- Sounds reasonable - 2 Updates
- cmsg cancel <pne5rm$300$14@dont-email.me> - 3 Updates
- About a GUI TreeMenu component - 2 Updates
- Undefined Behaviour - 11 Updates
- GUI applications with WinGraph - 1 Update
- The Rapture (Reprise ad infinitum) - 6 Updates
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 13 06:23PM +0100 Jesus Christ was sat around a campfire with his disciples and he said, "I created man and woman with original sin then I destroyed most of them for sinning then I impregnated a woman with myself so that I could be born so that later I can kill himself as a sacrifice to myself so that I can save everyone from the sin I gave you in the first place." The disciples all nodded sagely at Jesus's words for what Jesus just said sounded reasonable indeed. -- Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 13 06:26PM +0100 On 13/09/2018 18:23, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > save everyone from the sin I gave you in the first place." > The disciples all nodded sagely at Jesus's words for what Jesus just said > sounded reasonable indeed. Sorry I made a slight mistake; what the Bible actually says is: Jesus Christ was sat around a campfire with his disciples and he said, "I created man and woman with original sin then I destroyed most of them for sinning then I impregnated a woman with myself so that I could be born so that later I can kill myself as a sacrifice to myself so that I can save everyone from the sin I gave you in the first place." The disciples all nodded sagely at Jesus's words for what Jesus just said sounded reasonable indeed. -- Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Elephant Man <conanospamic@gmail.com>: Sep 13 05:16PM Article d'annulation posté via Nemo. |
| Elephant Man <conanospamic@gmail.com>: Sep 13 05:16PM Article d'annulation posté via Nemo. |
| Elephant Man <conanospamic@gmail.com>: Sep 13 05:16PM Article d'annulation posté via Nemo. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Sep 13 10:00AM -0700 Hello, About a TreeMenu GUI component, i think i will also implement soon and easily a TreeMenu component, that is like TreeView but it is constituted with two of my Winmenus and with my StringTree, i think you will appreciate it because it will be "powerful" because it will use a much enhanced version of my Winmenus. So i will implement "soon" and easily the following GUI components using WinGraph for windows that is like the graph unit of turbo pascal: - Button - Label - TextBox - MessageBox - Memo - Panel - RadioButton - CheckBox - ProgressBar - TreeMenu And of course i have already implemented my Winmenus component, and i will enhance it much more. Also i have implemented my Graph3D unit that looks like the graph unit of Turbo Pascal but it is for 3D graphism. You can download my Winmenus and Graph3D unit from here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/winmenus-using-wingraph Look at the source code demos inside the zip file and i have also included the windows executables demos inside the zip file , please read the readme file to understand how to run my cube3d.exe demo inside the zip file. Thank you, Amine Mouly Ramdane. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Sep 13 10:13AM -0700 On 9/13/2018 10:00 AM, Horizon68 wrote: I will see if i can port them to C++ , because designing and implementing GUI is much easier for me than inventing scalable algorithms and there implementations as i have done it. Thank you, Amine Moulay R |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Sep 12 05:59PM -0400 > >> Where it came from doesn't matter, > >Let's ignore facts that are somewhat inconvenient, ok? > Its origin doesn't matter. It exists, MIME is NOT required. You still failed to wrap your brain around what "required" actually means. And you still insist that someone around here stated that MIME is required to post to Usenet… Well, when you find that someone, let me know, so I can also set him/her/it straight. > Really? My NNTP server thinks otherwise: > 441 Missing required From: header > 441 Required Subject: header is missing Your NNTP server is not an authoritative source of the NNTP specification. Sorry to have confused you with facts. The current NNTP specification is RFC 3977. I'll wait until you find which part of it makes "From:" and "Subject:" headers required for NNTP transport. Please make sure to mention the section and paragraph number in your response. I'm really looking forward to it. I'm going to try to teach you something, and we'll see if my efforts will go for naught: just because a there's no requirement for something, unless it's prohibited an individual implementation is allowed to implement it. NNTP does not require a mandatory "From:" or "Subject:" header. This does not prohibit individual NNTP servers from requiring it. Each NNTP server is free to implement its own policies for transporting and distributing messages. Just because your NNTP server requires them doesn't mean that every NNTP server in the world does too, or that it's required by NNTP. Do you always blather off on subject matter you have no clue about, or are you just making a special exception, just for me? Just curious. I have a sneaky feeling that we're just about to find out, in mere moments… > Anything else