Tired_Old_Man

Thank you for a wonderful lesson. I have read the Qur'an (Yusufali translation) from cover to cover and use a website that allows me to find Suras that contains topics I want to quote by keyword. I read the Qur'an to increase my knowledge and to help me be more tolerant of what I expected to be a belligerent religion. Instead, I found less belligerence than in the Old Testament. Moses was the person most mentioned in the Qur'an, though Allah was the name most mentioned (but he is not a person). Jesus was spoken of more that Mohammed.

Just because you can quote a verse in the Bible that says something, don't be so assured that someone else can not quote another verse from the Bible that says the opposite. Or don't be so sure that someone can not interpret the verse that you quoted as meaning something different (maybe exactly the opposite). I have heard people much more knowledgeable that I argue over scripture. When one quotes one verse, the other quotes a verse which says the opposite, only to be told by the first one that his verse actually means something else. I have seen Bible verses used as justification for almost anything including the agenda of Hitler, the KKK and the Confederates states' rights to keep slaves. The Bible is a complex, self-contradictory set of books, which originally were a handful of letters and pamphlets (so to speak), that were edited to someone's taste (canonization).

Actually, people who believe in the death penalty are in the majority in the USA. I even think that the posters to this thread who believe in the death penalty are in the majority, though I am too lazy to take a head count.:faint:

I respect your beliefs about the Bible except when they put down other people's religions. Your interpretation of the Bible doesn't allow for anyone else's interpretation or other people's “Books of God”, yet many ministers and theologians can accept other people's beliefs and Holy Books. I do not question your love for Jesus. I do not question you relationship with Jesus. I do question your intolerance for other people's method of worship, and I question your right to blame it on God. "Who are we to question God's way" is the answer I have heard whenever a Christian is stumped. Who are you to question God's ways as expressed by other Holy Books than your Bible? You have no more right to call another Holy Book false than the readers of that Holy Book have to call the Bible False. You have no more right to call another person's interpretation of the Bible false than that person has to call your interpretation of Bible False. Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance.

That is the problem. You say "with all due respect", but you give none. Just because I don't use the Qur'an as my Holy Book, doesn't make it any less of a Holy Book. You have no respect for the religion of anyone else, but demand total respect for yours, and don't tell me that it is God's way. It is your way and your style. You are not the first “man of God” that I have met. Allah is the same God as you worship. You make this into a debate over God, but it is a debate over the men who wrote, translated, transcribed and canonized the books purported to be divinely inspired. Do not accuse me of bashing your God, because I am not bashing "OUR GOD". I am discussing the short sightedness of the people who bring about never-ending war because they can not discuss their Holy Books without killing each other.

No, it is not a legitimate question. It is a statement disguised as a question. Have you stopped beating your wife? How would you like if I asked you that question and didn't stop asking follow-up questions until you admitted beating your wife? You will not stopped asking (me and others) questions until I (we) admit beating my (our) wife(s). It is none of your business how I or anyone else worships.

I have had many discussions with Jewish friends (some that kept us up all night in college) and I also believe that your way and their way of worship is as valid as any Christian way. Even the "Holy Qur'an" says that Jews, Christians and Muslims have equal rights to Heaven. But even if the "Holy Qur'an" didn't say that, I doubt that the God would allow Moses or Noah, or any of their followers who keep the faith to be pushed out of Heaven by Christians or the ideas of Christians. Maybe God has put out all these contradictory ideas to test us. That would be compatible with God's MO. Look at Babylon for example.

Maybe I am being unfair to you, but the way you have come off (IMNSHO) is that when you say, "I guess others are just trying to understand what you are saying" it means to me that you are trying to question me until I accept your way. Maybe I am being unfair to you, but I doubt it.

It may be a straight forward question, but it seems to have a reason behind it, one that questions my faith. Both you and Ron, and many other members at this LBT board and other boards, and people whom I have met in person have told me that salvation comes through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. How personal can my relationship be if I have to explain it? Wasn't it sufficient to read that I wrote: OR You keep saying that a person needs a personal relationship with Jesus and then you question and question and try to point out the correct way, until it becomes obvious, that my personal relationship is not good enough, that I must have your (type of) personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Gadgetlady, I doubt that you realize that you are doing it, just as I doubt my grandparents knew that they were doing it when they went up to people trying to enjoy dinner in a Chinese restaurant and tried to give them their pamphlets on salvation, just as I doubt many other members here at LBT and other boards realize what they are doing, But Ron, I think you know exactly what you are doing and no matter how much you feign innocence or ignorance or how indignant you become, you will not change my opinion. None of you has a right to question why I accept Jesus. You didn't even have a right to know whether I do or do not or whether anyone else does, or who they worship. But I communicated the information to you. I was not trying to prove a political, scientific or legal point, but just telling you, that you needn't be concerned about my salvation. When someone uses religion as a reason for backing a political candidate or a political argument, then since they have brought up their religion as the reason, it is a legitimate topic. When someone uses religion as a reason for disagreeing with a scientific policy or theory, then since they have brought up their religion as the reason, it is a legitimate topic. When someone uses religion as a reason for disagreeing with a law or legal ruling, then since they have brought up their religion as the reason, it is a legitimate topic. It is however none of anyone's business to know why or how I worship. I gave more than enough information when I said. And that should be and will have to be good enough for you.

