Ferrite Inductor Tolerance

[Joerg]

Calling someone 'un-Christian'.

You really are blind.

Care to read again? I wrote _that_ is un-Christian, meaning the
behavior. Not _he_ is un-Christian which would have been ad hominem,
which I try never to do.

 

[Joerg]

Bwuahahahahahahah!

What about that part about behind your own door?

One does not need communion. That is a pagan ritual, at best.

Jesus never performed any ritualistic behaviors. He does not fault
those that are not of *your* particular style of Christianity.

I suggest to read up on that. For example 1 Corinthians 11.

 

[Joerg]

Everyone I have ever cursed at I have successfully apologized to.

Very good! It's often hard to do.

As for God - to the extent I can talk with God, I admit and beg for
forgiveness for my sins.

(There is one thing I do that I consider the Bible to poorly support
being a sin - well-exemplified in 1-Corinthians 6:9. In most modern
versions of the Bible, the English translation of the 2 verses of most
concern to me are "homosexuals" and "sodomites".

In the "King James Version", those were "effeminate" and "abusers of
themselves with mankind".

In the original Greek, that was "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai". "Malakoi"
is well-enough-known to be something very specific, as in a youthful
(often teenage) femininely-dressed male prostitute. "Arsenokoitai" is
at least arguably "johns", fairly arguably literally "men who sleep around".
By a small number of accounts, Paul invented that compound word as a male
equivalent of "slut", a "negative version" of "stud".

That is why I think it's important to have a well educated pastor who
has a thorough understanding of the old language. Ours regularly goes
back to that when he (or someone else) really wants to know.

Furthermore, 100% of the words in all "holy books" known to humans were
written by humans. My "nominal religious faith" says that one Jew who
walked on Earth about 2,000 years ago had divinity along with human-ness
and may be infallible, and that all humans born by women via sexual
reproduction (and probably most soon-to-come otherwise humans) are
inherently sinners contaminated by "The Original Sin".

So, to the extent that I can talk with God (low at best), I decide what
to best ask for forgiveness for my sins that I see need to refrain from,
and what I would rather defend (however successfully or otherwise) in some
heavenly courtroom after I "give up my ghost".

Your only counsel and attorney up there will be Jesus and he's going to
go by the bible, so arguing some of the teachings could be dicey

The Roman Catholics believe in "purgatory" where souls of
recently-deceased humans endure "hell fire" temporarily before proceeding
to heaven. The Unitarian Universalists are Christians that believe there
is only 1 God and not 3, and also that everyone gets to go to heaven -
no exception even for Adolf Hitler. (Though I suspect plenty of Unitarian
Universalists would want Hitler to be faced with plenty of "hellfire" and
need of major repenting of major sins to get that far.)

IIRC, some Presbyterians believe that people are mostly born onto a
course one way or another, as in even often doomed-from-birth for people
hitting the ground with the wrong foot.

I truly wish that all denominations that add to the bible or interpret
something different into it would stop doing so. The bible clearly says
that everyone has a chance if they are only willing.

I seem to think that Isaac Asimov said it better in "The Last Question".
As I see that, the souls of deceased intelligent life forms have to work
through the ending of this universe (as in retirement is not permanent
even if you spend billions of years RIP-ing or "6 feet under"), to
consolidate into a deity that creates the next one.

I don't believe a "next" deitiy will be created. There is only one, and
eternal.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

Care to read again? I wrote _that_ is un-Christian, meaning the
behavior. Not _he_ is un-Christian which would have been ad hominem,
which I try never to do.

The inference is clear. An observation which it is obvious you have
failed to make, all your life. You have been acting like this behavior
of yours absolves you from having blurted an ad hominem.

Sorry, chump, but you do it by proxy. Probably have all your life as
the behavior is compulsive.

Forgive the dip, Lord, because he knows not what he does.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

so arguing some of the teachings could be dicey

You lost that battle already as well.

You try to discern too much, and you are not even very good at that.

Then you foist it onto this group. Yeah, sure, bub... You are a true
fisher of men. NOT!

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

I truly wish that all denominations that add to the bible or interpret
something different into it would stop doing so. The bible clearly says
that everyone has a chance if they are only willing.

It also says that "the blind shall not see."

It does not say will not. It says SHALL NOT!

And it was not just anybody that said it.

Essentially, what you are made of is what will define you, and
therefore the likelihood that an evil fucker will repent is pretty low...
hence "shall not".

I have doubts that Dahmer's repentance was sincere, and despite him
being murdered, I doubt we'll be seeing him in the hereafter.

But hey... what do I know?

 

[Joerg]

It also says that "the blind shall not see."

It does not say will not. It says SHALL NOT!

And it was not just anybody that said it.

Best to quote the passage, where it is, so one can look it up and read
the whole chapter which is often very important to do. To see it in
context. I don't know which translation you are using but that might
refer to where Jesus talks about His return. When the people who refused
his teachings ("blind" to his teachings) will not "see" what they've got
coming at them.

Essentially, what you are made of is what will define you, and
therefore the likelihood that an evil fucker will repent is pretty low...
hence "shall not".

Ahm, I doubt that's what it means

I have doubts that Dahmer's repentance was sincere, and despite him
being murdered, I doubt we'll be seeing him in the hereafter.

But hey... what do I know?

Correct. It's not up to us to judge people. Which is another reason why
I refrain from name-calling.

 

[Mr.Eko]

Best to quote the passage, where it is, so one can look it up and read
the whole chapter which is often very important to do.

Actually, your lack of familiarity with it is quite a tell.

 

[Joerg]

Actually, your lack of familiarity with it is quite a tell.

Then please quote the respective bible passage, with source, as is
customary.

 

[[email protected]]

Muratic acid? Ospho? CLR? Oxyclean?

HF wouldn't touch it.

 

[Joerg]

Actually, your lack of familiarity with it is quite a tell.

Still waiting for that quote ...

Hint: I don't think it can be found in the NIV translation

And no, I didn't say you made it up, but you should cite properly here.
Book, chapter and phrase, like usual.