Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 4 topics

Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 18 08:21PM -0400

On 10/18/2016 4:49 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> sustained line-rate from the SoC.
 
> So yes, in the real world, the system can drive 4Gbytes/sec of traffic on
> each 40Gb port until the cows come home without breaking a sweat.
 
Ok, so you have 24 cores per 40GB port. You might be able to maintain
something around 30GB per port continuous. But you still won't get a
full 40GB data transfer per port. Or have you figured out a way to
violate the laws of physics?
 
But it's not the system Ian has in his office, and even if he did, he
could never use all of that power.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 19 09:53AM +0200

On 19/10/16 02:21, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> something around 30GB per port continuous. But you still won't get a
> full 40GB data transfer per port. Or have you figured out a way to
> violate the laws of physics?
 
He has figured out a way to violate the laws of arithmetic - there are 8
Arms with 48 cores each, and 8 ports, so there are actually /48/ cores
per 40 Gb port.
 
But Scott, like Ian and everyone else who has commented here, knows the
difference between GB and Gb. These are 40 /Gb/ ports, not 40 GB. That
is, 40 gigabits rather than 40 gigabytes. So you only need to transfer
about 4 GB per second to saturate the links.
 
Even assuming 24 cores per port, by what logic do you think it is
reasonable to accept rates of 30 GB (or 30 Gb) while 40 GB (or 40 Gb) is
breaking the laws of physics?
 
Or do you mean that you think signalling, framing and protocol overhead
steal 25% of the bandwidth? This is not the 1970's any more - we have
come a long way from 4/5 and 8/10 bit encoding and hubs with collisions,
and as frames have increased then the framing and protocol overhead has
decreased as a percentage. For 1 Gb Ethernet, efficiency is about 94%
for standard frames and up to 99% for maximum size jumbo frames. I
would expect 40 Gb Ethernet to be at least as good.
 
And no one, except you, has talked about transferring data at rates of
40 GB (or 40 Gb) per second - they said they could "saturate the links".
That means they could transfer at as high a rate as the links allow.
If overhead eats 25% of the bandwidth, then "saturate" means
transferring at 75% of the line speed.
 
 
Oh, and if you read a little about these ThunderX SoC's, you will learn
that at least some versions have multiple 40 Gb and 100 Gb links. These
are not there just for laughs and bragging rights - they can transfer
data at those speeds.
 
 
> But it's not the system Ian has in his office, and even if he did, he
> could never use all of that power.
 
I have only a very limited what equipment Ian has or does not have in
his office, or what equipment he could use - and I have read all his
posts in this group. Where do you get all your information, assuming
you don't just invent it? (We know he doesn't have one of these
gigabyte servers, because he wants one for Christmas, but we know
nothing about how much he could use it.)
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 19 10:12AM +0200

On 18/10/16 22:39, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> difference when transferring data - they don't take a byte (or word)
> from the first drive, then a byte (or word) from the second drive, and
> so on.
 
Read up a little on how RAID works. When using a striped raid, as you
do for speed, you read the first block (not byte) from one drive, and
/simultaneously/ read the next block from the next drive, and so on.
This all collects in memory and can be sent out on the network at
ridiculously high speeds.
 
 
> And port multipliers allow for access to more drives - but don't speed
> up the bit rate.
 
You are only half correct. The port multipliers do not change the total
bit rate of the interface, but they do let you use that bandwidth
better. Say you have a Sata 3 link, at 600 MB/s, and you are using
harddrives that have a 150 MB/s read speed. With one of these drives on
the link, you get only 150 MB/s sustained throughput. With four via a
port multiplexer, you get closer to 600 MB/s - each disk reads at 150
MB/s to its cache, then transfers at 600 MB/s for a quarter of the time.
Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: Oct 19 10:12AM +0200

Am 18.10.16 um 22:39 schrieb Jerry Stuckle:
> difference when transferring data - they don't take a byte (or word)
> from the first drive, then a byte (or word) from the second drive, and
> so on.
 
Ever heard of such novel concepts as RAID?
 
