Highest Paying Job On IT?
-
"... and when god made man she was only joking..." ;) --- "every year we invent better idiot proof systems and every year they invent better idiots ... and the linux zealots still aren't being sterilized"
My wife insists that if god were a woman things would be a lot better in this corner of the galaxy. The Taliban appears to disagree. I'm staying out of it, in case she is right. -------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
"... and when god made man she was only joking..." ;) --- "every year we invent better idiot proof systems and every year they invent better idiots ... and the linux zealots still aren't being sterilized"
Very true. :-D I should know, I'm part of the joke... ;) Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
(andy.metcalfe@lineone.net)
http://www.resorg.co.uk"I'm just another 'S' bend in the internet. A ton of stuff goes through my system, and some of the hairer, stickier and lumpier stuff sticks." - Chris Maunder (I just couldn't let that one past ;))
-
"... and when god made man she was only joking..." ;) --- "every year we invent better idiot proof systems and every year they invent better idiots ... and the linux zealots still aren't being sterilized"
The version I heard was 'Of course God made men first, you always work on a rough draft before the final version. While that got a small grin, the sig is hilarious, I love it !!! Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
>> Very cute. I hope you don't think this offends or upsets me. It's just plain sad Actually, its an attempt to lighten the tone slightly. Perhaps I need to add a few humor hints. >> The trouble with people like you is that no verification will be enough No, I believe I've made this very clear - just ONE is enough. I find it amazing in today's world that so many people make so many claims, yet NOT ONE can produce simple verifyable proof. Testimony is circumstantial. Believe it if you will, or if you must - but don't offer it as proof. >> it is also the only proof that is unassailable Thanks for adding that - a perfect description of what I am sure is Osama bin Laden's justification for his behaviour. Since he KNOWS he is right, and not amount of external proof can alter that, then his perceptins and choices can freely override anyone elses. he is, after all, right (because he knows he is)! >> It's a low blow to use such an emotional issue to try and prove your point I see my point has escaped you ... this is no 'low blow' - this is what angers me most about any religious nonsense. The WTC events are so full of complexity and tragedy that your simplistic 'them and us' routine is deplorable. Really, Christian, don't you ever ask yourself why god worked so hard in the Old testament to provide proof of his word ? Back then he didn't ask for believe without evidence. He talked through burning bushes, destroyed cities, flooded the world. He argued with pharaoh and Moses, and the mother of Moses, and was forced to use physical demonstrations of his presence and power to convince people of his abilities and desires. Then suddenly he stops this 'hands on' idea, and goes into 'stealth' mode, where the only proof is 'internal'. When Moses wanted proof, when the Hebrews doubted the word, they got the parting of the Red Sea. You get the ability to talk in a language that no one on earth, including yourself, can understand. Why is it that in an era when we can actually test, record and measure the acts of god, they become 'subtle', unable to be detected except 'within'. You don't have a problem with that slight inconsistency ? You must work very hard at ignoring the obvious! Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
>> The trouble with people like you is that no verification will be enough No, I believe I've made this very clear - just ONE is enough. I find it amazing in today's world that so many people make so many claims, yet NOT ONE can produce simple verifyable proof. Testimony is circumstantial. Believe it if you will, or if you must - but don't offer it as proof. Yes, but which one ? The ONLY one you would truly accept is if it happened to you. Don't for a minute kid yourself otherwise, it's true. Which is neat, because that's precisely what God offers you, and the reason the proof He offers is personal. >> it is also the only proof that is unassailable Thanks for adding that - a perfect description of what I am sure is Osama bin Laden's justification for his behaviour. Since he KNOWS he is right, and not amount of external proof can alter that, then his perceptins and choices can freely override anyone elses. he is, after all, right (because he knows he is)! I'm not talking about a state of mind or an idea, and to be honest you are so deliberately ignoring what I DO say that I wonder why I'm bothering. >> It's a low blow to use such an emotional issue to try and prove your point I see my point has escaped you ... this is no 'low blow' - this is what angers me most about any religious nonsense. The WTC events are so full of complexity and tragedy that your simplistic 'them and us' routine is deplorable. I'm not sure what it is you mean ? I'm not sure when my view has been overly simplistic, or especially when it has involved 'us and them'. I honestly can't even guess what you mean - I've only discussed my views on religion because you've pursued them. I am very careful as a matter of netiquette not to seek to turn this forum into one to dicuss my views on religion, although I obviously am happy to bite if someone starts the ball rolling. I fully expect you to explain yourself here because I must say while I don't find your deliberately obtuse and willfully ignorant views on my religion offensive, I am astounded that you'd say such a thing in this context. Really, Christian, don't you ever ask yourself why god worked so hard in the Old testament to provide proof of his word ? Back then he didn't ask for believe without evidence. He talked through burning bushes, destroyed cities, flooded the world. He argued with pharaoh and Moses, and the mother of Moses, and was forced to use physical demonstrations of his presence and power to convince people of his