"Being Catholic, I'm sure "your" Bible says that Jesus was the Son of God and He was crucified and resurrected on the third day (I don't know of any Bibles that don't). Do you believe that to be literal or figurative?" Even theologians disagree what “resurrected and rose” on the third day really means. Some are sure that Jesus was again a man of flesh and bone, while others think he was more of an apparition, one partially transparent and unable to be touched. Does it matter? Before you scream; Which Jesus approached Paul on the road to Damascus?

Please stop telling me who agrees with you. These topics can not be proved by a vote. Besides Bible scholars have a vested interest.:faint:

I also don't believe that the death penalty is ever justified. Murder is a terrible thing when a private citizen does it, but when the state with all its power does it, it sets a terrible example and can get out of control so easily. The death penalty is a barbaric attempt to satiate a blood thirst. All the civilized countries of the world have done away with it. Yes, I purposely did not say, "All the civilized countries of the world except the USA have done away with it."

I want to say, Joan, that if I was rude to you (and I reread what I posted and it sounded worse than when I was writing it), then I apologize. However, not having a sentence available like "Life with no parole" is no excuse for execution.

I explained much of that a few pages back. Jesus did not write the New Testament. His apostles did not write much or any of it. Much of the New Testament was written by people who were told stories decades after the alleged facts occurred. Sometimes apostles told people who told other people who then wrote it down. Then there was the politics of canonization which is too long to go into. There was also competition between the apostles to see who could build the bigger following most quickly. Errors were inevitable. That is why Gospels of different apostles differ from each other. Before you ask the question, I will say that my level of believe for something presented as myth differs drastically than for something presented as science. If that sounds like double-talk, what do you expect when one has no proof, but only feelings and faith to go by? I may be a better Christian than those that accept the Bible as literal, because anyone who needed to believe the Bible as literal, had to be given proof (that convinced them), while I accepted Jesus on faith and feelings alone.

Ron, do us all a favor: Instead of telling us what God has to say in the Bible, just post a link to a web-site that has the whole Bible on it and let us read it for ourselves. Oh Heck, here is a site: KJV

Yes, but...:faint:

I didn't mean to be rude. Or not barbaric enough. Not relevant, because neither execution nor life imprisonment can bring the victim back to life, but killing an innocent second person is wrong, barbaric and evil. When you wrote, "Grow up", you already did. On that, totally.

It comes from my personal faith and I don't have to share that with you. I am not on a mission to make people conform to my faith system. Maybe you KNOW, but I only think, that there is a God and that following the teachings of Jesus will help me. I will say, (probably against my better judgment), that is by biblical implication, though not by "word for word". If you can not understand that, maybe it is God's way of allowing each of his children to come toward him in their own free (willed) way.

It doesn't matter if I agree or not. It is how you handle that opinion that matters. I do not believe in the Bible as a literal document and I know ministers who know the Bible chapter and verse who also don't. But just as I do not believe that a tortoise raced with a hare, I still understand the lesson of that story. You can talk to me about the Bible. But don't try to prove to me it is literal. I accept Jesus. That should be good enough for you.

You are again being judgmental. You are deciding who has a valid right to differ with you. You are saying that you can have an intelligent discussion only with the choir, per se. Again, (maybe) subconsciously, you are putting everyone down who doesn't agree with you. You are assuming that you are speaking for God. Did not Jesus say, "Judge not lest thou shall be judged"? I have compared you with George W. BuSh (in other posts), because he also only wants to talk with his allies. Talking to his enemies can be more productive. Here at LBT, you had no enemies a few days ago when you first posted. I do not consider myself your enemy, but I do disagree with your method of spreading your message 10 times as much as with the message itself.