Christian
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Oct 19 09:59PM +1300

On 10/19/16 09:35 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 
> No, not even a dual Xeon system can maintain 10G for anything more than
> a short burst. Try transferring 100GB from your system to another one
> across your 10GB line and see how long it takes.
 
The limiting factor here is the storage performance. My pool are good
for around 600MB/s read/write and around 10K IOPs, so the transfer rate
is approximately 60% of the line rate (which as David points out is
10Gb, not 10GB).
 
 
> Sure. But that still doesn't mean it can maintain that rate in other
> than short bursts. Published rates are maximums, which can virtually
> never be realized in actual operation. And never for any length of time.
 
Nope. Enterprise drives (even modern desktop drives) specify sustained
transfer rates which is why my pools (stripes of 4 mirrors) are good for
close to 4x the Constellation ES3 sustained transfer rate.
 
--
Ian
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Oct 19 10:02PM +1300

On 10/19/16 09:42 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> your misinterpreted what someone said, give you won't give a quote.
 
> Too lazy to look it up yourself, I see. It's clear you don't care about
> what others claim. You're just bent on proving me wrong, aren't you?
 
Well now, you made the claim, so it's up to you to back it up.
 
--
Ian
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Oct 19 12:26PM

>difference when transferring data - they don't take a byte (or word)
>from the first drive, then a byte (or word) from the second drive, and
>so on.
 
Actually, no, they don't. You lack an understanding of both the
protocols on the 6Gbit/sec SATA links and you lack an understanding
how processor chips transfer data internally.
 
 
>And port multipliers allow for access to more drives - but don't speed
>up the bit rate.
 
They allow full utilization of the 6Gbit/sec SATA lanes, which one
rust drive cannot (albeit high-end SSD's can come close).
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Oct 19 12:31PM


>Ok, so you have 24 cores per 40GB port. You might be able to maintain
>something around 30GB per port continuous. ]
 
What do you base this statement upon?
 
> But you still won't get a
>full 40GB data transfer per port.
 
Disproven by actual performance of the systems. Feel free to buy
one and test it out.
 
 
> Or have you figured out a way to
>violate the laws of physics?
 
Don't be silly.
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Oct 19 12:35PM


>He has figured out a way to violate the laws of arithmetic - there are 8
>Arms with 48 cores each, and 8 ports, so there are actually /48/ cores
>per 40 Gb port.
 
Each SoC has two 40Gb ports (or 8 10Gb ports or a bunch of 1Gb ports). With the gigabyte
hardware, only one 40Gb port is actually laid out on the mainboard,
the SERDES for the other port are used for Gen3 PCI-Express x8 ports instead.
 
So, the 24 core per is an SoC characteristic, but as you point out,
in the gigabyte implementation, it is effectively 48 cores per port
(since there are two SoC's per node).
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 19 10:32AM -0400

On 10/19/2016 4:59 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> for around 600MB/s read/write and around 10K IOPs, so the transfer rate
> is approximately 60% of the line rate (which as David points out is
> 10Gb, not 10GB).
 
As well as bus performance, and unless you're using DMA, cpu
performance. If you are using DMA, there are other limitations such as
bus contention.
 
And 60% is about the max you can get. My bet is you get much less than
that.
 
 
> Nope. Enterprise drives (even modern desktop drives) specify sustained
> transfer rates which is why my pools (stripes of 4 mirrors) are good for
> close to 4x the Constellation ES3 sustained transfer rate.
 
I have yet to see a drive, "Enterprise" or other, which maintains the
rated speeds. Every manufacturer wants the best specs they can get, for
competitive reasons.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 19 10:42AM -0400

On 10/19/2016 3:53 AM, David Brown wrote:
 
> He has figured out a way to violate the laws of arithmetic - there are 8
> Arms with 48 cores each, and 8 ports, so there are actually /48/ cores
> per 40 Gb port.
 
So? OK, you have 48 cores per port. You still won't get 40Gb (since
you need to be pedantic) out of it without violating the laws of physics.
 
> difference between GB and Gb. These are 40 /Gb/ ports, not 40 GB. That
> is, 40 gigabits rather than 40 gigabytes. So you only need to transfer
> about 4 GB per second to saturate the links.
 
