Re: Recycling subject lines saves trees (was Re:Stopeditingthedamnsubject (was Re: The EndOfWesternCivilization (wasRe:RoadRunnernonsense(wasRe: fwd: RE: STFU RE))
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, you wrote:
I enjoy discussing this with you and want to continue but I think we need to take it off the LUG mailing list. O.K.
Does KCLUG have an off-topic mailing list? Or I suppose someone can throw up a temporary per-thread list... either way, if anyone else cares to continue this thread, let me know so your email is included in whatever kind of list is made.
I'm not overly familiar with Islam, but the most obvious heresy would be that they deny Our Lord's divinity.
For the record Islam does believe in the divinity of Christ and the immaculate conception. Where they differ from Christianity is that they feel that God would not have allowed his Son to suffer the way he did on the cross. They believe that he ascended to heaven before suffering and dying on the cross and that the human vessel that God's Son inhabited on earth was crucified. Granted, this is a MAJOR point of difference between the two religions, but it still makes Islam the closest religion to Christianity than any other religion. I mean the Jewish religion doesn't even look at Christ as being the Son of God and believe nothing of the New Testament.
I suspect some forms of Protestantism are closer to Christianity than Islam, but "closeness" doesn't matter much in the big picture so long as they persist in denying God's doctrine.
Protestantism was founded by men. The Catholic Church was> founded by God Himself, and He guaranteed it would never teach error or mandate evil.
I think the Catholic church was founded by the followers of Christ's disciples sometime about 300+ years after the death of Christ. I didn't think it was founded by Christ himself.
Matt 16:18, Our Lord appoints St. Peter to be the first pope and promises that that Satan will never at any time prevail over the Church.
Mark 16:15, Christ gives the Church a mandate to teach the world, and makes mention of signs to identify His Church (for example, only Catholics can cast our demons)
Acts 2, Christ sends the Holy Ghost to the apostles, making them the Church's first Bishops.
Acts 15:1, The first council (the Council of Jerusalem) addresses the first heresy (Judaizers), and eventually St. Peter uses his papal authority, accepted by all present, to give a final resolution.
If you say Jesus is not God, and I say He is, both of us cannot be right.
I never said that Jesus was not God.
It was an example.
I follow the Church He founded, protects, and guides. The teachings of the Catholic Church are inerrant on matters of faith and morals.
But the Catholic Church is run by human beings not by God. Human beings are not infallible, God is.
The Catholic Church has Christ as its Head, and is guided and protected by the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost prevents men from teaching or mandating error on a Church-wide level. For example, if a pope were inclined to mandate sin upon all Catholics, if there were no other way to stop him from doing so, God would strike him dead before he had done so.
No matter how "evil" Micro$oft is ... Linux is not the one true OS.
Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
Matt 16:18, Our Lord appoints St. Peter to be the first pope and promises that that Satan will never at any time prevail over the Church.
Matthew 16:18 And I say also to thee, That thou art Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Funny, I don't see the word Pope in there, nor Catholic.
Mark 16:15, Christ gives the Church a mandate to teach the world, and makes mention of signs to identify His Church (for example, only Catholics can cast our demons)
Really? Only Catholics can do that? Or maybe a better question should be "Can Catholics really do that?" What proof do you have that *anybody* can or can't do that? Or for that matter, what proof do you have demons even exist?
Acts 2, Christ sends the Holy Ghost to the apostles, making them the Church's first Bishops.
Bishops? I don't recall seeing that word.
Acts 15:1, The first council (the Council of Jerusalem) addresses the first heresy (Judaizers), and eventually St. Peter uses his papal authority, accepted by all >present, to give a final resolution.
Papal authority? Where does it say that? Or where does it say he's actually got *any* "authority"?
None of the claims of papal primacy, infallibility, pre-eminence, jurisdiction, etc. have any reliable foundation in the New Testament. Nor were they assumed to be the right of the Roman bishop in the first centuries of the Church. They are later inventions.
http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Scr/mt16.htm
Besides, all of this is from the New Testiment. Ask the Jews what they think of the New Testiment. So unless you have actual proof from God himself all of this is man's faith in what he believes. So what makes what you believe right and what I believe wrong? And therefore, what gives anyone the right to force their beliefs on anyone?
