong, though. You are calling people closed
    >> minded when that is the furthest thing from the truth. Their argument
    >> has always been that without proof, there is no point in belief.

    >
    >
    > That is where you can only decide that for yourself. As that can always
    > be turned the other way. For lack of evidence that God does not exist
    > how can you not believe?


    Because logic dictates that you do not believe in anything without
    proof...

    > The point of what I was trying to make was not if one side is right or
    > wrong but neither side has the right to lamb bast the others beliefs as
    > they were doing in the beginning of this thread.
    > I tried to stay vague as to certain specifics as I didn't want to get
    > into that type of debate. I made a mistake as many here focused in on
    > one or two words insted of the complete statement. No where in here did
    > I say if I believed in God or not nor will I.
    > Religion has its place science has its place and they do not have to be
    > mutual exclusive. Only in the close minded on both sides are they.
    > And I do believe what you said said the same.
    >


    I'm not even sure what you are saying...

    >
    >
    >>
    >> And let's face it, Religion has always made Science the enemy.
    >> Scientists have been burned as witches, excommunicated, imprisoned or
    >> tortured for saying things (with evidence) that didn't fit into the
    >> bible. When the Church said that the Earth was the center of the
    >> Univers, Galileo was not treated very well for proving otherwise...

    >
    >
    >
    > True Galileo was open minded the religious leaders of his time were not
    > they refused to listen. Even the Bible states that all false religion
    > will be destroyed. I do not want to get into that as there are many
    > definitions as to the meaning of false.
    >
    >
    >
    >> Now how many scientists have tortured or killed Priests for having a
    >> different point of view?

    >
    >
    >
    > It happens today. Not to the extremes of the past. But if you do not
    > take your research in a certain direction you will not get funding.


    What does that have to do with what I asked?

    It does not happen today. Not in any way. Scientists do not torture
    or kill priests for having a different point of view.

    > I am not making excuses. The whole course of human history has been one
    > cruelty on man brought on by another man. Religious or not. There have
    > been many holy wars, the Crusades amongst others. There have been an
    > equal amount of non religious wars, Civil wars amongst others.
    > It is only the closed minded that tries to put all the wrongs on the
    > other side. We are all human and deserve respect on that account.


    There have been very few non-religious wars. Even most civil wars are
    started on religious grounds. Not all, of course. Some are
    completely political in nature (including the American civil war).
    But religion has played a very large part in the majority of the wars,
    expecially in the last 2000 years.

    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  7. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > : Cork Soaker, not even a valid name.
    >
    > PMSL. Ok.



    No, NOT OK!

    PMSL is not a word, therefore conveys no knowledge.

    But that is your usual spew isn't it?

    --
    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.

  8. 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.



    There you go again, using "everyone" when you don't have a clue.

    I love watching you demonstrate you ignorance.

    You should consider pulling out the cork, and soaking your head.


    --
    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

    On 2008-04-11, caver1 wrote:
    > Joe wrote:
    >> On 2008-04-10, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >>> "caver1" wrote in message
    >>> news:47fd375e$0$6155$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
    >>> : Cork Soaker wrote:
    >>> : > : In the beginning there was nothing a void. then all of a sudden there
    >>> : > : was a Big Bang and everything was made-by chance.
    >>> : > : where was everything before either of these? both sides put their
    >>> : > : faith in everything was made from nothing.
    >>> : > : They are only mutually exclusive in the close minded.
    >>> : >
    >>> : >
    >>> : > Haven't read much Quantum Theory have you?
    >>> : >
    >>> : >
    >>> :
    >>> :
    >>> : Even Quantum only goes back so far.
    >>>
    >>> You've pretty much proved my point there.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> 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 agree. Or it may just add many more questions. we do not know that and
    > anyone that says otherwise is showing their faith.
    > I never said that scientific faith was wrong just that is was there.
    > I may not know as much about Quantum Mechanics as you. Who knows. I
    > drive my family and my friends nuts trying to stay on top of these
    > things. I know what Quantum is.


    You know what Quantum means, you clearly do not understand what it is.

    > But at the same time just because Quantum theory exists does that give
    > the right to belittle someone for their beliefs just because they have
    > them. Once again read the whole thread.


    I have. You have been saying things from the beginning that make
    little to no logical sense...

    > Then again Science has always maintained that it takes many millions of
    > years to make a planet, yet just the other day the claim to have found a
    > planet that did no exist 2000 years ago. How many new questions does
    > that bring up.


    Science has not said (at least in the past 100 years) that it takes
    millions of years to make a planet. A Planet only takes seconds to be
    created. It takes millions of years for life to evolve on a planet to
    the point where we are.