And you need to be pedantic about it. You still aren't going to get
40Gb throughput from a 40Gb port without violating the laws of physics.
 
> Even assuming 24 cores per port, by what logic do you think it is
> reasonable to accept rates of 30 GB (or 30 Gb) while 40 GB (or 40 Gb) is
> breaking the laws of physics?
 
30Gb is reasonable. And if you understood physics and TCP/IP (or even
ethernet itself), you would understand why you can't get 40Gb throughput
from a 40Gb port.
 
> decreased as a percentage. For 1 Gb Ethernet, efficiency is about 94%
> for standard frames and up to 99% for maximum size jumbo frames. I
> would expect 40 Gb Ethernet to be at least as good.
 
Those affect throughput, obviously. But that's not all. And your 94%
and 99% are once again theoretical limits - not real life ones.
 
> That means they could transfer at as high a rate as the links allow.
> If overhead eats 25% of the bandwidth, then "saturate" means
> transferring at 75% of the line speed.
 
I haven't seen anyone claim they can "saturate the links". Not that
that has been defined, so the claim would be meaningless, anyway.
 
> that at least some versions have multiple 40 Gb and 100 Gb links. These
> are not there just for laughs and bragging rights - they can transfer
> data at those speeds.
 
Do you like to your potential customers like this, also?
 
> you don't just invent it? (We know he doesn't have one of these
> gigabyte servers, because he wants one for Christmas, but we know
> nothing about how much he could use it.)
 
Because he would have no use for such a powerful system, and the company
wouldn't waste their money on it. And even if they did get him one,
there is no way he could use even 0.05% of the power available.
 
But then unlike you, I understand business.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 19 10:44AM -0400

On 10/19/2016 8:31 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
 
>> Ok, so you have 24 cores per 40GB port. You might be able to maintain
>> something around 30GB per port continuous. ]
 
> What do you base this statement upon?
 
35+ years of experience in networking - up to and including REAL 100Gb
single-mode fiber.
 
>> full 40GB data transfer per port.
 
> Disproven by actual performance of the systems. Feel free to buy
> one and test it out.
 
I'm not going to waste my money just to prove what an idiot you are.
You buy one and prove YOUR claim.
 
 
>> Or have you figured out a way to
>> violate the laws of physics?
 
> Don't be silly.
 
You're the one claiming you can do it. Now prove it. You'll get a
Nobel Prize if you can!
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry <jerryleo@gmail.com>: Oct 19 04:09AM -0700

Hi,
 
I'm stuck on a runtime error "undefined symbol: _ZTIN5eckit9ExceptionE" with a shared library libMagPlus.so. There was no error while building it, the error just was raised at runtime when Python module loading it.
 
Symbol '_ZTIN5eckit9ExceptionE' was demangled into a readable symbol 'typeinfo for eckit::Exception'
 
Checked with nm, the undefined symbol '_ZTIN5eckit9ExceptionE' is from a static library libOdb.a, which was static linked into libMagPlus.so, like this
 
 
nm -Cl libOdb.a | grep -i "eckit::Exception"
 
<code>
U eckit::Exception::Exception(std::string const&, eckit::CodeLocation const&) /opt/src/OdbAPI-0.10.2-Source/eckit/src/eckit/exception/Exceptions.h:84
U eckit::Exception::~Exception() /opt/src/OdbAPI-0.10.2-Source/eckit/src/eckit/exception/Exceptions.h:108
0000000000000000 W eckit::Exception::retryOnClient() const /opt/src/OdbAPI-0.10.2-Source/eckit/src/eckit/exception/Exceptions.h:48
0000000000000000 W eckit::Exception::retryOnServer() const /opt/src/OdbAPI-0.10.2-Source/eckit/src/eckit/exception/Exceptions.h:47
0000000000000000 W eckit::Exception::terminateApplication() const /opt/src/OdbAPI-0.10.2-Source/eckit/src/eckit/exception/Exceptions.h:49
0000000000000000 W eckit::Exception::what() const /opt/src/OdbAPI-0.10.2-Source/eckit/src/eckit/exception/Exceptions.h:46
U eckit::Exception::print(std::ostream&) const
U typeinfo for eckit::Exception
</code>
 