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, James Sissel wrote:
Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote: Matt 16:18, Our Lord appoints St. Peter to be the first pope and promises that that Satan will never at any time prevail over the Church.
Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Funny, I don't see the word Pope in there, nor Catholic.
18 "Thou art Peter"... As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
18 "Upon this rock"... The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.
18 "The gates of hell"... That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.
Mark 16:15, Christ gives the Church a mandate to teach the world, and makes mention of signs to identify His Church (for example, only Catholics can cast our demons)
Really? Only Catholics can do that? Or maybe a better question should be "Can Catholics really do that?" What proof do you have that *anybody* can or can't do that? Or for that matter, what proof do you have demons even exist?
There are many well documented and witnessed exorcisms, and in some cases of demonic possession the possessed person has demonstrated supernatural abilities.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm
Acts 2, Christ sends the Holy Ghost to the apostles, making them the Church's first Bishops.
Bishops? I don't recall seeing that word.
My description is of what occured, not the literal text. You can obviously look up the literal text yourself.
Acts 15:1, The first council (the Council of Jerusalem) addresses the first heresy (Judaizers), and eventually St. Peter uses his papal authority, accepted by all present, to give a final resolution.
Papal authority? Where does it say that? Or where does it say he's actually got *any* "authority"?
Right, so when St. Peter in the middle of a lot of disputing interrupts and proclaims a decision, and nobody questions him... they all just got tired of arguing, or what? Clearly, the only way the described event was even possible was that all present recognized that St. Peter was not to be questioned upon coming to a conclusion.
None of the claims of papal primacy, infallibility, pre-eminence, jurisdiction, etc. have any reliable foundation in the New Testament. Nor were they assumed to be the right of the Roman bishop in the first centuries of the Church. They are later inventions.
"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
Besides, all of this is from the New Testiment. Ask the Jews what they think of the New Testiment. So unless you have actual proof from God himself all of this is man's faith in what he believes.
Christ Himself provided this proof: Matt 12:24-26 "But the Pharisees hearing it, said: This man casteth not out the devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand?"
So what makes what you believe right and what I believe wrong?
Nothing "makes" things right or wrong. They just *are* right or wrong. Only the Catholic Church has supernatural proof of its legitimacy.
Since truth never changes, it follows that any religion which changes its beliefs is inherently false. What other religion has held to the exact same doctrine for nearly 2000 years?
And therefore, what gives anyone the right to force their beliefs on anyone?
God gives all rights, and He has not granted anyone else the right nor ability to force beliefs. Morality, however, is another issue, and it is the responsibility of our civil authorities to enforce it. And the Church has not only the right, but a mandate to teach all. After all, if you are not presented with the truth in the first place, how could you make a decision to accept or reject it?
Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote: On Wednesday 12 March 2008, James Sissel wrote:
Luke -Jr wrote: Matt 16:18, Our Lord appoints St. Peter to be the first pope and promises that that Satan will never at any time prevail over the Church.
Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Funny, I don't see the word Pope in there, nor Catholic.
18 "Thou art Peter"... As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
18 "Upon this rock"... The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.
18 "The gates of hell"... That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.
Still don't see the word Pope or Catholic in there. Or for that matter Religion.
Mark 16:15, Christ gives the Church a mandate to teach the world, and makes mention of signs to identify His Church (for example, only Catholics can cast our demons)
Really? Only Catholics can do that? Or maybe a better question should be "Can Catholics really do that?" What proof do you have that *anybody* can or can't do that? Or for that matter, what proof do you have demons even exist?
There are many well documented and witnessed exorcisms, and in some cases of demonic possession the possessed person has demonstrated supernatural abilities.
Documented by whom? Oh I see, the criminal is writing the court transcripts so later he can claim he was framed. And I still don't see any "proof" here that ONLY Catholics can thow out demons. Oh, and what about the snake handling? You know there is a religion that is NOT Catholic that handles snakes. Hmmm, seems to me the "Carismatics" (spelling?) talk in tougues. Never heard the Catholics do it and I have seen the Catholics make fun of the Carismatics. Maybe we should have all these "true religion" Catholics drink poison to "prove" they are the one true Religion. It's Biblical you know.
Acts 2, Christ sends the Holy Ghost to the apostles, making them the Church's first Bishops.
Bishops? I don't recall seeing that word.
