Hey I back home!!!

This is a discussion on Hey I back home!!! within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by pianorain Does that fee include relocation to Awesometown? It'd be one heck of a commute from here. ...

  1. #76
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    Quote Originally Posted by pianorain View Post
    Does that fee include relocation to Awesometown? It'd be one heck of a commute from here.
    It's a web based class.

  2. #77
    Anti-Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Govtcheez View Post
    It's a web based class.
    I think I've already graduated.
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver View Post
    Some points I would like to raise with regard to your narrative of the story:

    1. The crime was adultery and not prostitution, hence the woman was not described as a prostitute in the Biblical account.
    2. By the conclusion that some ascribe to this story, one might conclude that no sin should ever be punished or condemned. That is stupid.
    3. The context was that the Pharisees and scribes in question already knew the judgment proscribed in the Mosaic Law and challenged Jesus over it as a trick question.
    Since I'm fairly undecided what I think about your comments, I'll play. Of these, I'll only address the second and the third. The first is simply getting the story straight.

    I think a more likely conclusion to draw from this story is that "no sin should ever be punished or condemned by man". Obviously Jesus is without sin, so it is up to him to cast the first stone. Man, on the other hand, cannot answer to the challenge. That conclusion is not without precedent. Consider Paul in Romans 12:19 and 14:4. Who are we to judge someone else's servant?

    Of course, then the question turns to context. Romans 12 talks of reserving revenge for God. What purpose does punishment serve other than to assuage society's moral outrage? Romans 14 talks about maintaining civility with other Christians of different beliefs. If we can't even agree on sin, then how can we in good conscience punish someone? The context of the story may be one thing, but it certainly communicates the message that punishment is reserved for God alone.

    As an aside, I've always found this interesting. Here is a woman brought forward for punishment for adultery...um, except it takes two, so where's that other person?
    If I did your homework for you, then you might pass your class without learning how to write a program like this. Then you might graduate and get your degree without learning how to write a program like this. You might become a professional programmer without knowing how to write a program like this. Someday you might work on a project with me without knowing how to write a program like this. Then I would have to do you serious bodily harm. - Jack Klein

  3. #78
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver View Post
    I started to stay out of this topic when it started because it involved Govtcheez being an idiot beyond which I have seen of him until recently
    Hahahahhaaha, what?

  4. #79
    Deathray Engineer MacGyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,211
    Quote Originally Posted by pianorain View Post
    I think a more likely conclusion to draw from this story is that "no sin should ever be punished or condemned by man". Obviously Jesus is without sin, so it is up to him to cast the first stone. Man, on the other hand, cannot answer to the challenge. That conclusion is not without precedent. Consider Paul in Romans 12:19 and 14:4. Who are we to judge someone else's servant?
    Perhaps in the larger picture, but I think that one that walks away with what you're saying might lose sight of the importance of judgment. If there is not judgment, no focus on the terribleness of sin, no real negative value of sin, why did Christ die?

    Consider times that judgment was executed and executed by in a manner some may say was harsh:

    • Numbers 25: Phinehas' execution (literally) of judgment, which was approved by God.
    • II Kings 1: Elijah called down fire from heaven on two companies, each one consisting of fifty soldiers.
    • Acts 13: Paul cursing the sorcerer.


    Quote Originally Posted by pianorain View Post
    Of course, then the question turns to context. Romans 12 talks of reserving revenge for God. What purpose does punishment serve other than to assuage society's moral outrage? Romans 14 talks about maintaining civility with other Christians of different beliefs. If we can't even agree on sin, then how can we in good conscience punish someone? The context of the story may be one thing, but it certainly communicates the message that punishment is reserved for God alone.
    How ironic it is that you speak of Romans 12 and 14, yet you skip Romans 13, which speaks of how rulers in government are setup with God-given authority to rule!

    Ruling is necessary, and rulers are God's ministers. Furthermore, if rulers are God's ministers, then should we not expect judgment from those that "beareth not the sword in vain"?

    Quote Originally Posted by pianorain View Post
    As an aside, I've always found this interesting. Here is a woman brought forward for punishment for adultery...um, except it takes two, so where's that other person?
    Indeed. I've heard this point raised before, and it is amusing I admit, however, the Pharisees and scribes needed only one condemnation of death for their purposes.