I also tried to unpack all object files from libOdb.a and relink libMagPlus.so with all of them with option '-fvisibility=default -rdynamic', like this
 
<code>
ar x libOdb.a ( ./Odb )
 
/usr/bin/g++ -fvisibility=default -rdynamic -fPIC -pipe -O2 -g \
-Wl,--disable-new-dtags -shared \
-Wl,-soname,libMagPlus.so -o ../lib/libMagPlus.so \
... ... \
./Odb/*.o \
... ...
 
</code>
 
But still got these undefined symbols
 
<code>
U eckit::Exception::~Exception() /opt/src/OdbAPI-0.10.2-Source/eckit/src/eckit/exception/Exceptions.h:108
U eckit::Exception::print(std::ostream&) const
U typeinfo for eckit::Exception
<code>
 
Here are the the header that defines eckit::Exception class.
 
<code>
Exceptions.h
 
/// @brief General purpose exception
/// Derive other exceptions from this class and implement then in the class that throws them.
class Exception : public std::exception {
 
public: // methods
 
/// Constructor with message
Exception(const std::string& what, const CodeLocation& location = CodeLocation() );
 
/// Destructor
/// @throws nothing
~Exception() throw();
 
virtual const char *what() const throw() { return what_.c_str(); }
virtual bool retryOnServer() const { return false; }
virtual bool retryOnClient() const { return false; }
virtual bool terminateApplication() const { return false; }
 
static bool throwing();
static void exceptionStack(std::ostream&,bool callStack = false);
 
const std::string& callStack() const { return callStack_; }
 
protected: // methods
 
void reason(const std::string&);
Exception();
 
virtual void print(std::ostream&) const;
 
private: // members
 
std::string what_; ///< description
std::string callStack_; ///< call stack
SavedStatus save_; ///< saved monitor status to recover after destruction
Exception* next_;
CodeLocation location_; ///< where exception was first thrown
 
friend std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& s,const Exception& p)
{
p.print(s);
return s;
}
};
 
</code>
 
 
I knew little about C++, and have no idea how to get this fixed. Wondering if needs to touch Exceptions.h and how to touch it ?
 
Anybody can help ?
 
Appreciating your time
 
Regards
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Oct 19 12:18PM

> I'm stuck on a runtime error "undefined symbol: _ZTIN5eckit9ExceptionE" with a shared library libMagPlus.so. There was no error while building it, the error just was raised at runtime when Python module loading it.
 
It sounds like a dynamic library requiring that symbol from another dynamic library,
the latter of which is not being properly loaded.
 
Without knowing the exact system you are using (especially since I have no idea how
C++ libraries are used in Python), I can't be of any more help than that.
 
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Oct 19 04:27PM +0300

On 19.10.2016 14:09, Jerry wrote:
 
 
> I'm stuck on a runtime error "undefined symbol: _ZTIN5eckit9ExceptionE" with a shared library libMagPlus.so. There was no error while building it, the error just was raised at runtime when Python module loading it.
 
> Symbol '_ZTIN5eckit9ExceptionE' was demangled into a readable symbol 'typeinfo for eckit::Exception'
 
> Checked with nm, the undefined symbol '_ZTIN5eckit9ExceptionE' is from a static library libOdb.a, which was static linked into libMagPlus.so, like this
 
Compiler-generated things like typeinfo and vtable are placed in some
certain translation unit by the compiler. I gather different compilers
can have different conventions, but one convention for vtable at least
is that it goes into the compilation unit which contains the definition
of the first non-inline virtual member function in the class. This
should probably be eckit::Exception::~Exception() in this case (it is
implicitly virtual because the base class destructor is virtual). I see
this symbol is undefined as well, so it looks like all this translation
unit is missing.
 