    > I have always taught my kids to always look for the truth stay curious.
    > Never go to one source for your information for that is dangerous.
    > But always show respect for the other person regardless of their beliefs.
    > The posters at the beginning of this thread did not do that. Many on
    > both sides do not show respect for the other.


    Some beliefs do not deserve respect, nor do some people. I do not
    respect anyone who feels it is important to kill others in support of
    ther religious beliefs. But many religious sects do believe that this
    is necessary. I also do not respect any person that has not earned
    it.



    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  10. 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 ****.



    If it is so boring for you, why do you participate? Why don't you plonk
    me, or unsubscribe from this group, and go find something exciting that
    you prefer to do?

    Perhaps puking your rant in your Windows groups is your preference.


    --
    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.

  11. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "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?



    Absolutely!

    I do not hunt and pick just to use what I personally approve.

    I am not God.

    --
    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.

  12. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On 2008-04-11, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >: 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.
    >
    >


    Me, too. I am just hoping that Hawking lives long enough to see it,
    as well. It is basically a proof of his life's work. His condition
    has gotten pretty damned bad. Though he is still teaching, he is
    nearly completely paralyzed...


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  13. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On 2008-04-11, Wes Groleau wrote:
    > 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" ?
    >


    I already have. Genesis. God created the...

    If you have faith in God and belief in the Bible, what more do you
    need?

    Without faith, you can never have enough information. With faith,
    you'll never need any more information...


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  14. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    snip

    It doesn't matter. There still is a beginning, created by God. It being before the first day of "creation" is meaningless, it wasn't always there. Only God was.


    Anybody who believes in God in not really capable of believing in God.  Here is why.

    Until a person can grasp the concept of something that has no beginning and has no end they cannot begin to understand the concept of God.  So they can only think they believe in something they are incapable of understanding.

    Linux 2.4.22 of the newest testies.




    snip

  15. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Moog wrote:
    > 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.
    >



    Don't believe or follow "religions" Moog. That is where the problem
    lies. "Religions" are man's twisting, with a lot of help from the devil.

    If you want to "argue" with yourself about what God wants, then read His
    book, the Bible, and see for yourself what He expects and promises.

    But until you are ready to really want to know the truth, you won't
    recognize it without the Holy Spirit to guide you. His help is free; all
    you need to do is ask. Do so inside your closet so nobody else will know
    and be tempted to laugh at you.

    You *will* discover because God said: Knock and the door will be opened.
    Seek and you shall find. Ask and you shall be forgiven.

    That idea is found in many places in the Bible. Evidentially God really
    wanted us to know it. ;-)


    > 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?
    >



    Great question.

    We don't "know." We only "believe" based on data using methods we
    presently have at our disposal.

    Many years ago we didn't even have methods to determine age. Many years
    from now we may have better methods.

    Someday we will definitely know for sure.


    > 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 either "right"?

    When you get down to the nitty-gritty, who really cares?

    I'm more interested on how old my clothes, shoes, and now, the
    apparently defective sump pump is.

    If it were 3.5M to 4.55G years, would it make any difference when
    comparing the Biblical view of Creation? There would still be scoffers.


    > 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.
    >



    Well, here's the whole answer (I posted it in another message): The
    Bible gives no age of the earth, or when it was created, other than
    referring to "days." We don't really know what "days" mean, since the
    sun wasn't created until day #4, and that is our current basis on the
    length of a day and year. We even "adjust" the computed results of the
    half-life of Cesium to make it fit into our understanding of a "day."

    Someone on Venus or α Betelgeuse would certainly have a totally
    different point of view in such an argument. In fact, nowhere in the
    Bible does God tell us that Earth is His only Creation. Science is kind
    of leaning to life elsewhere, and the Bible has no answer, except what
    God wanted us to know -- with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

    Other humans have tried to date Creation by using the ages of the old
    timers, but who knows whether there were many other generations that
    were not significant enough to tally?

    Again, God told us all we need.

    Isn't Satan the one who always tries to tell us additional stuff? Didn't
    he even try to con Jesus in the Wilderness?

    Now consider what I said about the someone's viewpoint from Venus or α
    Betelgeuse. Would we not have the same problem trying to get a
    non-Christian to "see" what a Christian sees? Or understand it?

    Paul gave us the lesson in 1Corinthians:

    18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
    perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For
    it is written:
    "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

    20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher
    of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For
    since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know
    him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to
    save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look
    for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews
    and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both
    Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For
    the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of
    God is stronger than man's strength.

    There is a lot of wisdom there. Many of my years went by before I
    started understanding it. Actually, I was 40, and I often say it was my
    wandering in the wilderness, lost, for forty years, just like Moses and
    crew. That's how long I took to be "cleansed" of my really bad wickedness.