My description is of what occured, not the literal text. You can obviously look up the literal text yourself.
I did. Didn't see the word Bishop, Pope, Catholic anywhere in there. Not even in their original or translated languages.
Acts 15:1, The first council (the Council of Jerusalem) addresses the first heresy (Judaizers), and eventually St. Peter uses his papal authority, accepted by all present, to give a final resolution.
Papal authority? Where does it say that? Or where does it say he's actually got *any* "authority"?
Right, so when St. Peter in the middle of a lot of disputing interrupts and proclaims a decision, and nobody questions him... they all just got tired of arguing, or what? Clearly, the only way the described event was even possible was that all present recognized that St. Peter was not to be questioned upon coming to a conclusion.
Just because some people said, "Gee, since he walked with this Jesus person we will allow him some latitude", doesn't give him authority. Nor does it make it PAPAL authority either. Circular logic here again. Who made Peter the Pope?
None of the claims of papal primacy, infallibility, pre-eminence, jurisdiction, etc. have any reliable foundation in the New Testament. Nor were they assumed to be the right of the Roman bishop in the first centuries of the Church. They are later inventions.
"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
Well, I said you are full of it. Does that make it right? Once again you are using circular "proofs" to prove something. You are saying just because a Pope said "they" are "the church" then it must be true. And since the Pope, who is always right because he is in charge of "the church", says they are the one true church that Jesus setup that must obvously be true. And since they are the one true church the Pope must alwasy be right. And on, and on, and on. And it still is all based somehow on this "New Testiment"?
Besides, all of this is from the New Testiment. Ask the Jews what they think of the New Testiment. So unless you have actual proof from God himself all of this is man's faith in what he believes.
Christ Himself provided this proof: Matt 12:24-26
And there you go again. Circular "proofs" are not proofs. You rely on this "New Testiment" for all of your supposed "proofs". What proof do you have this New Testiment is right or true?
So what makes what you believe right and what I believe wrong?
Nothing "makes" things right or wrong. They just *are* right or wrong. Only the Catholic Church has supernatural proof of its legitimacy.
But you still didn't answer my question. I asked "So what makes what you believe right and what I believe wrong?" becuase this ALL still comes down to you believe one thing and I believe another.
And you still haven't given one iota of this "proof" you keep spouting about.
Since truth never changes, it follows that any religion which changes its beliefs is inherently false. What other religion has held to the exact same doctrine for nearly 2000 years?
I guess all you Catholics better get back to eating that fish on Firday. Oh, wait. Back in the early Catholic church that wasn't a requirment. So what is it? Maybe you better also learn Latin too. Bring back the Spanish Inquisition. Oh, wait. They didn't do that when they started, then they did, then they didn't. Can they ever keep anything straight?
And therefore, what gives anyone the right to force their beliefs on anyone?
God gives all rights, and He has not granted anyone else the right nor ability to force beliefs. Morality, however, is another issue, and it is the responsibility of our civil authorities to enforce it. And the Church has not only the right, but a mandate to teach all. After all, if you are not presented with the truth in the first place, how could you make a decision to accept or reject it? Excuse me on "Morality"? ... "it is the responsibility of our civil authorities to enforce it"? Where in blazes do you get that piece of tripe? You are now forcing others to believe what you believe, something you just said isn't right. But wait, now you are saying not only is it right but it MUST be this way. But you said that wasn't right, but it is, but it isn't, but it is. Sounds like you can't keep your own "doctrine" the same in the same e-mail. What about 2000 years?
You just don't get it, do you? In your own way you are as narrow minded as the Islamic crazies. For all you know I might be Catholic too. You are making a lot of claims but I don't see any real support for anything you are saying. It's nothing but "beliefs" and circular logic you are trying to push off as "truth". Sorry, just calling it "truth" doesn't make it true.
And you certainly need to learn the difference between "church" and "religion". You know, God gave you a brain for a reason. Instead of having someone else dump crap into it you need to actually think for yourself. I often say this to people who thing Micro$oft is perfect if you cannot discuss the strengths and weaknesses of more than one OS then you cannot make a good judgement.
Nor am I saying you are wrong to be a Catholic. I am saying you might be wrong to claim the Catholics as the "one true religion" and that you are not convincing.
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, James Sissel wrote:
There are many well documented and witnessed exorcisms, and in some cases of demonic possession the possessed person has demonstrated supernatural abilities.