-
My wife insists that if god were a woman things would be a lot better in this corner of the galaxy. The Taliban appears to disagree. I'm staying out of it, in case she is right. -------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
Ben Elton claims that if God were a woman , Vaginas would have teeth. Cut the incidence of sex crimes to zero overnight!;P
-
>> The trouble with people like you is that no verification will be enough No, I believe I've made this very clear - just ONE is enough. I find it amazing in today's world that so many people make so many claims, yet NOT ONE can produce simple verifyable proof. Testimony is circumstantial. Believe it if you will, or if you must - but don't offer it as proof. Yes, but which one ? The ONLY one you would truly accept is if it happened to you. Don't for a minute kid yourself otherwise, it's true. Which is neat, because that's precisely what God offers you, and the reason the proof He offers is personal. >> it is also the only proof that is unassailable Thanks for adding that - a perfect description of what I am sure is Osama bin Laden's justification for his behaviour. Since he KNOWS he is right, and not amount of external proof can alter that, then his perceptins and choices can freely override anyone elses. he is, after all, right (because he knows he is)! I'm not talking about a state of mind or an idea, and to be honest you are so deliberately ignoring what I DO say that I wonder why I'm bothering. >> It's a low blow to use such an emotional issue to try and prove your point I see my point has escaped you ... this is no 'low blow' - this is what angers me most about any religious nonsense. The WTC events are so full of complexity and tragedy that your simplistic 'them and us' routine is deplorable. I'm not sure what it is you mean ? I'm not sure when my view has been overly simplistic, or especially when it has involved 'us and them'. I honestly can't even guess what you mean - I've only discussed my views on religion because you've pursued them. I am very careful as a matter of netiquette not to seek to turn this forum into one to dicuss my views on religion, although I obviously am happy to bite if someone starts the ball rolling. I fully expect you to explain yourself here because I must say while I don't find your deliberately obtuse and willfully ignorant views on my religion offensive, I am astounded that you'd say such a thing in this context. Really, Christian, don't you ever ask yourself why god worked so hard in the Old testament to provide proof of his word ? Back then he didn't ask for believe without evidence. He talked through burning bushes, destroyed cities, flooded the world. He argued with pharaoh and Moses, and the mother of Moses, and was forced to use physical demonstrations of his presence and power to convince people of his
Christian, Obviously I've ruffled your feathers enough for one day! >> Yes, but which one ? The ONLY one you would truly accept.. Well, for the third time, let me state it clearly (although I doubt you or anyone can claim it has not been clear from the start) - I would accept ANY one verified claim of faith healing. Just one. Simple, verified data, based on more that the testimony of the recipient. Despite your attempts to tell me what I would and would not accept, and despite my stating clearly a number of possible conditions, we still arrive at the same point. You have twice claimed to have 'proof' of faith healing, and when challenged you have eventually backed down, stating that (a) you don't see the point in offering any proof, because it wouldn't be accepted and (b) that's not really your main point anyway, since the REAL point is the 'gift of tongues'(or, presumably, any of the other gifts bestowed by the holy spirit - prophecy, for example. I assume you believe in the power of prophecy? Wait ... lets not go there - I feel another long string of posts coming!!). From this, I conclude that (a) you yourself are not in posession of, and have never been given, verified evidence to support claims of faith healing, and (b) you also don't feel this is really the issue. Fine, lets agree then that you have no PROOF of faith healing (plenty of testimony from friends perhaps, and even personal experience, but no verifiable data), and you can stop throwing it into the discussion at random intervals as you have done in the past. Do we agree that this concludes any rational discussion of your knowledge of faith healing, or do you wish to continue this point - perhaps offering some evidence ? >> I'm not talking about a state of mind or an idea, and to be honest you are so >> deliberately ignoring what I DO say that I wonder why I'm bothering Well, sorry if I'm ignoring what your saying - I must admit that I don't think I'm ignoring you, but perhaps we are just drifting too far apart at the moment. My understanding is that you are trying to say the only proof that is unassailable is 'internal' proof. If you KNOW it to be true, then that is all that matters. I was trying to point out, via the 'bin Laden' example, that self belief can be both dangerous and misguided. In other words, rather than question the 'unassailablity' (is that a word?) of internal beliefs, I tried to demonstrate that to ignore outside evidence and focus only on an internal belief system is a potentially dangerous path.