    > I've got a headache.
    >
    > Anyone got any aspirin?



    Watch out for bleeding ulcers. They nearly killed me in 2003 when I took
    aspirin regularly for headaches. Funny, the daily headaches disappeared
    when I retired! ;-)

    --
    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.

  16. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    John F. Morse illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > Moog wrote:
    >> 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.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Don't believe or follow "religions" Moog. That is where the problem
    > lies. "Religions" are man's twisting, with a lot of help from the devil.


    But they are based on the workings of one book or a number of beliefs
    spanning back through the centuries, sometimes millennia.

    Perhaps one of them has stumbled on the right interpretation. Perhaps
    not.

    > If you want to "argue" with yourself about what God wants, then read His
    > book, the Bible, and see for yourself what He expects and promises.


    I've read it. I was devoutly Christian as a child. Age has taken the
    edge off this, and only the pertinent morality remains as a guideline.
    There are too many questions and not enough answers for me to take the
    thing seriously and *far*, *far* too many metaphors and analogies.
    That's just me though, my opinion. I feel no need to argue with anyone
    about it.

    > But until you are ready to really want to know the truth, you won't
    > recognize it without the Holy Spirit to guide you. His help is free; all
    > you need to do is ask. Do so inside your closet so nobody else will know
    > and be tempted to laugh at you.


    Hmmm. Been there, done that. I don't care what others think, just the
    thoughts of myself. I do listen to others with an open mind though.

    > You *will* discover because God said: Knock and the door will be opened.
    > Seek and you shall find. Ask and you shall be forgiven.
    >
    > That idea is found in many places in the Bible. Evidentially God really
    > wanted us to know it. ;-)


    For me though, the bible was always a tome designed to keep us meek.
    In fact, many minds greater than mine have argued that it is simply
    another Hans Christian Anderson or Aesops Fables, but with a more
    pertinent "raison d'etre". The book is there to preserve the status
    quo. To keep humble folk from revolting and simply accepting their
    lot.

    I don't neccessarily believe the above, but the more I see of
    religion, the more I think there may be something in it.

    >> 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?
    >>

    >
    >
    > Great question.
    >
    > We don't "know." We only "believe" based on data using methods we
    > presently have at our disposal.
    >
    > Many years ago we didn't even have methods to determine age. Many years
    > from now we may have better methods.
    >
    > Someday we will definitely know for sure.


    Yup. I'd agree with that, although the carbon dating method is likely
    to be accurate. Don't scientists give it a +/- 1% accuracy rate.

    >> 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 either "right"?
    >
    > When you get down to the nitty-gritty, who really cares?


    Me. I think it's quite comforting to know that we have understanding
    regarding this lump of rock we currently reside on. Dating and
    creation proof is ultimately fascinating for me and I have quite a bit
    of interest in the development of the theory and fact.

    > I'm more interested on how old my clothes, shoes, and now, the
    > apparently defective sump pump is.


    Heh. My boots are two years old and running well. The best set of
    boots I've ever purchased BTW. Caterpillar branded.

    > If it were 3.5M to 4.55G years, would it make any difference when
    > comparing the Biblical view of Creation? There would still be scoffers.


    That's the problem. People do have a limited scope. They believe in
    one thing and instantly discount anything at odds with that.

    >> 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.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Well, here's the whole answer (I posted it in another message): The
    > Bible gives no age of the earth, or when it was created, other than
    > referring to "days." We don't really know what "days" mean, since the
    > sun wasn't created until day #4, and that is our current basis on the
    > length of a day and year. We even "adjust" the computed results of the
    > half-life of Cesium to make it fit into our understanding of a "day."
    >
    > Someone on Venus or α Betelgeuse would certainly have a totally
    > different point of view in such an argument. In fact, nowhere in the
    > Bible does God tell us that Earth is His only Creation. Science is kind
    > of leaning to life elsewhere, and the Bible has no answer, except what
    > God wanted us to know -- with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
    >
    > Other humans have tried to date Creation by using the ages of the old
    > timers, but who knows whether there were many other generations that
    > were not significant enough to tally?
    >
    > Again, God told us all we need.


    Hmmm...

    So. What you are saying is that creationism and christianity (that is what
    we are talking about) are not neccessarily mutually exclusive.

    God's "days" may well have been 800,000 years long?

    > Isn't Satan the one who always tries to tell us additional stuff? Didn't
    > he even try to con Jesus in the Wilderness?
    >
    > Now consider what I said about the someone's viewpoint from Venus or α
    > Betelgeuse. Would we not have the same problem trying to get a
    > non-Christian to "see" what a Christian sees? Or understand it?
    >
    > Paul gave us the lesson in 1Corinthians:
    >
    > 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
    > perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For
    > it is written:
    > "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    > the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."