Documented by whom?
Many various witnesses. I guess if you didn't see it with your own two eyes, it never happened, eh?
Maybe we should have all these "true religion" Catholics drink poison to "prove" they are the one true Religion.
Satan tempted Jesus with almost the same thing. I think His response still applies. Do note that people have attempted to poison Catholics before and failed, BTW.
And there you go again. Circular "proofs" are not proofs. You rely on this "New Testiment" for all of your supposed "proofs". What proof do you have this New Testiment is right or true?
The proof is in logic and philosophy. Scripture in this case is merely documenting that Our Lord provided it.
Since truth never changes, it follows that any religion which changes its beliefs is inherently false. What other religion has held to the exact same doctrine for nearly 2000 years?
I guess all you Catholics better get back to eating that fish on Firday.
How is bringing up what has always been a disciplinary law (not a matter of faith nor morals) relevant to doctrine?
Oh, wait. Back in the early Catholic church that wasn't a requirment.
Actually, abstaining from meat on Fridays has been a law since the apostles' time.
So what is it?
Always has been a disciplinary law, which can be changed, unlike doctrine. Curiously, your example is a law that has never been changed.
Maybe you better also learn Latin too.
Hopefully someday.
Bring back the Spanish Inquisition. Oh, wait. They didn't do that when they started, then they did, then they didn't. Can they ever keep anything straight?
The Spanish Inquisition has nothing to do with the Church, nor was it anything near what your rewritten history no doubt claims.
Excuse me on "Morality"? ... "it is the responsibility of our civil authorities to enforce it"? Where in blazes do you get that piece of tripe? You are now forcing others to believe what you believe, something you just said isn't right. But wait, now you are saying not only is it right but it MUST be this way. But you said that wasn't right, but it is, but it isn't, but it is. Sounds like you can't keep your own "doctrine" the same in the same e-mail. What about 2000 years?
Morality is not beliefs. You can believe murder is acceptable as much as you like, but that doesn't mean we need to let you go around killing people.
Nor am I saying you are wrong to be a Catholic. I am saying you might be wrong to claim the Catholics as the "one true religion" and that you are not convincing.
Anyone who denies that Catholicism is anything but the one true religion, or claims non-Catholics can be saved, is inherently not Catholic. Both of such positions deny the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, James Sissel wrote:
Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote: Matt 16:18, Our Lord appoints St. Peter to be the first pope and
promises
that that Satan will never at any time prevail over the Church.
Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Funny, I don't see the word Pope in there, nor Catholic.
18 "Thou art Peter"... As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
18 "Upon this rock"... The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.
18 "The gates of hell"... That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.
Mark 16:15, Christ gives the Church a mandate to teach the world, and
makes
mention of signs to identify His Church (for example, only Catholics can cast our demons)
Really? Only Catholics can do that? Or maybe a better question
should
be "Can Catholics really do that?" What proof do you have that
*anybody*
can or can't do that? Or for that matter, what proof do you have demons even exist?
There are many well documented and witnessed exorcisms, and in some cases of demonic possession the possessed person has demonstrated supernatural abilities.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm
Acts 2, Christ sends the Holy Ghost to the apostles, making them the Church's first Bishops.
Bishops? I don't recall seeing that word.
My description is of what occured, not the literal text. You can obviously look up the literal text yourself.
Acts 15:1, The first council (the Council of Jerusalem) addresses the first heresy (Judaizers), and eventually St. Peter uses his papal authority, accepted by all present, to give a final resolution.
Papal authority? Where does it say that? Or where does it say he's actually got *any* "authority"?
Right, so when St. Peter in the middle of a lot of disputing interrupts and proclaims a decision, and nobody questions him... they all just got tired of arguing, or what? Clearly, the only way the described event was even possible was that all present recognized that St. Peter was not to be questioned upon coming to a conclusion.
None of the claims of papal primacy, infallibility, pre-eminence, jurisdiction, etc. have any reliable foundation in the New Testament.
Nor
were they assumed to be the right of the Roman bishop in the first centuries of the Church. They are later inventions.
"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
Besides, all of this is from the New Testiment. Ask the Jews what
they
think of the New Testiment. So unless you have actual proof from God himself all of this is man's faith in what he believes.