-
I prefer Holy Grail overall, but some of Brian is probably amongst Pythons finest moments. My favourite is the guy on the hill who had a vow of silence. That kills me every time, and is on par with the killer rabbit of Holy Grail IMHO. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
My favourite is the guy on the hill who had a vow of silence. Juniper berries. :-D What about the scene where one of the men wants to have babies. "Where's the foetus going to gestate, in a box?" "Don't you oppress me." Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
I can agree that the mission is doomed to failure - I have previously had a long discussion with Christian along the lines that 'faith' and 'logic' oppose each each other in fairly strong ways. I have no illusions about my ability to convince a strong 'believer' to change their minds - any more than I feel I can present a logical argument strong enough to convince someone with multiple personality disorder that they are, in fact just one person, not two (or more). From their perspective - a purely internal one, unsubstantiated in any way by objective measurement, they ARE multiple people. I just like to watch Christian fall back on his "inner beliefs", and force him to continually admit that his reality and 'evidence' is available to him only, and is purely subjective. That's enough of a 'victory' for me, and all I can reasonably hope to achieve. I will take your suggestion regardling the importance of 'faith' under advisement, and get back to you on that one. I think there are enough examples of the ability to live a good life without the need to involve faith - and a fairly bad life with 'faith' (did someonoe say "bin Laden" ??), and therefore it seems to me to be a largely optional activity at this time! >> will be those who rely on logic who will be far more surprised by 'the truth' >> than those who rely on faith I must say that the history of the last 1000 years appears to a continuous crumbling of faith in the face of logic - I see little evidence that this trend will reverse in the near future. ----------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
"I must say that the history of the last 1000 years appears to a continuous crumbling of faith in the face of logic - I see little evidence that this trend will reverse in the near future. " Yes, but I have faith that logic alone will ultimately fail to provide the complete answer. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
-
I prefer Holy Grail overall, but some of Brian is probably amongst Pythons finest moments. My favourite is the guy on the hill who had a vow of silence. That kills me every time, and is on par with the killer rabbit of Holy Grail IMHO. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
Christian, Obviously I've ruffled your feathers enough for one day! >> Yes, but which one ? The ONLY one you would truly accept.. Well, for the third time, let me state it clearly (although I doubt you or anyone can claim it has not been clear from the start) - I would accept ANY one verified claim of faith healing. Just one. Simple, verified data, based on more that the testimony of the recipient. Despite your attempts to tell me what I would and would not accept, and despite my stating clearly a number of possible conditions, we still arrive at the same point. You have twice claimed to have 'proof' of faith healing, and when challenged you have eventually backed down, stating that (a) you don't see the point in offering any proof, because it wouldn't be accepted and (b) that's not really your main point anyway, since the REAL point is the 'gift of tongues'(or, presumably, any of the other gifts bestowed by the holy spirit - prophecy, for example. I assume you believe in the power of prophecy? Wait ... lets not go there - I feel another long string of posts coming!!). From this, I conclude that (a) you yourself are not in posession of, and have never been given, verified evidence to support claims of faith healing, and (b) you also don't feel this is really the issue. Fine, lets agree then that you have no PROOF of faith healing (plenty of testimony from friends perhaps, and even personal experience, but no verifiable data), and you can stop throwing it into the discussion at random intervals as you have done in the past. Do we agree that this concludes any rational discussion of your knowledge of faith healing, or do you wish to continue this point - perhaps offering some evidence ? >> I'm not talking about a state of mind or an idea, and to be honest you are so >> deliberately ignoring what I DO say that I wonder why I'm bothering Well, sorry if I'm ignoring what your saying - I must admit that I don't think I'm ignoring you, but perhaps we are just drifting too far apart at the moment. My understanding is that you are trying to say the only proof that is unassailable is 'internal' proof. If you KNOW it to be true, then that is all that matters. I was trying to point out, via the 'bin Laden' example, that self belief can be both dangerous and misguided. In other words, rather than question the 'unassailablity' (is that a word?) of internal beliefs, I tried to demonstrate that to ignore outside evidence and focus only on an internal belief system is a potentially dangerous path.