    Heh. He's certainly succeeding, assuming I can be classed as
    intelligent or wise. ;-)

    > 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher
    > of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For
    > since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know
    > him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to
    > save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look
    > for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews
    > and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both
    > Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For
    > the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of
    > God is stronger than man's strength.
    >
    > There is a lot of wisdom there. Many of my years went by before I
    > started understanding it. Actually, I was 40, and I often say it was my
    > wandering in the wilderness, lost, for forty years, just like Moses and
    > crew. That's how long I took to be "cleansed" of my really bad wickedness.


    Aaah. Right John,
    I assume that you don't think that others are "wicked" who have drawn
    slightly different conclusions than yourself.
    I mean, let's say I am inquisitive. I have an open mind. I read and
    digest and attempt to understand.
    However, I then believe in ermmm....hinduism.

    Does that make me "wicked"?

    >> I've got a headache.
    >>
    >> Anyone got any aspirin?

    >
    >
    > Watch out for bleeding ulcers. They nearly killed me in 2003 when I took
    > aspirin regularly for headaches. Funny, the daily headaches disappeared
    > when I retired! ;-)


    Ouch. I'll take that under advisement. Perhaps Paracetamol would be
    the senisble option?

    --
    Moog

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

  17. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Moog wrote:
    > John F. Morse illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >
    >> Moog wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Don't believe or follow "religions" Moog. That is where the problem
    >> lies. "Religions" are man's twisting, with a lot of help from the devil.
    >>

    >
    > But they are based on the workings of one book or a number of beliefs
    > spanning back through the centuries, sometimes millennia.
    >
    > Perhaps one of them has stumbled on the right interpretation. Perhaps
    > not.
    >



    That is the problem in a nutshell.

    Even the Catholic "religion" -- er, let me say "Catholic religion"
    because that is exactly what it is, doesn't base all of its beliefs on
    the Bible. They pick and choose, like most any "religion."

    Like you say, this picking and choosing goes back many millennia, but
    Christianity goes back to Jesus, less that 2000 years because of this
    reference:

    Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a
    whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great
    numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

    That explanation is for the "right interpretation" as you stated, of
    what the Bible is saying. IOW, we both speak English, so why don't we agree.

    For a discussion of whether various manuscripts are interpreted "right"
    or not from their original tongues, I'd suggest a study of publications
    like the scientific Biblical Archeology Review.
    http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/indexBAR.asp

    There are tons of other books that explain the various methods of
    translation, and how the Bible as we know it has not changed through the
    millennia. Of course to see and understand this, someone needs to be
    familiar with the Bible and these other publications.


    >> If you want to "argue" with yourself about what God wants, then read His
    >> book, the Bible, and see for yourself what He expects and promises.
    >>

    >
    > I've read it. I was devoutly Christian as a child. Age has taken the
    > edge off this, and only the pertinent morality remains as a guideline.
    > There are too many questions and not enough answers for me to take the
    > thing seriously and *far*, *far* too many metaphors and analogies.
    > That's just me though, my opinion. I feel no need to argue with anyone
    > about it.
    >



    I was a child Christian too. Sunday School every week with my Ordained
    Baptist Minister grandpa. When he died I was around 10. My life slowly
    went downhill, and my face was never seen inside a church building from
    1955 until 1987, except for a couple of weddings.

    Going back to church didn't really help me, but my own initiative,
    taking on a year's physical scientific study of bibles (plural) and how
    they came about, mainly so I would know whether what I would be reading
    was truth of false writings, led me into heavier studies in the
    theological scientific realm.

    Both fields are fascinating.

    I found Bible study a good place to grow, as people would discuss the
    Bible. As the years progressed, and I grew in my personal relationship
    with Jesus, I started backing off from "organized religion" which was
    church attendance. Small home meetings for Bible study are more to my
    liking, if I could just overcome some of my physical problems and get
    out to them.


    >> But until you are ready to really want to know the truth, you won't
    >> recognize it without the Holy Spirit to guide you. His help is free; all
    >> you need to do is ask. Do so inside your closet so nobody else will know
    >> and be tempted to laugh at you.
    >>

    >
    > Hmmm. Been there, done that. I don't care what others think, just the
    > thoughts of myself. I do listen to others with an open mind though.
    >



    You are like me, Moog. Little or no political correctness, but certainly
    to the point in the best method we can find.

    When I believe something is right, and people don't seem to want to
    learn, and instead turn down some other road off the topic, I can get
    mighty hot, jump up and down, and even hurl insults with the best of
    'em. I shouldn't, but I'm only a human sinner, like everybody else. At
    least I am forgiven by the One Who really counts.


