Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ] 
Author Message
 Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]

Quote:
> As defined in Webster Illustrated Contemporary Dictionary Encyclopedic
> edition copyright 1978,

> Dogma 1. A system of teachings of religious truth as maintained by the
> Christian church or any portion of it.

May I suggest an adjustment there please...

"Dogma 1. A system of teachings of religious truth as *perceived* and ..."

--
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.



Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]

Quote:
> Nah.  First offence, finger.  Second offence, hand.  Third offence, head.
> The road to civilization is not tolerating criminal behavior.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Would you think of this as civilised if
you read it in a history book ? The Sumerians had a law by which a
surgeons hand was chopped off if his patient died in the process of
performing surgery, thus committing the offence of failure. Where is the
limit once we have gone over a certain "shocking" threshold ?

Benjamin

--
As an anti-spam measure I have scrambled my email address here.
Remove "nospam-" and ROT13 to obtain my email address in clear text.



Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]

Quote:



> > > Nah.  First offence, finger.  Second offence, hand.  Third offence,
head.
> > > The road to civilization is not tolerating criminal behavior.

> > This is the road to totalitarianism.

> > "Thou shalt not kill"

> > It amazes me how so many christian people in the states are pro death
penalty
> > even though it's against one of the most basic principles of christian
ethics.

> Doesn't the bible also say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and
> specify communinal stoning to death for such offenses as {*filter*}ery and
> violating the the sabbath? Christians abandoned stoning for burning at
> the stake.

It's my understanding that that directive is more properly translated as,
"Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live."

Larry



Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]

Quote:


>>> Another example of how Chrisitanity has twisted things around: the
>>> Christians consider assassination to be evil; they prefer to kill
>>> thousands of patriotic young men and innocent civilians on both sides
>[...]
>> Shall we appoint you to decide who ought to be assassinated? If not you,
>> then who?

>Well, obviously, the people who today have the power to declare war.

>The point is: Declaring war shouldn't be an easy act, but once war is
>declared, assassination should be considered a valid strategy.

Are you thinking about the old "Divine Right of Kings" here?

That's been dead for hundreds of years, and it is very reasonable to
consider that it came into existence as a self-serving strategy of
"royalty" whose purpose continues to this day.

Consider:  

   Who makes the decision that assassination will become the national
   strategy?   Hmmm... The national leader.

   What is the result of such a strategy?   Hmmm...  Open season on
   national leaders.

It would take a pretty dumb national leader to approve of
assassination as a tool of international politics; that leader
immediately gets a big sign painted on their back labelled "Go ahead -
assassinate me!"

The connection between this and:
a) Christianity, and
b) Death penalties,
is exceedingly tenuous.
--
A student, in hopes of understanding the Lambda-nature, came to Greenblatt.
As they spoke a Multics system hacker walked by.  "Is it true", asked the
student, "that PL-1 has many of the same data types as Lisp?"  Almost before
the student had finished his question, Greenblatt shouted, "FOO!", and hit
the student with a stick.



Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
Quote:

> Hello Erik,

> I hope I'm not butting in here where I shouldn't, but I have some responses
> to your posting.



> > | You're confusing Christians with people who pick (an arbitrary) religion
> > | to justify their evil ways.

> >   I'm interested in a simple, straight-forward way to keep the two apart,
> >   for it seems to me that religions are the best vehicles to further evil:

> I don't disagree here.  Many people have done bad things in the name of
> religion.

> >   those who act out of a belief without doubt will also not stop acting
> >   when people who had retained the capacity to doubt would have stopped.

> Well, as a Christian, I have learned that God gave me a brain, and He
> expects me to use it.  I have the Bible, which tells me how to use it, and
> it doesn't justify evil.  I don't think Being a Christian has effected my
> ability
> to doubt, I just don't doubt God. And even if I did, or do doubt God
> from time to time, that doesn't effect my salvation, since it doesn't hinge
> on my ability to not doubt God without fail.  Salvation is a gift, that once
> it has been (genuinely) received, cannot be lost.

[The real meat snipped]

Quote:

> Just my thoughts,

> Tom Zimmer

Those are good thoughts, in that they are consistent and come from a
good man, whatever he thinks of himself. (Humility is good, too.) They
seem to be based on a number of unstated assumptions, many of which can
be deduced. I don't share most of those.

One of the assumptions is probably that the set of beliefs is valid, and
that what is right and what is wrong in known with certainty. There are
many in the world, of different religions, who hold that view of their
own beliefs. For some of them, it gives them the right and imposes on
them duty to force those beliefs (and tribal practices) on all others.
Achieving the political power to enforce their beliefs is a goal of
several religions and religious organizations today.

Theocracy and democracy are incompatible. Indeed, many references in
religion presuppose an absolute monarchy. Lord, King of the Universe,
Master, Prince of Peace, Prince of Darkness; the list is long. For many,
these are more than titles.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------

P.S.

Quote:

> I don't know where scapegoat came from, but if you are relating it
> to Christ, then surely you know that Jesus gave Himself willingly.  It
> is true that He asked God to take away the burden, but when God
> did not, then Jesus gave his life without resistance.

In the temple in old Jerusalem, two goats were part of the Yom Kippur
service. One was dedicated to God, the other to Azazel. The one
dedicated to God was slaughtered as a sacrifice, its {*filter*} being
spattered as part of the ritual. The other, the scapegoat (from
"escape") was symbolically loaded with the sins of the populace and
driven into the wilderness. In favt, driven over a cliff to its death at
a place thought to be called Azazel. An elaborate semaphor system
signaled back to the temple that the deed was done, and the service
resumed. It made no difference to the goats whether they were chosen for
God or for Azazel. What mattered was being selected to participate.


Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]
This bit of Forth history found on a scroll ...

"In the beginning was the WORD,
and the WORD was with (unreadable),
and the WORD was good."

Also noted on the scroll ...

CREATE light 2 ALLOT

: Let_there_be_light  ( -- )    \ one part of creation
  LIGHT ON
  CR ." And there was light." ; \ message to Man

ok
Let_there_be_light  
ok
And there was light

If that's what the scroll says,
it's good enough for me.
Who cares about LISP when Forth says it all?

Paul Frenger



Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]

<snip>

Quote:
>In the old testament, yes it may say so.
>Christian ethics are based on the life of Jesus and the new testament. There's a
>big difference in the general tone of the two testaments.

They do not differ substantively. The Old Testament looks forward to the coming
Messiah. The New Testament looks back to the Messiah who came as suffering servant and
His crucifixion.

Quote:
>The old testament reminds me of the way things are in the near east.

Maybe because that IS the context :)

Quote:
>The book contradicts itself in so many places that I wonder how it is even possible to

interpret it >literally.

Show me a contradiction.  (BTW many have claimed contradictions exist and when I have
challenged them the response has always been "Well everybody knows there are
contradictions". Never have I been given an example. )

Quote:
>Judaism is based on the old testament and christianity also includes the new
testament, which
>is totally different.

See above as regards point-of-view of the Old and New Testament human authorship.

For those interested, I am:
Fundementalist / Biblicist Christian accepting the plenary verbal inspiration of
inerrant Scripture
generally Calvinist, pre-millenial ( possibly pre-tribulational) but not
dispensational  in theology
Baptist by practice and polity



Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]

| One must first wonder what is wrong with the system that produces these
| kinds of people that commit the crimes.

  what's wrong is thinking that political systems produce any kind of
  people.  "societies don't produce people.  people produce people."

  if a poor person turns to crime, that only explains why he's poor, not
  why he's a criminal.  likewise, if a poor person _demands_ that others
  keep him alive, that also explains why he's poor.  normal human decency,
  however, implies that we take care of people who come to us and ask for
  help in a way that makes it worth our while to help them, but begging is
  so disgustingly demeaning that one should _never_ help beggars.  this
  part of normal caring for other people has been destroyed by organized
  welfare, and people are turned into beggars because that's the only thing
  that works: the worst part of organized welfare is that you don't get
  help if you aren't sufficiently "needy".  requiring people to compete
  with others in terms of being the most needy is a really, truly horrible
  thing to do to them, as any prospect of bettering your condition also
  means you don't "deserve" support from the organized welfare, anymore.

  my take on it is that people who are allowed to think that they can
  _demand_ that others keep them alive and well start to think they are
  _deprived_ of it if others don't actually keep them alive and well, and
  such attitudes may well lead to criminal behavior as it already ignores
  the rights and needs of those who are required to care for them with
  nothing tangible in return, not even a thank-you.  stuff like that works
  in a traditional family setting, where having a child is an obligation
  that lasts at least 18 years, but societies don't produce children in the
  literal sense, either, so something above and beyond nature is needed and
  it's important that people agree on this and appreciate it.  an annoying,
  smelly child who demands candy from its parents in a grocery store is a
  different story altogether from an annoying, smelly grown-up who demands
  change from the same parents outside the same store, albeit for exactly
  the same reason.

  I also keep reminding myself that what is now the Western Civilization
  was once made up of people much less well off than what we call "poor"
  today, yet somehow they managed to become one of the most affluent
  civilizations in human history in the course of a few hundred years.
  what made it happen?  it sure wasn't welfare from outer space, and
  massive numbers of people died prematurely to make it happen.  it is
  politically correct today to accuse Europeans of stealing all the wealth
  from today's poor nations, but none of these poor nations ever _had_ any
  massive wealth to steal to begin with.  did we rob them of chances?  I
  don't get it.  chances don't come in a fixed supply, and we didn't steal
  _all_ of their natural resources all at once, anyway.  what made Western
  Civilization?  I don't know, but I know it wasn't a demand that somebody
  give us a chance and until we got it, we would sit on our asses and wait,
  so I don't understand why we have started to reward such demands so much.

#:Erik
--
  (defun pringles (chips)
    (loop (pop chips)))



Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]

(snip)

Quote:

> Show me a contradiction.  

My favorite is the following:

I Kings Ch. 7 verse 23

In King James translation: "And he made molten sea, ten cubits from the one
brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits:
and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

From which it is obvious that pi must be three.

  -LenZ-



Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Death penalty for LISP ? [ was: Re: Is LISP dying? ]

Quote:


>(snip)
>> Show me a contradiction.  

I really don't like this type of question here, but at least we're being
polite again.

Quote:
>My favorite is the following:
>I Kings Ch. 7 verse 23
>In King James translation: "And he made molten sea, ten cubits from the one
>brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits:
>and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
>From which it is obvious that pi must be three.

Or that the measurement was imprecise (a cop-out, IMO), or that the
"molten sea" (giant basin) had a rim, and the brim-to-brim measurement
went to the outer lip, while the compass measurement went about the waist
(the cord was run under the rim).  Assuming the second excuse to be true,
the width of the rim can be calculated, and IIRC it's quite reasonable.

There are some better examples of possible contradictions.  I'd have to
search for them, though, and I'd rather defend than attack.

Quote:
>  -LenZ-

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley


Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 433 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

 Relevant Pages 
 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software