Obviously I've ruffled your feathers enough for one day! Apparently you have as little a life as I do - I spent the work day answering you between coding, now I'm at home doing battle with CCmdTarget, and you're still posting. >> Yes, but which one ? The ONLY one you would truly accept.. Well, for the third time, let me state it clearly (although I doubt you or anyone can claim it has not been clear from the start) - I would accept ANY one verified claim of faith healing. Just one. Simple, verified data, based on more that the testimony of the recipient. Come now, you're honestly claiming if I produced, for example, the record of a persons death in a hospital while connected to life monitoring equipment, and resurrection an hour or so later when prayed for, you wouldn't claim the machine was broken ? When you say verified you open several cans of worms - verified by whom, verified how, etc. No, you wouldn't accept it, you're only saying this because you assume it does not exist. On the other hand, you're claiming this would be more proof to you than being healed yourself ? Despite your attempts to tell me what I would and would not accept, and despite my stating clearly a number of possible conditions, we still arrive at the same point. You have twice claimed to have 'proof' of faith healing, and when challenged you have eventually backed down, stating that (a) you don't see the point in offering any proof, because it wouldn't be accepted and (b) that's not really your main point anyway, since the REAL point is the 'gift of tongues'(or, presumably, any of the other gifts bestowed by the holy spirit - prophecy, for example. I assume you believe in the power of prophecy? Wait ... lets not go there - I feel another long string of posts coming!!). Whoa. When on EARTH did I back down ? ON the contrary, I pursued the fact that if you want proof it is available to you individually, and that personal experience is the only proof that is likely to convince you. From this, I conclude that (a) you yourself are not in posession of, and have never been given, verified evidence to support claims of faith healing, and (b) you also don't feel this is really the issue. Fine, lets agree then that you have no PROOF of faith healing (plenty of testimony from friends perhaps, and even personal experience, but no verifiable data), and you can stop throwing it into the discussion at random intervals as you have done in the past. Do we agree that this concludes any rational dis
-
My favourite is the guy on the hill who had a vow of silence. Juniper berries. :-D What about the scene where one of the men wants to have babies. "Where's the foetus going to gestate, in a box?" "Don't you oppress me." Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
Yeah, that's a good one too. I finally split my DVD rip of that movie tonight to fit onto CDR's so I can back it up. Come to think of it, I may watch it now... Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
"I must say that the history of the last 1000 years appears to a continuous crumbling of faith in the face of logic - I see little evidence that this trend will reverse in the near future. " Yes, but I have faith that logic alone will ultimately fail to provide the complete answer. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
Logically, you might be right! I prefer to take the approach that questions of 'faith' continue to underly so many problems and issues, and the relentless application of logic offers a cleaner future. I'd rather ask "why" instead of simply agreeing 'okay' - but that's just me, I guess! Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
Hi, Today, whiled I was coding some telnet stuffs, all of a sudden, I was stuck how much my doing job pays. I know that any job's paying depends on many factors, but I wanna know which one is the blowing job on IT industry. I guess I should design my career path at these times. I'm 25-year old engineer and have 3-year of professional Windows programming experience. So I wanna ask you guys which career path would make me paid most? Money, especially for me, means almost everything.(All of my family depends on my earning.) Personally I want myself being a able-engineer, but in reality my situation want me more money :-( So, one simple question. Which career path will make me most money? What would you suggest?.. Regards, Ryan -p.s If this posting sucks, sorry..Pardon me.. I don't remember whose signature this is, that.."Money talks, but all mine ever said was good bye."