    >> You *will* discover because God said: Knock and the door will be opened.
    >> Seek and you shall find. Ask and you shall be forgiven.
    >>
    >> That idea is found in many places in the Bible. Evidentially God really
    >> wanted us to know it. ;-)
    >>

    >
    > For me though, the bible was always a tome designed to keep us meek.
    > In fact, many minds greater than mine have argued that it is simply
    > another Hans Christian Anderson or Aesops Fables, but with a more
    > pertinent "raison d'etre". The book is there to preserve the status
    > quo. To keep humble folk from revolting and simply accepting their
    > lot.
    >
    > I don't neccessarily believe the above, but the more I see of
    > religion, the more I think there may be something in it.
    >



    My take is the Bible is God's Word, and God is love. He wants us with
    Him -- fellowship -- that is why He created mankind in the beginning.

    Maybe he was lonely? After all, what's the point of being God if there
    are no "subjects" or however you would label us? Nothing but angels
    flapping their wings all day. ;-)

    But I don't see any real intent to keep us meek, other than those first
    five commandments, which were designed to show Him respect. The second
    five were for us to show ourselves respect.

    All ten together, and every other commandment and law, were given to
    show us we could not follow them no matter how hard we tried, and that
    we would require the Savior to pardon us. The Savior, Jesus, God's son,
    freely given to us as a gift to accept as our "get out of jail free
    card," or reject and suffer the consequences.

    Notice that we are not required to do any works whatsoever. Only faith
    is necessary.

    That is the Message, and I can't understand why so many people always
    look at God's Word as something to avoid.


    >>> 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?
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Great question.
    >>
    >> We don't "know." We only "believe" based on data using methods we
    >> presently have at our disposal.
    >>
    >> Many years ago we didn't even have methods to determine age. Many years
    >> from now we may have better methods.
    >>
    >> Someday we will definitely know for sure.
    >>

    >
    > Yup. I'd agree with that, although the carbon dating method is likely
    > to be accurate. Don't scientists give it a +/- 1% accuracy rate.



    I don't know, but what do they know? ;-) They are using their
    accumulated knowledge, which does have some flaws (they are never
    perfect). It resides somewhere between theory and hypotheses, and far
    from fact since nobody has lived long enough to come forward and swear
    it is correct.

    Could the half-life of carbon have changed over the millennia? Time is
    only a relative measurement anyway, and not a hard fact.

    I remember how long the day seemed when I was 3-5 years old. Get up at
    dawn. Eat breakfast. Play all morning. Eat lunch. Take a nap. Play all
    afternoon. Eat supper. Play until the streetlight came on. Etc. Now, it
    seems my day is get up and go to sleep. I don't know if Albert Einstein
    had a handle on relativity or not.

    Then there were many thousands of people who personally were with or
    heard Jesus, and testified of this. No fakery could have survived even
    into A.D. 100. No human is smart enough to pull the wool down over
    everybody's eyes.

    Furthermore, don't you think if God had gone to all of this trouble,
    sacrificed his Son so we could someday join Him, he wouldn't also have
    protected His Word in the Bible? Even when Satan tried three times to
    tempt Jesus, the written Word was mentioned by Jesus because the devil
    knew of it, and was aware.

    Jesus didn't argue with Satan. He only pointed out what God had already
    written (by telling the scribes to write, like a boss tells their
    secretary).

    2 Timothy 3:15-17 -- 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy
    Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith
    in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
    teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that
    the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

    Also Isiah 40:8 states: "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the
    word of our God stands forever."

    And now for the Temptation story. You may remember it from your childhood.

    Matthew 4

    The Temptation of Jesus

    1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the
    devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The
    tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these
    stones to become bread."

    4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone,
    but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

    5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the
    highest point of the temple. 6 "If you are the Son of God," he said,
    "throw yourself down. For it is written:
    " 'He will command his angels concerning you,
    and they will lift you up in their hands,
    so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

    7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your
    God to the test.'"

    8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all
    the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 "All this I will give
    you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

    10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship
    the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

    11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.


    >>> 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 either "right"?
    >>
    >> When you get down to the nitty-gritty, who really cares?
    >>

    >
    > Me. I think it's quite comforting to know that we have understanding
    > regarding this lump of rock we currently reside on. Dating and
    > creation proof is ultimately fascinating for me and I have quite a bit
    > of interest in the development of the theory and fact.
    >



    Yes, I do to. But I don't let this curiosity get in the way of what I
    consider a higher calling. Priorities are important, and sometimes I get
    a few out of sequence.

    What I mean by "who cares" is relative to discussing when the Earth was
    created, in comparison of whether it was 6000 years ago or six billion
    (milliard).

