[Vision2020] Heirdoug's hero

Thu Dec 7 15:50:43 PST 2006

Lemon-O,

Assuming that you are an electrician how would you handle the following?

Instructions for wiring a stentometer.

1.    Caution:  Under no circumstances ever connect terminal A with terminal 
B.
.
.
.
6.    Connect terminal A to terminal B.
...

What action would you take and why?

W.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <heirdoug at netscape.net>
To: <nielsen at uidaho.edu>; <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Heirdoug's hero

>
> Ralph,
>
> Yes, I do claim that the genealogy in Matthew is the Word of God and is
> true. I also claim that the genealogy in Luke is also the Word of God
> and is true. To believe that any part of God's Word to be false is to
> blaspheme the living God, something that you and your so called "honest
> scholars" have come to a consensus on.
>
> I don't agree with you that neither David nor his baby went to heaven.
> To quote David, "Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he
> will not return to me." David went to his resurrection and as an Old
> Testament saint, is in the presence of the Lord. David said "I will go
> to him" that would mean that the baby went to his resurrection and is
> in the presence of the Lord as well. Ralph, you are starting to sound
> like a Sadducee.
>
> Vicarious punishment is perfectly moral in these Bible days as well. We
> have never left the Bible days. The judgments and blessings of God do
> not change for God is unchangeable. The sins that you commit could be
> the judgment God is placing upon your Grand parents. Not having a name
> or posterity to carry it on is also God’s judgment.
>
> Ralph you amaze me. You choose to speak the truth in the midst of your
> lies. When God arranged, at the beginning of time, to have his only
> begotten son crucified, in the fullness of time, He was only thinking
> of you. It was for your sins that Jesus was born. It was for your sins
> that He lived a sinless life. It was for your sins that He died and was
> buried. And it was for your justification that He was raised from the
> dead on the third day.
>
> I am curious about one thing. Were you baptized in the name of the
> Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as a child like Nick Gier was?
>
> lemeno,
> Doug!
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nielsen at uidaho.edu
> To: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> Cc: artdeco at moscow.com; heirdoug at netscape.net
> Sent: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:46 AM
> Subject: Heirdoug's hero
>
> If Doug's claim that the genealogy in Matthew is historically true,
> then the one in Luke is false. Of course, it is possible that both are
> false, as honest Christian scholars agree.
>
> I am at a loss to understand what Doug means when he claims that I
> "typically" quote Bible verses incompletely. Since the division of the
> Bible into chapters and verses is quite arbitrary--they do not appear
> in the MSS--it is not always necessary to quote verses in full. Since I
> was discussing David, not Jesus, my omission was perfectly legitimate.
>
> I take it that Doug agrees with me that neither David nor his baby boy
> went to heaven when they died.
>
> Vicarious punishment was considered perfectly moral in Bible days. That
> is why the LORD killed David's baby boy for his father's sins. And that
> is why, according to the Christian religion, God arranged to have his
> own son tortured and killed for the sins of others.
>
> As for which or how many books belong in the Bible and thus constitute
> the "Word of God," here again the decision is quite arbitrary. To this
> day Christians and Jews cannot agree on this matter. So far be it from
> me to argue about it.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> Art Deco deco at moscow.com
> Thu Dec 7 08:20:08 PST 2006
>
> Lemon-O,
>
> Should you be over-taxing your brain like this before having your
> pioneering brain surgery? Should you be demonstrating how much
> functionality your brain has lost?
>
> [1]
>
> You claim that Jesus was descended from David according to Matthew in
> your post reproduced below.
>
> There is a small problem with such a claim besides the truth of the
> lineage statements found in Matthew and the contradictory lineage
> statements found in Luke
>
> <http://virtualreligion.net/primer/Background/lineage.html>.
>
> "Descended from" means that there was a whole series of "begettings"
> that started with David and ended with Mary's fruit of the womb, Jesus.
> [I am making the hopeful assumption that you know what "beget" means,
> although evidence from your personal life might be seen to argue
> otherwise.]
>
> However, the point is simple: If Jesus is descended from David, then
> sly old Joseph must have done some begetting himself with Mary. If not,
> then David's lineage ended with Joseph, not Jesus. So if Jesus is
> descended from David through either of the lineages supplied by Matthew
> or Luke (or any other lineage), the claim of a virgin birth is
> contradicted since in order to be descended from David through Joseph,
> Joseph, like David, must have enjoyed some begetting.
>
> Choose your poison: Virgin birth or descent from David. Both cannot be
> true, but both could be false. Merry Christmas.
>
> [2]
>
> Since your mental acuity has apparently suffered such a piteous decline
> (hence the urgency of the pending operation) from its former below
> average pinnacle, you appeared to have forgotten the concept of Modus
> Ponens.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_Ponens
>
> Here's how it applies to the story of David:
>
> [a] If the Bible is completely true, then all statements and logically
> valid derivatives of same found in the Bible are true.
> [b] The Bible in the story of David claims that is it OK to punish
> someone by hideously torturing and killing some innocent person with no
> moral culpability in the issue, e.g. David's son.
> [c] It is not OK to punish someone by hideously torturing and killing
> some innocent person with no moral culpability in the issue.
> _______________________________________________
> [d] Therefore, there is at least one set of statements and logically
> valid derivatives of same in the Bible which is not true.
> [e] The Bible is not completely true.
>
> If the Bible is not completely true, then the so far unsolved puzzle
> remains: which parts are true (if any), which parts are not, and how
> can it be decided beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond fantasy which is
> which.
>
> [Doug, I hope you do not mind the use of color above. They say that
> some who suffer from your condition can attend and understand better if
> the material they are presented with is written using crayons.]
>
> Again all of us hope that your brain surgery will be a success.
> However, you may not know it, but operations done near or during the
> holiday season have a lower success rate and a much greater mortality
> rate. But if you live and are able to write coherently, please let us
> know when and where to send the get well cards. In the meantime you
> would do well to avoid overtaxing your brain and embarrassing yourself
> further.
>
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> deco at moscow.com
>
> PS: Is any of your medical expenses going to be paid for by the Wilson
> & Family's Christless Crackpot Cult & Cash Machine? If not, then maybe
> a fund raising raffle could be held at the Corner Club.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <heirdoug at netscape.net>
> To: <nielsen at uidaho.edu>; <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:39 PM
> Subject: [Vision2020] Heirdoug's hero
>
>>
>> Ralph I did read carefully.
>>
>> You seem to think that by pointing out the sins of another that I
> will
>> be shamed and embarrassed by what the Spirit of the Living God states
>> in the Bible. I will never be embarrassed by all of what God says, be
>> they red or black letters.
>>
>> From the genealogy in Matthew we see that God is not embarrassed
> either
>> using David’s sins to bring about the redemption of Mankind… “The
>> record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the
> son
>> of Abraham: … Jesse was the father of David the king. David was the
>> father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah.”
>>
>> And now the passage that you cited: "After He had removed him, He
>> raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He (God) also
>> testified and said, 'I HAVE FOUND DAVID the son of Jesse, A MAN AFTER
>> MY HEART, who will do all My will.”
>>
>> But you stopped short, as you typically do, from quoting the rest of
>> the verse… “From the descendants of this man, according to promise,
> God
>> has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus”.
>>
>> You should always quote all of the verse in it’s [sic] context and
> not be so
>> embarrassed by the truth that God's Word gives!
>>
>> lemeno, Doug!
>>
>>
>>=
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
> industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> 