I would say my job is highest profile and paying job in the IT world. I recently received a letter via snail mail addressed to the Manager of the Internet. Since assuming this role I have Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and most Fortune 500 CEO's paying me Protection Money. If they don't I will just turn off the Internet. Also I now have all the girls chasing after me. Unfortunately there can only one Manager of the Internet. If you want the job you must defeat me in combat. None of this Nancy Boy gun play shit either. Just you and me, each with the following weapons. A jar of Vegemite :vegemite: and a spoon, a carton of Coopers Sparkling Ale and a bottle of Bundy Rum and some Coke. Now we have 6 hours to finish this off. Whoever has finished everything first or has the least leftovers after the 6 hours has finished wins. Vomiting is an automatic forfeit. Who's on for the title? ;P Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
We have reached an end again, I feel - my final words (feel free to offer your own closing remarks - how could anyone hope to stop you!!) - you appear to be accepting my main argument almost in totality! As you were forced to do, you have had to move into the world of INTERPRETATION (debationg the meaning and use of the word 'deaconess') in order to refute my quotes. This doesn't make you right, or me right - we may both be wrong. All I am demonstrating is that you CANNOT show objective proof of the bible's validity - your interpretation differs from mine, and probably from everyone elses' also. God must have been having a lot of trouble wiht the grammer checker when he wrote the bible. >> Well, as I have often noted, my interpretation requires God to act, so unless >> I was hell bent on deluding myself deliberately, my interpretation is proven >> by the fact I believe God made a promise and I have personal proof that He >> kept it You offer two simple choices for your own faith : (1) god exists, has given your specific promises via the bible, and delivered in the contract. (2) you are subject to some form of delusion. We will just have to disagree, I feel, as to which of these two outcomes is more likely!! (but I'd just like to add that being deluded is not that same as being unintelligent, so don't feel bad!) >> And still elude the majority today, as the Bible prophecied. Indeed Jesus >> asked of His return 'will I find faith on the Earth ?' >> ... >> Deliberate illiteracy and lack of faith are not God's fault. If the world was ' >> perfect under mens control there would be no point in Jesus coming back You must be very happy to be amongst the chosen few, who have been able to see through the confusion. Undoubtedly the rest of us poor fools will live to regret the way we snicker at those who know "the truth" that somehow eludes us. Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
Mike, about two years ago I spoke this exact same argument to a Christian friend of mine. Then my wife decided to rededicate her life to Jesus, and gave me a book by Josh McDowell so that I could see that she was not crazy. I read the book so that I could defeat the arguments and keep her from doing this, but instead the book changed my life. I did not come to faith through any supernatural experience. God in His wisdom understands that I would not ever truly believe without objective physical proof, and so to bring me, and other people like me (including you) to Him, such proof exists. If you really want to see the proof, and are not just boasting to see it because you believe it doesn't exist, I suggest that you begin by reading Lee Strobel's 'A Case for Christ.' If you have a wish list on Amazon.com add it, and I will be happy to purchase it for you. From there you can examine the evidence that Jesus is real, and Jesus is God as deep as you want to take it. Other than this offer, I cannot really continue any kind of argument, since I am wholly unqualified to participate in the type of discussion that will reach you. So I defer to the experts. Let me know if you'll take me up on my offer. Otherwise, God Bless and have a good day. Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in it to make him stumble -- 1 John 1:9-10
-
I can agree that the mission is doomed to failure - I have previously had a long discussion with Christian along the lines that 'faith' and 'logic' oppose each each other in fairly strong ways. I have no illusions about my ability to convince a strong 'believer' to change their minds - any more than I feel I can present a logical argument strong enough to convince someone with multiple personality disorder that they are, in fact just one person, not two (or more). From their perspective - a purely internal one, unsubstantiated in any way by objective measurement, they ARE multiple people. I just like to watch Christian fall back on his "inner beliefs", and force him to continually admit that his reality and 'evidence' is available to him only, and is purely subjective. That's enough of a 'victory' for me, and all I can reasonably hope to achieve. I will take your suggestion regardling the importance of 'faith' under advisement, and get back to you on that one. I think there are enough examples of the ability to live a good life without the need to involve faith - and a fairly bad life with 'faith' (did someonoe say "bin Laden" ??), and therefore it seems to me to be a largely optional activity at this time! >> will be those who rely on logic who will be far more surprised by 'the truth' >> than those who rely on faith I must say that the history of the last 1000 years appears to a continuous crumbling of faith in the face of logic - I see little evidence that this trend will reverse in the near future. ----------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
