Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Christdot 11 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I'm not sure what to think either, it's fairly odd, but then god botherers do confuse me.

    I'm not sure what is up with the survey question "Does God take risks?". Surely, god doesn't take risks, his (her/its?) actions are all part of a divine plan?

    • Re:survey (Score:2, Interesting)

      by FT (3220)
      Here's what's up with the survey question. One of the things that confounds Christians the most is "the question of evil." It's pretty hard to explain a loving God and the existence of evil. Think of it like this: did God, supposing there is such an entity, knowing create Satan to be Satan? Or did he create him with great potential - for both "good" and "evil" - realizing doing so was a risk?

      I promise to not pullute this journal further. I couldn't resist answering this question. Flamefest at Christo

      • John wrote:

        Think of it like this: did God, supposing there is such an entity, knowing create Satan to be Satan? Or did he create him with great potential - for both "good" and "evil" - realizing doing so was a risk?

        because Gav wrote:

        Surely, god doesn't take risks, his (her/its?) actions are all part of a divine plan?

        To me, it's pretty obvious that God does take risks - here's an amazingly stupid risk to take, if you look at it from a human perspective: entrusting the care of distribution of the

        • I lied. I'm posting again. I agree with your statement that taking risks isn't inconsistent with having a plan. The problem that "traditional" Christian theology has with this is that it makes the future uncertain. That is inconsistent with biblical claims that the future (the "outcome") has already been determined and Christ is victorious. But perhaps _how_ this will happen isn't set in stone. It's like those stories where the other knows the beginning and the end but there's more than one way to get
          • I wouldn't worry about it, the non-perl content often turns out to be more interesting than the perl content :)

            My thoughts were that the question (though interesting) was illogical. If we suppose that God is infallible, he isn't taking a risk because he knows what the outcome is.

            However, giving humans free will may have been a bit 'risky'. I've found that given a set of decisions to choose from, people often choose a sub optimal one.

            This all reminds me of a wacky theory that came to me after a beer (o

          • I almost like the idea the Evil(tm) is a consequence of free will. Without Free Will there can be no Evil(tm). Lucifer's fall was basically because of pride (in a very rough way). I don't know if Lucifer is necessarily Evil(tm), maybe a Deceiver (in a Lord Foul/Thomas Covenant sort of way).

            Evil(tm) was/is a choice made by humanity, philosophically speaking, if you're will to agree with the idea of Free Will being necessary for Evil(tm). I suppose you could say that Original Sin creates a degree of Evil(tm)

          • I'm not christian (nor in fact from any other religion) so maybe I shouldn't interfere, but I agree with gav that the question doesn't make sense. However I did spend quite some time studying metaphysics, a lot of which has to do with a "perfect entity" (used more as a useful concept than as a theological idea) which is often called God, even in atheist philosophy (if only because it's useful to use the same word to mean the same thing).

            From the point of view of humans, which have a limited perspec

            --

            -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

      • What do we think of all this? I think you should have used Slash!
        • I thought about using slash. After all, I live about 3 miles from Rob Malda (went to school with him for ~12 years growing up) and he might answer a question or two from me. He helped me get linux up and running the first time back in '96. But... slash was a little more complicated (read: bloated) than what I needed. And, dare I say in this environment, I'm no perl expert. PHP, though less elegant and inefficient is easy to learn by just looking at it. I should really spend more time learning Perl but
    • Doesn't answer the question,
      but read "The Salmon of Doubt".
      DNA has an interesting hypothesis
      in his idea of an artificial god.
      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?

  • I wonder.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by quidity (1296) on 2002.06.08 12:33 (#9336) Homepage Journal

    Do Christdot trolls yearn not for a First Post but instead for a Second Coming?

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.