By default, when linking shared object (.so) files with g++, it does not
complain about missing symbols. This is a very nasty behavior IMO, but
fortunately this can be changed by adding
 
-Wl,-no-undefined
 
to the g++ linker line. If you do this, then you should start getting
errors already at link time of libMagPlus.so. If so, then you need to
figure out which library or compilation unit actually contains the
definition of eckit::Exception::~Exception() and other missing stuff,
and add this to the linker line.
 
Which compiler version are you using, BTW?
 
HTH
Paavo
 
 
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Oct 19 09:17AM

> Sorry if you don't like the way things are going. Sulking
> about it won't help you.
 
That's Christian humility, respect and love right there. You are
a commendable example.
 
Hypocrite.
 
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com>: Oct 18 07:45PM -0400

On 17/10/2016 13:29, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> How much is your life worth?
 
Have you asked this question to a Muslim Jihadist? They know the worth
of any life on this planet!!!!!!!!!!
 
They are killing each other on an industrial scale!!! Are you thinking
of doing the same with Christians?
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 18 05:10PM -0700

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 7:40:03 PM UTC-4, Real Troll wrote:
> > How much is your life worth?
 
> Have you asked this question to a Muslim Jihadist? They know the worth
> of any life on this planet!!!!!!!!!!
 
No. They are deceived into believing that our lives have no value and that
there is only a flesh-based nature to our existence. They are not interested
in the truth, and therefore they are willing to believe the lies of the enemy.
 
> They are killing each other on an industrial scale!!! Are you thinking
> of doing the same with Christians?
 
The born again nature is spirit. We are told to mortify the flesh, to cease
following after its pursuits and passions. It is not something we can do on
our own, but with God's Holy Spirit it becomes possible (it's difficult to
explain without the common frame of reference).
 
Christians do not fight other people. There are Christians who are not yet
mature, or are not actually born again, who still have a greater focus on
the flesh than on the spirit, but it is not our destination.
 
Our goals are to fight the evil spirits which are leading the people of this
world into falseness and sin and all that goes with it (hate, war, killing,
death). Those evil spirits are invisible to our natural senses, but they
are able to exert influence upon our flesh so that we think and feel their
influence. It can amp us up, depress us, increase our passion, lust, all
manner of things. They use this to cause us to increase in sin, and to do
harm. They are also vicariously living their lives through us, using our
natural senses for input also into their spirit. They do this because
their physical bodies are locked up in chains awaiting the day of judgment.
They can't come here in their own bodies, but they can come here spiritually.
But in their spirit they cannot be seen and they have no influence upon this
world.
 
In any event ... a Christian's goals are to teach people these things so
that those who have an ear to hear can hear as God affirms within their inner
man the truth of what is spoken. To everyone who is not born again, or who
is not in pursuit of the truth, it will seem as it does to Chris, to be only
a fool's babblings. But for the discerning, and the one seeking the truth,
they'll see how it aligns with scripture, and they'll learn from these
teachings those things they haven't yet learned, and they will then be able
to teach others by the unique and special knowledge God has imparted into
them which will augment our understanding collectively, as God gives out
to each separately so we will come together and work as a team, being
stronger together than we are in isolation. It's the general nature of
His entire Kingdom (working together).
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Oct 18 05:43PM -0700

On 10/18/2016 5:10 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 7:40:03 PM UTC-4, Real Troll wrote:
>> On 17/10/2016 13:29, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
[...]
> Christians do not fight other people.
 
You sure fight with us! ;^o
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 18 05:49PM -0700

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:43:24 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> [...]
> > Christians do not fight other people.
 
> You sure fight with us! ;^o
 
I'm sorry it seems that way, Chris. I am trying to teach you the things
you'll never learn in this world, and won't even learn at many churches
because Satan is not just in the world, he's also in the church.
 
You need to seek out born again Christians to learn the things of God,
and pursue the study with a true and honest truth-seeking effort. If you
do this, God Himself will teach you, and He will lead you in your life to
those who will teach you.
 