I've been reading along, and wondering where I should join in. This looks like as good a spot as any. Mike, you believe that logic and faith are contradictory. I must admit that your statement is true for a lot of people. (Your example of the Mormons is one I would agree with.) However, I'm sure you'd like to know that there are people (I try hard to do this) who use logic to the point where it cannot prove or disprove anything more, then have faith that the rest (of whatever the subject happens to be) is true. (The majority of our population does this quite often when it comes to medicine, science, and other 'expert' topics.) Applying that process to the Bible, I end up doing the following sort of thinking. As far as historical and legal methods of verifying statments go, the Bible comes out sqeaky clean (read some of Josh McDowell's books if you're curious). Other issues that the Bible speaks on have either proven the Bible true, or are unprovable (though people may strongly wish otherwise). So, since the things which can be objectively be proven end up agreeing with the Bible, I take the next step by believing the rest. As far as interpretation goes, context is a really important issue that people overlook way too often when reading portions of the Bible. When a large group of people lets the Bible interpret itself, there ends up being only minor disagreement over issues that aren't explicitly discussed by the Bible (i.e. whether tounges are still valid today or not). However, when one of these not-explicitly-covered topics becomes a focal point of their religious stand, they aren't actually caring enough about what the Bible says anymore. At that point, they're listening to a leader or group of leaders instead. I know you'll have all sorts of comments, and I'll do my best to have a well-reasoned, logical argument. If I look like I'm resorting to "inner beliefs" rather than external evidence, call me on it and I'll either point out something I'd skipped or alter my opinion. John
-
We have reached an end again, I feel - my final words (feel free to offer your own closing remarks - how could anyone hope to stop you!!) - you appear to be accepting my main argument almost in totality! As you were forced to do, you have had to move into the world of INTERPRETATION (debationg the meaning and use of the word 'deaconess') in order to refute my quotes. This doesn't make you right, or me right - we may both be wrong. All I am demonstrating is that you CANNOT show objective proof of the bible's validity - your interpretation differs from mine, and probably from everyone elses' also. God must have been having a lot of trouble wiht the grammer checker when he wrote the bible. >> Well, as I have often noted, my interpretation requires God to act, so unless >> I was hell bent on deluding myself deliberately, my interpretation is proven >> by the fact I believe God made a promise and I have personal proof that He >> kept it You offer two simple choices for your own faith : (1) god exists, has given your specific promises via the bible, and delivered in the contract. (2) you are subject to some form of delusion. We will just have to disagree, I feel, as to which of these two outcomes is more likely!! (but I'd just like to add that being deluded is not that same as being unintelligent, so don't feel bad!) >> And still elude the majority today, as the Bible prophecied. Indeed Jesus >> asked of His return 'will I find faith on the Earth ?' >> ... >> Deliberate illiteracy and lack of faith are not God's fault. If the world was ' >> perfect under mens control there would be no point in Jesus coming back You must be very happy to be amongst the chosen few, who have been able to see through the confusion. Undoubtedly the rest of us poor fools will live to regret the way we snicker at those who know "the truth" that somehow eludes us. Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
Boy, this discussion is getting messy. Hopefully, I can add some calmness to the discussion, though I won't be surprised if the reverse happens. First, I'd like to say that subjective arguments based on experience are never convincing. People can interpret them as hallucinations, misunderstandings, gullibility, miracles, demonic trickery, or a bunch of other things. Arguing from experience doesn't help much when trying to prove or disprove a statement or group of statments (the Bible in this case). So, Mike, since you're having such a hard time with Christian, maybe you'd like to start over with me? Maybe we'd get somewhere, maybe not. I sure sounds interesting, though. John P.S. Christian, I'm confused on how you claim that the Bible doesn't teach that Noah's flood was global? (Free ammo, Mike. ;))
-