    To better sum up my position on the subject, I'd like to clarify some things. First of all, I'm not against showing mercy, and I hope what I have written does not come across this way. I disagreed with the post because this is how the events appeared to me:

    1. Queatrix says or hints (I do not really care to check) that homosexuality is a sin.
    2. laserlight introduces this story to conclude that Queatrix cannot judge with regard to the sinfulness of homosexuality.


    Basically, it's either a sin or it's not, and if it is, I fail to see the point of bringing the story up. All laserlight has managed to do is to encourage the notion that homosexuality is indeed a sin by the comparison, and asking Queatrix to withhold his judgment anyway. Either argue it's not a sin and stand in that camp, or hold that it's a sin, but by no means try to state that it's a sin, yet we cannot speak ill of it.

    At no point did Jesus ever say adultery wasn't bad or say we could not object to it. In fact he told the woman to "go and sin no more", showing that he was, obviously, against all forms of sin. I think some are missing the point. If something is indeed a sin, it should be condemned.... should it not?

  5. #80
    Anti-Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver View Post
    Perhaps in the larger picture, but I think that one that walks away with what you're saying might lose sight of the importance of judgment.
    In a way, that's exactly what I'm trying to get across, though slightly adjusted: not that we lose sight of the importance of judgement, but of judgement by man. What good does it do for me to be judged by someone else? In most cases, it will bring a defensive reaction, emotions will rise, and minds will close off. I believe understanding that one is in a state of sin is important, but I also believe that understanding can only come from within one's self. You can preach to me seven ways 'til sundown, but until I realize that I am guilty, then I cannot understand the rest of the message. From the accused's point of view, it can be difficult to separate who is judging and condemning from who is simply being the bearer of bad news.
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver View Post
    How ironic it is that you speak of Romans 12 and 14, yet you skip Romans 13, which speaks of how rulers in government are setup with God-given authority to rule!

    Ruling is necessary, and rulers are God's ministers. Furthermore, if rulers are God's ministers, then should we not expect judgment from those that "beareth not the sword in vain"?
    Not exactly ironic; I just searched for passages that I remembered. I was somewhat surprised that they were so close together.

    I am not altogether convinced that ruling is necessary, nor am I convinced that rulers are God's ministers. I have a great deal of difficulty with this passage due to the reality of unjust governments. If rulers are God's ministers, then they would minister. However, who is called to be God's judge? In the New Testament, there are a couple of different lists of spiritual gifts. Neither includes judgement. I realize there's an entire books called Judges; unfortunately I haven't studied it.

    In brief, I would find it difficult to live my life in good conscience expecting to universalize some concept of sin that I might come up with. Really, I don't need to do that. We don't have to go searching in the nooks and crannies of the rulebook to find something that convicts us. At best, I can only judge myself, and even there I might fail.
    If I did your homework for you, then you might pass your class without learning how to write a program like this. Then you might graduate and get your degree without learning how to write a program like this. You might become a professional programmer without knowing how to write a program like this. Someday you might work on a project with me without knowing how to write a program like this. Then I would have to do you serious bodily harm. - Jack Klein

  6. #81
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    21,636
    Anyway, I am always amazed at how many people bring this Biblical story up with some intent to show that people should not condemn either what they see as a sin, or a person who has committed what they see as a sin.
    I note that I did not do the former. My post was with response to a "holier than thou" attitude, i.e., to draw a line and say: see? That's a bigger sinner than me, and that fellow should be exiled (i.e., condemned), not only for what he has done (homosexual acts), but for what he is (a homosexual).

    The crime was adultery and not prostitution, hence the woman was not described as a prostitute in the Biblical account.
    You are right. I was recalling the context from memory. It makes no difference in the larger picture.

    By the conclusion that some ascribe to this story, one might conclude that no sin should ever be punished or condemned. That is stupid.
    I agree that to conclude that "no sin should ever be punished or condemned" is stupid.