It's how it works. The spirit leads the flesh. We are either led by the
spirit of the enemy (before we are born again, it's all we know and we are
all slaves to it), or when we seek the truth we are led by the spirit of
God. But for all of those who won't seek the truth, they'll never know
any of it. And for all those who will seek the truth, God will reveal to
them as much as they're able to receive.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com>: Oct 19 01:04AM


> I'm sorry it seems that way, Chris. I am trying to teach you the things
> you'll never learn in this world, and won't even learn at many churches
> because Satan is not just in the world, he's also in the church.
 
Satan is before all things in your head... you cannot escape ...
 
 
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 18 07:06PM -0700

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 9:04:15 PM UTC-4, Melzzzzz wrote:
> > you'll never learn in this world, and won't even learn at many churches
> > because Satan is not just in the world, he's also in the church.
 
> Satan is before all things in your head... you cannot escape ...
 
You're right. Our flesh is fallen in sin, and he is continually there
trying to temp us into sin and immorality. Satan is before all people
worldwide continually. He prowls around like a roaring lion looking
for whom he can devour:
 
http://biblehub.com/kjv/1_peter/5-8.htm
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a
roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
 
That's why we're told to be sober and remain vigilant, and why we're told
to pursue God in spirit and in truth:
 
http://biblehub.com/kjv/john/4-23.htm
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall
worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh
such to worship him.
 
And:
 
http://biblehub.com/kjv/galatians/5-17.htm
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against
the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that
ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
 
And several others.
 
-----
Satan is no small foe. He convinced one third of the angels to follow
him when he rebelled against God. One third of the angels! Those who
were standing in the very presence of God. That shows how clever and
crafty the devil is. We also read in scripture several places how he
moves so cleverly to position his attacks to inflict maximum damage.
 
We cannot defeat him on our own. He owns us. But through Jesus Christ
we find victory, and the guiding of God's Holy Spirit prompts us to
victory when we obey Him.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com>: Oct 18 10:15PM -0400

On 19/10/2016 01:49, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> because Satan is not just in the world, he's also in the church.
 
Do you have porn in your church? Surely you must have to entertain all
bishops and nuns!!!!!!!!! after the Sunday service.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 18 07:40PM -0700

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:10:43 PM UTC-4, Real Troll wrote:
> > because Satan is not just in the world, he's also in the church.
 
> Do you have porn in your church? Surely you must have to entertain all
> bishops and nuns!!!!!!!!! after the Sunday service.
 
You're thinking of Catholics. But because we live in a fallen world, and
because all of us are tied to this bodies fallen in sin, it is an ever-
present thorn in our collective side, and it will be that way until Jesus
returns. It's why we must be led by the spirit, and not the flesh:
 
http://biblehub.com/kjv/galatians/5.htm
 
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the
lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against
the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that
ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these;
Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath,
strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like:
of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in
time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit
the kingdom of God.
 
Christians who walk by the spirit will be marked by their behavior:
 
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the
affections and lusts.
 
As an athlete disciplines their life to train for their goal, so do
Christians discipline their life for their goal, which is to serve the
Lord in truth, in holiness, in meekness, in pursuit of His Holy Spirit.
Within that meekness, by the way, comes an unwavering pursuit of His
teachings, such that we are bold in Him, but we are not bold in ourselves.
I would not stand up and proclaim the greatness of Rick, but I would
stand up and boldly proclaim the greatness of Jesus Christ.
 
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another,
envying one another.
 
Many people who profess faith in Christianity are still babes in Christ,
or they are not saved. You must examine each one to know if they are
truly walking after Jesus Christ, truly born again, truly being led by
the spirit, because even Satan himself can appear as an angel of light,
to deceive those who are not truly discerning:
 
http://biblehub.com/kjv/2_corinthians/11.htm
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming
themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel
of light.
 
There are a lot of false people in the church. Each of them is known by
their fruit. They may be able to fool some people for a while, but they
will not be able to fool everyone for long.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: Oct 19 07:41AM +0200

Am 19.10.16 um 01:05 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
 
> Funny thing is that this alien was created with a simple fractal formula
> I designed:
 
> https://plus.google.com/101799841244447089430/posts/ecUuFZ1rcTN
 
No! Intelligent design?
 
 
Christian
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)