Christ Himself provided this proof: Matt 12:24-26 "But the Pharisees hearing it, said: This man casteth not out the devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand?"
So what makes what you believe right and what I believe wrong?
Nothing "makes" things right or wrong. They just *are* right or wrong. Only the Catholic Church has supernatural proof of its legitimacy.
Since truth never changes, it follows that any religion which changes its beliefs is inherently false. What other religion has held to the exact same doctrine for nearly 2000 years?
And therefore, what gives anyone the right to force their beliefs on
anyone?
God gives all rights, and He has not granted anyone else the right nor ability to force beliefs. Morality, however, is another issue, and it is the responsibility of our civil authorities to enforce it. And the Church has not only the right, but a mandate to teach all. After all, if you are not presented with the truth in the first place, how could you make a decision to accept or reject it? _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
With due deference to those holding a theological symposium . Perhaps we may spawn a list "filter?" or similar to allow a proper forum for the Judeo-Christian canon dissertations. Yet there IS a matter of what here passes for HERESY! And that being casually voiced by one who may not have grasped their trifling with the darkness itself. I must warn of a damnable blasphemy and apostate SIN.
"No matter how "evil" Micro$oft is ... Linux is not the one true OS".
Friends- THERE we see a grave risk of perdition.
________________________________
"No matter how "evil" Micro$oft is ... Linux is not the one true OS".
Friends- THERE we see a grave risk of perdition.
I didn't write that one. That was not my Sin.
Point noted- Sadly the commenting in Gmail often accidentally obscures a comment's originator.
kOn Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Phil Thayer phil.thayer@vitalsite.com wrote:
"No matter how "evil" Micro$oft is ... Linux is not the one true OS".
Friends- THERE we see a grave risk of perdition.
I didn't write that one. That was not my Sin.
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Oren Beck orenbeck@gmail.com wrote:
With due deference to those holding a theological symposium . Perhaps we may spawn a list "filter?" or similar to allow a proper forum for the Judeo-Christian canon dissertations. Yet there IS a matter of what here passes for HERESY! And that being casually voiced by oe who may not have grasped their trifling with the darkness itself. I must warn of a damnable blasphemy and apostate SIN.
"No matter how "evil" Micro$oft is ... Linux is not the one true OS".
Friends- THERE we see a grave risk of perdition.
BSD anyone? Mac OS? VAX/VMS? CICS? VMS? CP/M for some? Hell, my old TI calculator had a better OS than anything Micro$oft has pumped out since the DOS days and DOS, for what it did, ran very well. Don't want Micro$oft? FreeDOS.
We as Linux enthusiasts must not get caught in the mind trap of Luke Jr claiming Linux (which distribution/religion, by the way?) is the "one true OS". Plus, we really need to remember that "Linux" is only the kernel.
If you cannot discuss the strengths/weaknesses of more than one OS you cannot judge any one as "best". And it is sad to say, evil Winblows seems to be best (at this moment) for a lot of the mindless masses. To give evil Micro$oft one tick of credit, it does do relatively easily what a lot of the mindless masses want to do. It might not be the proper tool for the job but it does get the job done.
Each case is different and we should strive to be open minded, find and use the proper tool for the job. Be that Winblows, Linux, DOS, Mac, whatever. We should also strive to make Linux better and just as easy for the mindless masses to use so we can eliminate Micro$oft. I've personally found, so far, Ubuntu 7.10 to be the best one currently to do that job.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:55 PM, James Sissel jimsissel@yahoo.com wrote:
*Oren Beck orenbeck@gmail.com* wrote:
With due deference to those holding a theological symposium . Perhaps we
may spawn a
list "filter?" or similar to allow a proper forum for the Judeo-Christian
canon dissertations.
Yet there IS a matter of what here passes for HERESY! And that being
casually voiced by
oe who may not have grasped their trifling with the darkness itself. I must warn of a damnable blasphemy and apostate SIN.
"No matter how "evil" Micro$oft is ... Linux is not the one true OS".
Friends- THERE we see a grave risk of perdition.
BSD anyone? Mac OS? VAX/VMS? CICS? VMS? CP/M for some? Hell, my old TI calculator had a better OS than anything Micro$oft has pumped out since the DOS days and DOS, for what it did, ran very well. Don't want Micro$oft? FreeDOS.