    My geological studies a few years back taught me to leave the door open
    very widely. Time is relative, and I don't know if it is speeding up, or
    slowing down. All I know is the important thing is I'm at the station
    when the train arrives.


    >> I'm more interested on how old my clothes, shoes, and now, the
    >> apparently defective sump pump is.
    >>

    >
    > Heh. My boots are two years old and running well. The best set of
    > boots I've ever purchased BTW. Caterpillar branded.



    My last pair of shoes were purchased in 2004. They are the only pair I
    own except the old Nike running shoes that I wore for 2.5 years when I
    worked in a machine shop. Can you imagine what 2.5 years of walking on
    aluminum chips from a vertical machining center, lathe, etc., can do to
    rubber soles? And dragging a filthy air hose across the top?

    I can still wear them for dirty jobs around the house, but wouldn't want
    to be seen in public in them. People would think I must live under an
    overpass.


    >> If it were 3.5M to 4.55G years, would it make any difference when
    >> comparing the Biblical view of Creation? There would still be scoffers.
    >>

    >
    > That's the problem. People do have a limited scope. They believe in
    > one thing and instantly discount anything at odds with that.
    >



    Bingo! Familiarity. Can you say "Windows" as a prime example? ;-)


    >>> 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.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Well, here's the whole answer (I posted it in another message): The
    >> Bible gives no age of the earth, or when it was created, other than
    >> referring to "days." We don't really know what "days" mean, since the
    >> sun wasn't created until day #4, and that is our current basis on the
    >> length of a day and year. We even "adjust" the computed results of the
    >> half-life of Cesium to make it fit into our understanding of a "day."
    >>
    >> Someone on Venus or α Betelgeuse would certainly have a totally
    >> different point of view in such an argument. In fact, nowhere in the
    >> Bible does God tell us that Earth is His only Creation. Science is kind
    >> of leaning to life elsewhere, and the Bible has no answer, except what
    >> God wanted us to know -- with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
    >>
    >> Other humans have tried to date Creation by using the ages of the old
    >> timers, but who knows whether there were many other generations that
    >> were not significant enough to tally?
    >>
    >> Again, God told us all we need.
    >>

    >
    > Hmmm...
    >
    > So. What you are saying is that creationism and christianity (that is what
    > we are talking about) are not neccessarily mutually exclusive.
    >
    > God's "days" may well have been 800,000 years long?
    >



    Who knows? It is only important for people like you and maybe me, who
    like to dabble in these things concerning archeology. That would be what
    I'd consider as "creationism."

    It has no bearing on the Real Message: We all sin and need Jesus. That
    is about as direct and digested as I can put it, and this would be what
    I'd call "Christianity."

    I think they both can coexist (well, in reality they do), so "mutual
    exclusive" as I understand the term, probably wouldn't apply. IOW, you
    can and do have both. Am I clear about your question here?


    >> Isn't Satan the one who always tries to tell us additional stuff? Didn't
    >> he even try to con Jesus in the Wilderness?
    >>
    >> Now consider what I said about the someone's viewpoint from Venus or α
    >> Betelgeuse. Would we not have the same problem trying to get a
    >> non-Christian to "see" what a Christian sees? Or understand it?
    >>
    >> Paul gave us the lesson in 1Corinthians:
    >>
    >> 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
    >> perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For
    >> it is written:
    >> "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    >> the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
    >>

    >
    > Heh. He's certainly succeeding, assuming I can be classed as
    > intelligent or wise. ;-)
    >



    Sometimes those with a lot of intelligence are the easiest to "fool."
    Notice I said "fool" because I know often times an intelligent person
    will just cruise along and possibly drop his guard. His mind is full of
    known facts, maybe mathematical stuff, so something weird may be overlooked.

    Check out Solomon, who was considered to be brilliant. He had how many
    wives and concubines? A thousand? Could you put up with 1000 wimmin in
    your house?! ;-)


    >> 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher
    >> of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For
    >> since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know
    >> him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to
    >> save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look
    >> for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews
    >> and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both
    >> Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For
    >> the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of
    >> God is stronger than man's strength.
    >>
    >> There is a lot of wisdom there. Many of my years went by before I
    >> started understanding it. Actually, I was 40, and I often say it was my
    >> wandering in the wilderness, lost, for forty years, just like Moses and
    >> crew. That's how long I took to be "cleansed" of my really bad wickedness.
    >>

    >
    > Aaah. Right John,
    > I assume that you don't think that others are "wicked" who have drawn
    > slightly different conclusions than yourself.
    > I mean, let's say I am inquisitive. I have an open mind. I read and
    > digest and attempt to understand.
    > However, I then believe in ermmm....hinduism.
    >
    > Does that make me "wicked"?
    >



    Not at all. To be "wicked" you would have to do despicable things to
    other people. At least as I understand the word.