    The context was that the Pharisees and scribes in question already knew the judgment proscribed in the Mosaic Law and challenged Jesus over it as a trick question.
    That is true. That also misses how Jesus turned it around and instead of condemning the woman, simply commanded her not to sin any more. This is something of a cliche, but it demonstrates the concept of "hate/condemn the sin, but love the sinner". Sometimes loving the sinner does indeed involve punishment for growth and training of discipline, but it never involves condemning him as a "bigger" sinner than oneself.

    At no point did Jesus ever say adultery wasn't bad or say we could not object to it. In fact he told the woman to "go and sin no more", showing that he was, obviously, against all forms of sin. I think some are missing the point. If something is indeed a sin, it should be condemned.... should it not?
    That is right. What you have missed, unfortunately, is that Queatrix did not just condemn the sin, but he condemned the sinner.
    Last edited by laserlight; 06-29-2007 at 10:40 AM. Reason: Correction to first paragraph.
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  7. #82
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    465
    I won't start arguing about verses and silly things like that. Rather than go back and forth talking about what the bible does or does not say, I would like to address the base of the problem. Everything we hold to be true must be subjected to logic. If it weren't then society would clearly crumble. We couldn't communicate effectively which is an extremely important thing in the world because without the collective findings of scientists, humans wouldn't advance at all. People who believe that the bible is true have decided to forfeit their reasoning skills that separate the humans from lower forms of life.

    Though some places and some stories have been confirmed with science it does not mean that since a couple cities have been found that entire bible is suddenly infallible. I can make up stories and with a bit of effort I could probably gather a following too. Obviously, I would just be messing with everyone but imagine that after I die, the followers perpetuate my teachings and carry them on into the future. It won't make them any more true than when I first wrote them down. Age adds some mysterious qualities to things that makes people more attracted to them.

    Though, there isn't anything that would make the bible any more true than my stories.

    Edit: I hope Qeautrix will realize eventually that he is being a tard. I had a spat with GovtCheez quite a long time ago and have since realized that I was at fault.
    Last edited by cerin; 06-30-2007 at 04:44 AM.

  8. #83
    Deathray Engineer MacGyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,211
    Quote Originally Posted by cerin View Post
    People who believe that the bible is true have decided to forfeit their reasoning skills that separate the humans from lower forms of life.
    You speak of reasoning, but display prejudice. Prejudice implies blindness, and blindness prohibits good reasoning, which is something you believe to have, I take it.

    Would you do me the honor of attempting to sound less bigoted by trying, in a non-offensive way, to demonstrate what you think makes believers of the Bible inferior in intellect than to such a person as yourself?

  9. #84
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    465
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver View Post
    You speak of reasoning, but display prejudice. Prejudice implies blindness, and blindness prohibits good reasoning, which is something you believe to have, I take it.
    I am more than open to the possibility of there being a god. It is also possible that the bible is true.

    Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

    I am not judging the situation without knowledge. If I am displaying prejudice then please point out the folly in my reasoning. I advocate neutrality but it is only reasonable to lean toward the standpoint that offers the most reasonable, logical, and tested evidence on the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver View Post
    Would you do me the honor of attempting to sound less bigoted by trying, in a non-offensive way, to demonstrate what you think makes believers of the Bible inferior in intellect than to such a person as yourself?
    I didn't say that I had superior intellect to the believers in the bible. I just believe that they are not exploiting their intellect efficiently and am certainly not implying that they are stupid.
    My computer is awesome.

  10. #85
    Deathray Engineer MacGyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,211
    Quote Originally Posted by cerin View Post
    I am more than open to the possibility of there being a god. It is also possible that the bible is true.
    This is a contradiction in no uncertain terms. You say that those that believe the Bible have chosen to "forfeit their reasoning skills", and yet you say that it is possible that at the same time, the Bible is true. If this be the case, how can it be possible that people that have chosen to forsake reasoning are somehow holding to truth?

    I think you greatly mistake the matter. If the Bible is true, then the fact it is believed by some cannot be attributed to randomness since the Bible itself speaks on this matter (and therefore would be truthfully speaking of it).