We as Linux enthusiasts must not get caught in the mind trap of Luke Jr claiming Linux (which distribution/religion, by the way?) is the "one true OS". Plus, we really need to remember that "Linux" is only the kernel.
If you cannot discuss the strengths/weaknesses of more than one OS you cannot judge any one as "best". And it is sad to say, evil Winblows seems to be best (at this moment) for a lot of the mindless masses. To give evil Micro$oft one tick of credit, it does do relatively easily what a lot of the mindless masses want to do. It might not be the proper tool for the job but it does get the job done.
Each case is different and we should strive to be open minded, find and use the proper tool for the job. Be that Winblows, Linux, DOS, Mac, whatever. We should also strive to make Linux better and just as easy for the mindless masses to use so we can eliminate Micro$oft. I've personally found, so far, Ubuntu 7.10 to be the best one currently to do that job.
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Ah, we ARE back on the enlightened path this list was formed for! I admit
my comment re:apostate statement was a bit of good natured redirection from me- but actually IS that serious to others of the Open Source realm.
Yes- there are many incarnations of what is termed an "operating system" - no caps intentional. I too agree that the caveats about using the proper tool and a poor craftsman blaming an incorrectly used tool apply here as in other areas. While not risking the wrath of purists by false elevations, there are well documented cases where Win95 delivers a de facto more practical user experience than non MS software has. That one gets a possible refutation at the next LUG meting I able to attend. I have a Panasonic CF-25 "Toughbook" P166,32 mb Ram and currently something near a 2GB drive.Thatmay become an install project for the collective mind here. I am crafting a detailed posting listing mission requirements for that beast to be up this evening.
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, James Sissel wrote:
We as Linux enthusiasts must not get caught in the mind trap of Luke Jr claiming Linux (which distribution/religion, by the way?) is the "one true OS". Plus, we really need to remember that "Linux" is only the kernel.
Please learn to associate your nonsense assertions with the right people. I never said anything of this sort.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
James Sissel wrote: | Mark 16:15, Christ gives the Church a mandate to teach the world, and makes | mention of signs to identify His Church (for example, only | Catholics can cast our demons) | | Really? Only Catholics can do that? Or maybe a better question should be "Can Catholics really do that?" What proof do you have that *anybody* can or can't do that? Or for that matter, what proof do you have demons even exist?
Of course daemons exist...how else would you run apache, nfs, ntp, &c.
However, I thought all you had to do to banish a daemon was a simple 'kill -9', or if you're feeling more friendly, perhaps an
~ /etc/init.d/<daemon> stop
Now you're telling me I have to involve Catholics?!? Is there some way I can do that from a shell script, or do I have to make direct calls to the kernel?
I looked, but I can't seem to find a man page for anything that looks like an 'exorcise' utility or syscall. :-(
- -- Charles Steinkuehler charles@steinkuehler.net
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Charles Steinkuehler charles@steinkuehler.net wrote:
However, I thought all you had to do to banish a daemon was a simple 'kill -9', or if you're feeling more friendly, perhaps an
~ /etc/init.d/<daemon> stop
Now you're telling me I have to involve Catholics?!? Is there some way I can do that from a shell script, or do I have to make direct calls to the kernel?
groupadd catholics chmod 464 /etc/init.d/* chgrp catholics /etc/init.d/*
I'm sure there;s an equally poignant way to do it with selinux
Hitler was catholic!
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/HitlersFaith.html
*So long as Adolf Hitler was in power,*
his Roman Catholic Church *never questioned his Catholicism*
- at least not in public - which is
where it mattered politically.
Sigh, I guess this thread is now over. Someone brought up Hitler. ;)
Oh, by the way, love the dig and good point. Wish I'd thought of it myself.
Philip Dorr tagno25@gmail.com wrote: Hitler was catholic!
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/HitlersFaith.html
So long as Adolf Hitler was in power, his Roman Catholic Church never questioned his Catholicism - at least not in public - which is where it mattered politically._______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Philip Dorr wrote:
Hitler was catholic!
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/HitlersFaith.html
*So long as Adolf Hitler was in power,*
his Roman Catholic Church *never questioned his Catholicism*
- at least not in public - which is
where it mattered politically.
Good misinformation there...