    Having another belief only indicates to me that you either haven't yet
    heard about Jesus, or you have heard but reject the Message for some
    reason. The rejection reasons could be anything, but a few might be you
    don't understand the Message, you don't feel you are "good enough" to
    accept the Gift, you despise people who might appear to think they are
    better than you, you'll eventually get around to it but first want to
    have some "fun," etc.

    It's not my job nor desire to judge anyone for their reasons. The Bible
    says my job is to spread the Word.

    Someday, when I'm in Heaven, and "it's" all over, then I'll have the
    horrible job, along with all Christians, to judge the condemned. But it
    isn't going to be a difficult trial simply because all of them actually
    condemned themselves by refusing the gift of eternal life in Heaven.

    God Himself has the job of judging the Christians. We do not judge each
    other, and we of course, have no real way of determining who is and who
    isn't a Christian.

    That Hindu in India, who takes your customer support call, may someday
    find Jesus. I would never take it upon myself to judge him until told to
    do so, and I hope he is not on trial on judgment day.

    For anyone who may wonder about this "Gift" I speak of, here is a simple
    outline on how it all works:

    http://www.lockman.org/misc/salvation.php

    Some may not be ready. Some may never be ready. But I think even a small
    child can understand it. Usually they also accept it because their mind
    is not yet full of other worries, etc.


    >>> I've got a headache.
    >>>
    >>> Anyone got any aspirin?
    >>>

    >> Watch out for bleeding ulcers. They nearly killed me in 2003 when I took
    >> aspirin regularly for headaches. Funny, the daily headaches disappeared
    >> when I retired! ;-)
    >>

    >
    > Ouch. I'll take that under advisement. Perhaps Paracetamol would be
    > the senisble option?



    That might work. Right now my VA doctor has me taking one 325 mg coated
    aspirin per day. The coating protects the stomach lining.

    It is for thinning my blood because I had two stents inserted last May.
    I also take Plavix so there are no sticky platelets to clog up on the
    stents. Plavix can make me bruise easily, and if I get a cut, like
    trimming a fingernail cuticle, I can bleed for hours if I don't apply
    pressure. It's not that I'm bleeding very hard at all, but it can really
    mess up a keyboard, mouse, mousepad, .... More cleanliness aggravation
    than any medical emergency.

    I haven't really experienced any headaches (migraines) since 2004, when
    I stopped working. There was a lot of job stress to get parts milled by
    an always impossible due date, long hours at work (12/6 or worse),
    fluorescent lighting bothering my already-poor eyesight, sinus problems
    all over my head, etc. Since I am free from all of those except the
    sinus stuff, and I'm not frequently leaning over a VMC mill table
    examining some small detail or loading a part, doing tilting actions
    that may cause some of the sinus problems, I'm not suffering.


    --
    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.

  18. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    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.

    >
    > I already have. Genesis. God created the...


    Ah, I see. Communication breakdown.
    We have different definitions of "how." :-)

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Guidelines for judging others:

    1. Don't attribute to malice that which
    can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    2. Don't attribute to stupidity that which
    can be adequately explained by ignorance.

    3. Don't attribute to ignorance that which
    can be adequately explained by misunderstanding.

  19. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Moog wrote:
    > Yup. I'd agree with that, although the carbon dating method is likely
    > to be accurate. Don't scientists give it a +/- 1% accuracy rate.


    Carbon-14 dating relies on certain assumptions that cannot be proven.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Nobody believes a theoretical analysis -- except the guy who did it.
    Everybody believes an experimental analysis -- except the guy who
    did it.
    -- Unknown

  20. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-11, caver1 wrote:
    >> Joe wrote:
    >>> On 2008-04-10, caver1 wrote:
    >>>> Joe wrote:
    >>>>> On 2008-04-09, caver1 wrote:
    >>>>>> The stsrt point is the same - faith.
    >>>>>> Think about it.
    >>>>>> In the beginning there was void, nothingness. Where did everything come
    >>>>>> from? God made it.
    >>>>>> or
    >>>>>> In the beginning there was nothing a void. then all of a sudden there
    >>>>>> was a Big Bang and everything was made-by chance.
    >>>>>> where was everything before either of these? both sides put their
    >>>>>> faith in everything was made from nothing.
    >>>>>> They are only mutually exclusive in the close minded.
    >>>>> No, Science does not say that everything came from nothing. Science
    >>>>> says that something was always there. A small piece of that something
    >>>>> was a black hole. That black hole collapsed on it's singularity. The
    >>>>> singularity exploded, and produced our known universe.
    >>>> Basically the start point is the same. Christian belief states that
    >>>> there was no beginning. So It depends on where you put your faith.
    >>>>
    >>> No, not true in the least. Christian belief states that the beginning
    >>> is when God says it was. The 6 days of creation, and the day of rest.
    >>> Before that, there was nothing but God, who was always there. That is
    >>> a bit different.