    Quote Originally Posted by cerin View Post
    Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
    Taking this definition, your opinion was definitely unfavorable and was stated without any given reason that I could see. I also was of the belief that you would not be able to provide a solid reason for the statement of yours that I quoted, hence why I asked you for a response. I am satisfied that I was correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by cerin View Post
    I am not judging the situation without knowledge. If I am displaying prejudice then please point out the folly in my reasoning. I advocate neutrality but it is only reasonable to lean toward the standpoint that offers the most reasonable, logical, and tested evidence on the matter.
    Your view of neutrality is skewed. If someone said that they liked using if and goto statements in C/C++ instead of for and while loops, and I stated that they willfully lacked reasoning in the matter, I would not think anyone to believe me to be behaving in a neutral sense. I would be counting them as ignorant and blind.

    Quote Originally Posted by cerin View Post
    I didn't say that I had superior intellect to the believers in the bible. I just believe that they are not exploiting their intellect efficiently and am certainly not implying that they are stupid.
    However you wish to phrase it, I was simply asking for your line of reasoning that prompted you to make the statement I quoted, and led to this above quote.

  11. #86
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    465
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver View Post
    This is a contradiction in no uncertain terms. You say that those that believe the Bible have chosen to "forfeit their reasoning skills", and yet you say that it is possible that at the same time, the Bible is true. If this be the case, how can it be possible that people that have chosen to forsake reasoning are somehow holding to truth?
    They have at least forfeit the reasoning for the time being because there isn't the proof to prove the bible true or not true. Based on the current proof reason only leads to a 'neutral' position.

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver View Post
    I think you greatly mistake the matter. If the Bible is true, then the fact it is believed by some cannot be attributed to randomness since the Bible itself speaks on this matter (and therefore would be truthfully speaking of it).

    IF the bible is true, then the fact that is believed by some cannot be attributed to randomness. This is true. Never did I say it if it was true that the fact that some believe would be random.

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver View Post
    Taking this definition, your opinion was definitely unfavorable and was stated without any given reason that I could see. I also was of the belief that you would not be able to provide a solid reason for the statement of yours that I quoted, hence why I asked you for a response. I am satisfied that I was correct.
    I will give you the honor and I gave the basis that there is not enough evidence for people to consider the bible to be true. Would you like me to cite a lack of proof?

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver View Post
    Your view of neutrality is skewed. If someone said that they liked using if and goto statements in C/C++ instead of for and while loops, and I stated that they willfully lacked reasoning in the matter, I would not think anyone to believe me to be behaving in a neutral sense. I would be counting them as ignorant and blind.
    Maybe. If that's the case then I will phrase it in a different manner. I am attempting to persuade people to keep their options open rather than proclaiming something or other as the one and only truth.
    My computer is awesome.

  12. #87
    VA National Guard The Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Manassas, VA USA
    Posts
    903
    Last edited by The Brain; 06-30-2007 at 01:58 PM.
    • "Problem Solving C++, The Object of Programming" -Walter Savitch
    • "Data Structures and Other Objects using C++" -Walter Savitch
    • "Assembly Language for Intel-Based Computers" -Kip Irvine
    • "Programming Windows, 5th edition" -Charles Petzold
    • "Visual C++ MFC Programming by Example" -John E. Swanke
    • "Network Programming Windows" -Jones/Ohlund
    • "Sams Teach Yourself Game Programming in 24 Hours" -Michael Morrison
    • "Mathmatics for 3D Game Programming & Computer Graphics" -Eric Lengyel

  13. #88
    Registered User ssharish2005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    1,682
    And i am back from home. I am quite surprised to see that the thread has gone so big lol.

    Ohhh no, i am back lol

    ssharish2005

  14. #89
    Lead Moderator kermi3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1998
    Posts
    2,595
    And we come full circle....I don't think there's must more positive to be added to this thread, so I'm closing it. If you'd like to continue discussion seriously, please PM me and I'll reopen.
    Kermi3

    If you're new to the boards, welcome and reading this will help you get started.
    Information on code tags may be found here

    - Sandlot is the highest form of sport.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Security on automated home
    By stimpyzu in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-11-2004, 01:14 AM
  2. Hey all I'm back
    By Thantos in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-05-2003, 09:41 PM
  3. XP Home
    By jdinger in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-19-2003, 07:18 PM
  4. How to move mp3 song from home through email back to workplace?
    By MP3 in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-25-2003, 07:42 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21