WORLD'S EASIEST QUIZ (Passing requires 4 correct answers) Please answer all questions before scrolling down for the answers. 1) How long did the Hundred Years' War last? 2) Which country makes Panama hats? 3) From which animal do we get catgut? 4) In which month do Russians Celebrate the October Revolution? 5) What is a camel's hair brush made of? 6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are na med after what animal? 7) What was King George VI's first name? 8) What color is a purple finch? 9) Where are Chinese Gooseberries from? 10) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane? All done? Remember, you need 4 correct answers to pass. Check your answers below. ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ (Passing requires 4 correct answers) 1) How long did the Hundred Years War last? 116 years 2) Which country makes Panama hats? Ecuador 3) From which animal do we get cat gut? Sheep and Horses 4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution? November 5) What is a camel's hair brush made of? Squirrel fur 6) The Canary Islands in the Pacific are named after what animal? Dogs 7) What was King George VI's first name? Albert 8) What color is a purple finch? Crimson 9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from ? New Zealand 10) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane? Orange, of course. What do you mean, you failed? Me, too. (And if you try to tell me you passed, you lie!) Pass this on to some brilliant friends, so they can feel rotten, too.

I have a Windows XP computer, and a Linux Computer (Linspire) and have use of my wife's iMac. The iMac is the best, but cost more than twice what both of my other PC's cost combined. The comparison figures I am using are for "bought from store" prices. Jack is right about XP being a vast improvement over its predecessors. I have been building computers since 1990 and if I ever got lazy and had plenty of money, I would buy a Mac, but XP is much cheaper and Linspire even cheaper than that. Linspire's only short-coming is that does not play some of the games that you might want to play. But it is virus, spyware and hack resistant (as is a Mac).