    >>
    >>
    >> Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth......
    >>
    >> It wasn't until after that that the 6 days,however you want to interpret
    >> the length of them, began. The 6 periods talk about his creation on
    >> earth not the creation of.
    >>

    >
    > It doesn't matter. There still is a beginning, created by God. It
    > being before the first day of "creation" is meaningless, it wasn't
    > always there. Only God was.
    >
    >>
    >>> I do not accuse you of what you think I do, but I do accuse you of a
    >>> lack of understanding, and in all probability, your understanding
    >>> lacks on both sides of the aisle.
    >>>
    >>> You may want to take that as an insult, and you shouldn't. It is mere
    >>> statement of what you present here. Perhaps you are trying to spread
    >>> your argument too thin to try to make it work, but in reality, Science
    >>> requires no faith. The entire foundation of religion is faith.
    >>> Nowhere near the same thing.

    >>
    >>
    >> As those fighting against religious faith, or faith in God, or whatever
    >> you want to call it. Yes they do have a faith. they have a faith that
    >> there is no God. They have no proof. That is a faith.
    >>

    >
    > Again, you show a lack of understanding of the scientific method, or
    > of how "proof" works. It is impossible to prove a negative. Science
    > does not say there is no God. Science says there is no evidence of
    > God. That is a different thing, but you seem unable or unwilling to
    > comprehend that...



    No you are wrong the ones I was talking to in this thread said there was
    no god and that that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I said
    the closed mined in the scientific community are the ones that say there
    is no God. You get your facts straight. I never said science says there
    is no God.




    >>> You are unlikely to tell me anything that will change that statement.
    >>> I studied for 4 years at a Jesuit College. I spent a lot of time
    >>> studying several religions, including the one that I participated in
    >>> at the time (Catholosizm). I am a confirmed Catholic, and now I am an
    >>> Atheist simply because of what I learned of religion. I am not a
    >>> scientist (I am a computer geek at the core), but I do spend a bit of
    >>> time reading the works of some of the better popular physicists out
    >>> there, and have a slightly better than layman understanding from that
    >>> angle, as well. I am not arguing with you to put down your ideas or
    >>> beliefs, but simply to point out your mis-statements.

    >>
    >> I was not and have not put out what I believe. You will never be able to
    >> tell by what I have written here. I stayed vague, which was a mistake,
    >> to stay away from one side or the other. What I was trying to point out
    >> that ones that do not believe the way you do do not have the right to
    >> degrade you or your beliefs. And it is done on both sides.

    >
    > You satyed vague, but you also said some patently false things. I
    > never attacked your "beliefs", but you certainly have taken it that
    > way, which may say more about your beliefs than you would be willing
    > to...



    No nothing I said was false. I was pointing out the wrongness or
    disrespect of another's beliefs just because you don't agree with them.
    The Op in this thread never stated what his beliefs were but a few
    closed minded in here started hitting his beliefs for what they thought
    they were. For all we know he may have been an atheist that liked what
    he saw of that particular blocking program and was going to change it to
    his need. Nowhere in here Did I say Science was wrong or Religion was
    right. I never took what you said as an attack on me. But I am saying
    you misinterpret what I said.
    There are close minded people on both sides of the issue. At this point
    neither side on the point of if God exits can be proven either right or
    wrong. So show respect for the others beliefs. You may not agree with
    them, so what? That is most of the problem with the world today lack of
    respect for the other person regardless of the situation.
    I stayed vague because I did not want to get into the merits of one side
    or the other as this is no place for that. But some such as you took it
    that way.



    >> That is what was happening to the OP look at the beginning of the thread.
    >> No matter what you put down as to what you think the truth is someone is
    >> going to disagree with you so I was trying to stay away from that.
    >>

    >
    > You cannot disagree with Truth. It just is. You can disagree with
    > beliefs. And that is an important part of civilized society. The
    > problem is that you are reading any discourse as an attack. There is
    > no need for that.
    >



    No I am not reading any of this as an attack. If you would go back to
    the beginner I never said anything about truth. I was talking about
    close minded people and it seemed to bring them out of the wood work.
    So if the shoe fits as they say....If talking about closed minded people
    makes you think I am attacking science Have at it.
    I can also as I am sure that many here can throw around my religious,
    educational, scientific, what ever other qualifications that you want
    but I don't and wont. That has no bearing on the discussion about close
    minded people.
    caver1

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