Mike, about two years ago I spoke this exact same argument to a Christian friend of mine. Then my wife decided to rededicate her life to Jesus, and gave me a book by Josh McDowell so that I could see that she was not crazy. I read the book so that I could defeat the arguments and keep her from doing this, but instead the book changed my life. I did not come to faith through any supernatural experience. God in His wisdom understands that I would not ever truly believe without objective physical proof, and so to bring me, and other people like me (including you) to Him, such proof exists. If you really want to see the proof, and are not just boasting to see it because you believe it doesn't exist, I suggest that you begin by reading Lee Strobel's 'A Case for Christ.' If you have a wish list on Amazon.com add it, and I will be happy to purchase it for you. From there you can examine the evidence that Jesus is real, and Jesus is God as deep as you want to take it. Other than this offer, I cannot really continue any kind of argument, since I am wholly unqualified to participate in the type of discussion that will reach you. So I defer to the experts. Let me know if you'll take me up on my offer. Otherwise, God Bless and have a good day. Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in it to make him stumble -- 1 John 1:9-10
Good idea, Steven. I just hope I don't stick my foot in my mouth, since I already offered to discuss things with Mike... John
-
My favourite is the guy on the hill who had a vow of silence. Juniper berries. :-D What about the scene where one of the men wants to have babies. "Where's the foetus going to gestate, in a box?" "Don't you oppress me." Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
I accept that this was tongue in cheek, but at what point did I equate Islam with violence ? By the way, you really should be using GDI+ to speed up your binary tree sorting.... I'd have thought it was STL I push a lot to people who don't want it. I don't even do any graphics programming at the moment, my PC is not even configured for GDI+. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
> By the way, you really should be using GDI+ to > speed up your binary tree sorting.... It seems to me you have been smoking the same stuff as Chris when he sent out the CP Newsletter urging all of us to use HTML e-mail. Why am I always left out of these new-drug tests? :-) But seriously, how the ... could you use GDI+ to speed up a binary-tree sorting? I'm _really_ looking forward to a code snippet! > I'd have thought it was STL I push a lot to people > who don't want it. I can't speak for anyone but me, but I use STL daily. If people don't wan't it, perhaps they don't want (or even know) C++ at all? But there is a _crucial_ difference, the STL parts of the std C++ lib. is an _international_ standard, ISO. As a sidenote ANSI also accepted it without furhter ado. Perhaps GDI+ hasn't been sufficiently standardized just yet? Perhaps it will never be since it only adress one (1) platform (Win32), and as such its design is pretty mediocre. /Mike
-
Mike, about two years ago I spoke this exact same argument to a Christian friend of mine. Then my wife decided to rededicate her life to Jesus, and gave me a book by Josh McDowell so that I could see that she was not crazy. I read the book so that I could defeat the arguments and keep her from doing this, but instead the book changed my life. I did not come to faith through any supernatural experience. God in His wisdom understands that I would not ever truly believe without objective physical proof, and so to bring me, and other people like me (including you) to Him, such proof exists. If you really want to see the proof, and are not just boasting to see it because you believe it doesn't exist, I suggest that you begin by reading Lee Strobel's 'A Case for Christ.' If you have a wish list on Amazon.com add it, and I will be happy to purchase it for you. From there you can examine the evidence that Jesus is real, and Jesus is God as deep as you want to take it. Other than this offer, I cannot really continue any kind of argument, since I am wholly unqualified to participate in the type of discussion that will reach you. So I defer to the experts. Let me know if you'll take me up on my offer. Otherwise, God Bless and have a good day. Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in it to make him stumble -- 1 John 1:9-10
Steven and John, (I'm answering you both in one post just to speed things up!) Thanks for the offer to debate this further, but I'm afraid it will have to wait! As I am sure you can see from the volume of posts between Christian and myself, there is no short discussion to be had here. Unfortunately I have to leave it for now - more pressing matters have arisen. I WILL bring this up again at some stage (when Christian least expects it ?!?!), so keep your ammo dry. Just to set the stage a little, I have read Josh McDowell, but I find him unconvincing (apologies to your wife!), to say the least. If you want to see a few counter arguments, try these : http://www.islandnet.com/~luree/evidence.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff\_lowder/jury/chap5.html I have not personally read Strobel, but that's because it seems pretty well discredited as an objective work (he hides far too much behind the "I was a skeptical journalist" routine). With so much to read, I try to rely on reviews to get an idea of what is likely to bring something new to the discussion, and Strobel does not (on a skim read) seem to offer that. A quick counterpoint : http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff\_lowder/strobel.html Thanks for the offers to exchange views - I'll get back to it! For now, let me just say I have more faith in humans that in any god we have invented, despite events like the WTC. ---------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."