VOTING 2004: Clinton Curtis Interview before the U.S. House of Representatives... This computer programmer swore under oath that he was asked to create a program to "control the vote in South Florida." Text of the Interview with Computer Programmer Clint Curtis, before the U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Democrats of the Judiciary Committee, December 13, 2004. Cliff Arnebeck called Clint Curtis before the Committee, for the purpose of determining if the vote-counting process of the 2004 U.S. General Election in Ohio could have been manipulated by computer. ~~~ (begin interview) ~~~ [Mr. Curtis is sworn in by the court reporter, on-camera, but without sound. Then sound commences.] [Cliff Arnebeck:] Mr. Curtis, would you please state your full name for the record. [Mr. Curtis:] My name is Clinton Eugene Curtis. [Cliff Arnebeck:] And where do you reside? [Mr. Curtis:] Tallahassee, Florida. [Cliff Arnebeck:] And what is your profession? [Mr. Curtis:] I'm a computer programmer. [Cliff Arnebeck:] Would you please speak into the microphone so that the audience can hear your testimony. [Mr. Curtis:] I'm a computer programmer. [Cliff Arnebeck:] Mr Curtis, are there programs that can be used to secretly fix elections? [Mr. Curtis:] Yes. [Cliff Arnebeck:] How do you know that to be the case? [Mr. Curtis:] Because in October of 2000 I wrote a prototype for present Congressman Tom Feeney, at the company I work for in Oviedo, Florida, that did just that. [Cliff Arnebeck:] And when you say, "Did just that," it would rig an election? [Mr. Curtis:] It would flip the vote fifty-one forty-nine to whoever you wanted it to go to, and whichever race you wanted it to win. [Cliff Arnebeck:] And would that program that you designed be something that elections officials, that might be on county boards of elections, could detect? [Mr. Curtis:] They'd never see it. [Audience: "Hmmm!"] [Cliff Arnebeck:] Mr....[Audience speaks "... question again"] Would you answer that question once again? [Mr. Curtis:] They would never see it. [Cliff Arnebeck:] So how would such a program, a secret program that fixes the election, how could it be detected? [Mr. Curtis:] You would have to view it either in the source code, or you'd have to have a receipt, and then count the hard paper against the actual vote total. Other than that, you won't see it. [Cliff Arnebeck:] Alright, Mr. Curtis, if you had been asked, you or others with your professional expertise, had been asked to design a protective program, a program that would protect the Ohio elections from against such software to fix the election, could you have done so? [Mr. Curtis:] If we'd been asked to make a program that could fix the election? Sure, anybody can do it. [Cliff Arnebeck:] No, could you have designed a program, a procedure, a protocol, that would have protected Ohio against this kind of rigging? [Mr. Curtis:] No, you have to look at the source code. You have to get, probably, programmers from both, or all, parties to look at the source code, and determine if there's anything in there that shouldn't be there. I mean, it's a simple program, you're adding one, two persons total. It's a hundreds lines of code, tops. There's.. [unintelligible] [Cliff Arnebeck:] Are you aware of whether there was any protective action in Ohio against this kind of vote rigging through software? [Mr. Curtis:] I don't know. [Cliff Arnebeck:] You don't know? [Mr. Curtis:] I don't know. [Cliff Arnebeck:] You were not asked to assist in the development of any protective system, is that correct? [Mr. Curtis:] No I was not. In your op.. uh..have you reviewed at all the elections results in Ohio? [Mr. Curtis:] No I haven't. [Cliff Arnebeck:] OK. Given the availability of such vote-rigging software, and the testimony that has been given under oath of substantial statistical anomalies, and gross differences between exit polling data and the actual tabulated results, do you have an opinion whether or not the Ohio election, the Presidential election, was hacked? [Mr. Curtis:] Yes I would say it was. I mean, if you ... have exit polling data that is significantly off from the vote, then it's probably hacked. [Cliff Arnebeck:] And your testimony is under oath? [Mr. Curtis:] Yes, sir. [Cliff Arnebeck:] And the testimony you've given is true? [Mr. Curtis:] Yes, sir. Thank you. [Applause, considerable.] [Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones:] Congresswoman Waters and I have the same question: [Curtis is directed: "Back to the podium." Curtis returns to podium.] [Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones:] What did you say you were asked to prepare? [Mr. Curtis:] I was asked by Tom Feeney, he's now Congressman, at that time he was Speaker of the House of Florida; Yang Enterprises' --- which is the company I worked for --- lobbyist; and their corporate attorney. He wore a lotta hats. [Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones:] And at that time, he was the Speaker of the House of Florida, is that what you said? [Mr. Curtis:] Yes. [Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones:] Ok, thank you. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] You say he was the lobbyist for the voting machine company at the same time he was Speaker of the House? [Mr. Curtis:] I don't know what the voting machine company, but he was a lobbyist for Yang Enterprises. We had NASA contracts... [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] Yang Enterprises did what, computers? [Mr. Curtis:] Computers. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] OK. And he was your lobbyist, your company's lobbyist? [Mr. Curtis:] He was the lobbyist for Yang Enterprises. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] And he asked you to design a code to rig an election? [Mr. Curtis:] Yes. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] While he was Speaker of the Florida House? [Mr. Curtis:] Yes. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] Was that during, or previous to, the 2000 election? [Mr. Curtis:] Yes, October, end of September. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] Did he ever express why he wanted the code to rig an election? [Mr. Curtis:] No. I immediately assumed that they were trying to keep you guys from cheating on them. [Audience laughs.] So I wrote up the documentation of what you would look for in the source code, how you would make sure that you didn't get, you know, taken advantage of, make sure that all voting machines had receipts, because that way you could back count the ones that looked funny. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] By "receipts," you mean a paper trail? [Mr. Curtis:] Yes, paper trail. And I handed that in to Mrs. Yang and said, "Here's your report, here's your program." And she said, "You don't understand. We need to hide the fraud in the source, in the source code." [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] Hide the fraud, not reveal it? [Mr. Curtis:] Not reveal the fraud, "Because we need it to control the vote in South Florida." That's what she it said. [Audience: "Woh!!"] [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] To your knowledge, was this used? [Mr. Curtis:] I have no idea, I, I was ready to leave. [Audience/Curtis laugh.] I retired and left the company. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] Your testimony just a moment ago I think you said just before you left in answer to Congresswoman ... Jones' question, would you just repeat what you said in reference to the exit polls? [Mr. Curtis:] The exit polls should not be significantly different from the vote. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] And if they were, you would conclude what? [Mr. Curtis:] I would conclude someone's playing with the vote. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] Not with the exit polls? [Mr. Curtis:] That's possible too. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] OK. [Mr. Curtis:] Something is definitely skewed. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] Something is skewed in one or the other? [Mr. Curtis:] Right. To select which one, you'd have to see where the problem is. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] Let me ask you one further question. Assuming for the moment that such software, that's what you call it? such software to rig a vote, was used, in one or more machines in Ohio or in Florida, could you today detect that, if you looked at the source code? [Mr. Curtis:] If you could get the machines, and they had not been patched yet, I mean once they get in and touch 'em, anything could happen. You could also set timers to do that, but then you'd see the timers. Then you'd have to take those machines, decompile 'em, which I couldn't do, but possibly a Microsoft or MIT something, could do, you might, you might, be able to do. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] You might. [Mr. Curtis:] Depends on how good they are at destroying what they had. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] Destroying what they had by tampering with the machine afterwards, or by programming it with destroying instruction in the first place? [Mr. Curtis:] Right. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] Either or both? [Mr. Curtis:] Either or both. Because since you didn't actually see what's in there. So you don't actually know if the code is running in single executable, or running in various modules. If it's running in modules, you can make the code actually eat itself. [Audience murmurs, then "Wow!"] [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] Let me ask you just one further question. We've been told, I've been told, that people who assume that lots of the election results, a large fraction of the election results in this state may have been affected by computerware fraud in the computer are paranoid, because in order to do that you would have to have access to thousands of machines, and that would be readily detectable. Is that true? [Mr. Curtis:] It depends on the technology used. If you did a central tabulation machine that fed in, all you would have to do is set a flag. If you set a flag, the central tabulation machine would then flip your vote. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] So if you, so one person putting in bad code in a central tabulation machine could affect thousands and thousands, or tens of thousands, of votes? [Mr. Curtis:] Right. And you could activate it ... [Congressman Nadler starts to speak, but stops] [Mr. Curtis:] ...you could activate it either automatically, or you could make it so that there's code existing on like an automic [?] machine that feeds it, where you would punch it in, it would set the flag, server would receive the flag, and then... [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] And if you had a recount ... [unclear] ... no paper trail --- assuming that would happen --- would that be revealable by seeing a discrepancy between what the tabulator, the central tabulator trail [unclear] the individual machines which had not been tampered with, have? [Mr. Curtis:] Not if I wrote it. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] Why not? [Mr. Curtis:] I would make it match. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] You could work back from the tabulator to the individual machines? So the tabulator would tell the machines to switch their results? [Mr. Curtis:] Yes. It talks both ways. You can flip it to do whatever you need. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] And they actually do talk to each other, the machines...? [Mr. Curtis:] Yes, once it's hooked up, if it's networked together, they can talk to each other. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] So there's absolutely no assurance whatsoever that anything could be [right?] with these machines? [Mr. Curtis:] Absolutely none, unless you look at the source code, and make sure it's safe before it goes out. [Congressman Jerrold Nadler:] Thank you very much. [Madam Chair:] Thank you, Congressman Nadler. I know that Congresswoman Waters has questions, and then Senator Miller, and then Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones. [Congresswoman Maxine Waters:] This will only a moment, if you will come back to the uh, microphone. [Audience laughs] [Curtis: ] I'm new at this. [Congresswoman Maxine Waters:] As you know, there has been a lot of discussion about, I think it was Diebold Company, their relationship to the President, and the administration, and supposedly comments about helping to insure that the President was re-elected. In your world, in your environment, have you heard any of this kind of discussion? Do you know people at Diebold? Do you have any sense of any actions that may have been taken? [Mr. Curtis:] Uh, I don't know anything about that at all. [Congresswoman Maxine Waters:] Thank you. [Madam Chair calls Dr. Miller] [Dr. Miller:] I suspect that people will attack you in terms of your credibility. Could you restate once again your, your credentials. [Mr. Curtis:] Uh, I'm a programmer, I worked for NASA, I worked for Exxon Mobil, I worked for um, Florida Department of Transportation, and other elements of my story, because this company, well, let's get into it. Why not? This company also had a NASA contract, and they were basically downloading tons of information, I mean, gigabytes' worth, and handing them off to this little Chinese guy named Henry Nee (?) And, it didn't seem right, and, he was hacking things I wrote a program for DOT that allowed contractors to send information into DOT, and he was kind of the quality assurance guy for software. He put a wiretapping module into the program that went out to the contractors so that it actually sent everything they sent, back to Yang. So I reported all this, and just last March I think, he was arrested for attempting to send anti-tank missile chips to the capital of Communist China. If that's correct, this is like a small thing... Of course I think he only got a hundred dollar fine. [Audience: Hmmmm! Hmmm!] And no time. [Audience: Oh God!] [Madam Chair:] Thank you. Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones.... [Audience: long, hearty applause] We are now going to um go back to the public testimony and... [End]

Before I was married, I was dating a women who had a college degree, a good job, was attractive enough to make people assume that I must be rich (or well endowed in a different way) and had a great sense of humor and a great personality. When I would compliment her on any topic but one, she would say, "thank you", but when I would compliment her on her looks, she would light up like a sunrise and say, "Gee, thanks. Do you really think so?" Way before I met her, she had been brainwashed to think that physical beauty is the most important female trait, maybe the only female trait that really matters.

"I have tried to engage you in serious conversation. You return with remarks and innuendo about my faith, my God and the Bible, and you wonder why I get defensive?" No one objects to you becoming "defensive", but the problem that bothers many members is that you become "offensive".