"He [Pope Pius XII] is also sometimes criticized for not excommunicating Hitler, but Hitler was already excommunicated ipso facto for a whole range of crimes and could only have returned to the Catholic faith, even assuming that he would ever have wanted to, by having his excommunication lifted by the Pope himself. The lifting of the sentence was reserved to the Holy See, latae sententiae. Besides, the complaint assumes that Hitler took some notice of the Holy See and the Catholic Church. Insofar as he did, it was for purely political reasons, since he was forced to recognize the influence of the Catholic Church and the papacy. Hitler described himself as "a complete pagan" (see Hitler’s Table Talk) and regarded the Catholic Church as his greatest enemy, which he would destroy when he had the opportunity."
And if Godwin's Law had anything to do with the ending of the discussion, it would have ended when someone posted about Hitler and Catholicism a few days before you did.
Godwin's Law is merely the percentage chance of Hitler/Nazis being mentioned in a discussion, and it is directly proportional to the length of the discussion. It is not a rule stipulating the ending of a discussion.
--- Philip Dorr tagno25@gmail.com wrote:
Hitler was catholic!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Charles Steinkuehler charles@steinkuehler.net wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
James Sissel wrote:
| (for example, only [[members of a certain | religion]] can cast our demons)
Really? Only [[members of a certain religion]] can do that? Or maybe a better question should be "Can [[members of a certain religion]] really do that?" What proof do you have that *anybody* can or can't do that? Or for that matter, what proof do you have demons even exist?
Of course daemons exist...how else would you run apache, nfs, ntp, &c.
However, I thought all you had to do to banish a daemon was a simple 'kill -9', or if you're feeling more friendly, perhaps an
~ /etc/init.d/<daemon> stop
Now you're telling me I have to involve [[a certain religion]]?!? Is there some way I can do that from a shell script, or do I have to make direct calls to the kernel?
I looked, but I can't seem to find a man page for anything that looks like an 'exorcise' utility or syscall. :-(
Linux looks at daemons differently from [a certain religion]. Linux daemons are considered useful most of the time. When they start destroying your partition records (so that you know that the daemon has hidden that picture of your mother in there somewhere) and start spewing "stuff" all over your hard drive, then you reach for the kill command. However, you then do your best to bring back the daemon, to "re-possess" your computer at the earliest available opportunity.
"Exorcisms" try to drive out daemons completely, such that they do not return. An "exorcise" command in Linux would be a shell script which killed the daemon and then deleted the daemon's executable, which is completely antithetical to the proper operation of Linux.
Not to mention a sure way to go straight to "dependency hell". ]:-)
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Charles Steinkuehler charles@steinkuehler.net wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
James Sissel wrote:
| (for example, only [[members of a certain | religion]] can cast our demons)
Really? Only [[members of a certain religion]] can do that? Or maybe a better question should be "Can [[members of a certain religion]] really do that?" What proof do you have that *anybody* can or can't do that? Or for that matter, what proof do you have demons even exist?
Of course daemons exist...how else would you run apache, nfs, ntp, &c.
However, I thought all you had to do to banish a daemon was a simple 'kill -9', or if you're feeling more friendly, perhaps an
~ /etc/init.d/<daemon> stop
Now you're telling me I have to involve [[a certain religion]]?!? Is there some way I can do that from a shell script, or do I have to make direct calls to the kernel?
I looked, but I can't seem to find a man page for anything that looks like an 'exorcise' utility or syscall. :-(
Linux looks at daemons differently from [a certain religion]. Linux daemons are considered useful most of the time. When they start destroying your partition records (so that you know that the daemon has hidden that picture of your mother in there somewhere) and start spewing "stuff" all over your hard drive, then you reach for the kill command. However, you then do your best to bring back the daemon, to "re-possess" your computer at the earliest available opportunity.
"Exorcisms" try to drive out daemons completely, such that they do not return. An "exorcise" command in Linux would be a shell script which killed the daemon and then deleted the daemon's executable, which is completely antithetical to the proper operation of Linux.
Not to mention a sure way to go straight to "dependency hell". ]:-)
____________________________________________________________________________________Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
So what you're saying is, we should be calling them Spierits?
-
Charles Steinkuehler -
David Nicol -
feba thatl -
James Sissel -
Leo Mauler -
Luke -Jr -
Oren Beck -
Phil Thayer -
Philip Dorr