you feel like getting wrong while you're at it? You've got > quite > a list of bloopers so far. Are you auditioning for the role of the Black Knight, in the upcoming Monty Python remake? For some reason I think that you have a pretty good chance of landing the role. > The point was pretty simple. Unfortunately it has proved completely beyond > you > to comprehend it. It can't be simple. After all, if it were, you would be able to explain it. Or cite an authoritative reference for this mysterious NNTP requirement of whose existance you're absolutely sure of, but just can't find any evidence. Must be some kind of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, to make you look like an abject fool, right? > >seem to be quite particular and sensitive to spelling and proper grammar, > >according to your prior scribbling. > Its slang. It can be spelt however you want. Unfortunately, the historical custom of this, very fine, newsgroup is that we all must strive to always use King's English. Not slang. You can leave that for Facebook. > >> No pussy encoding for you eh? LOL :) > >It's not my term. I am just a mere conveyance of accurate and truthful > Its a term you didn't understand. You're projecting. You seem to be impressed by the term "ASCII armor". It's as if you've never heard of it before. You reacted as if this was the first time you've read someone using this term, and, once again, ass-umed that it's just a personal term of mine. It's not, grasshopper. You claim "thats [sic] a big impressive phrase". You even used an exclamation mark, to underscore your surprise at this curious term, that you're so unfamiliar with. Well, in fact, "--armor" is the literal, actual name of an actual gpg command line option, Einstein, which requests this fascinating task to be accomplished by gpg. Would you care for a link to online documentation? Yes, indeed, you found "ASCII armor" to be a very unusual choice of words for describing what you get by running the "gpg" command using the "--armor" option. That pretty much sums up your latest, self-hoisted petard. This option existed for several decades now. I can't make this stuff up. Just curious: have you ever wondered why so many people point their fingers in your direction, and laugh? Have you even executed the gpg command, just once, with any option? Do you know how to manage your public and private keyrings, and do the usual kind of pgp-ish stuff? You obviously know nothing about it, you don't know about the "--armor" option, but you think you have the qualifications to discuss PGP signing of Internet messages. I guess you'll just have to add one more failure, to your impressive resume of flameouts. This turns out to be a fairly common, standard term used in PGP technical documentation, since the beginning; and the term is now commonly used in general technical documentation also. Your unfamiliarity with it accidentally reveals the fact that you were trying, valiantly, to discuss a highly technical subject matter you don't know anything about. If you did know anything about it, the term would not've been such a surprise, and you would not've made an issue out of it. After all, the "--armor" option is one of the common ones, and in fact is the precise option that generates the PGP signature which caused so much confusion on your part. But that's ok, by making an issue out of it you've just underscored your own level of dumbassetry. But there's a bigger issue besides your fascination with this latest shining ball, called "ASCII armor" (oooh!, big fancy words!); specifically your general confusion about the fundamental difference between MIME base64 encoding and PGP ASCII Armoring; leading you to believe they're one and the same just because both use the same alphabet. Unfortunately that's not the case, and they serve fundamentally distinct purposes. Get back to me when you've figured it out, and finally read the referenced application/pgp- signature MIME type specification, that gives, pretty much, a verbatim equivalent of the original snippet of the message that included the Ascii- armored signature. Did you know that an option called "--armor" was used to generate it? If you still believe that you're looking at MIME base64 encoding, then maybe you should write their authors and tell them they've got it wrong, and that you know better. Really, why haven't you, yet, reviewed the application/pgp-signature spec? Can't find it? Too many long words, that your brain can't absorb? Or you did read it, but are too ashamed to admit how full of crap you are? Which is the case? > >pat you on the head for it. > Well since you're incapable of using google someone has to point you to some > relevant material. Maybe, maybe not. When you find that someone, let me know. Sounds like very useful service, having someone else Google something for me, instead of doing it myself. That must be what that "Google Assistant" gizmo, that I keep hearing about in the news, is all about. Perhaps that Google Assistant can help you find the application/pgp-signature MIME specification, so that you can enlighten yourself. Or, perhaps, your Google Assistant can help you find scores of articles explaining what ASCII armoring is, since you've never heard of it before. > >content in question was explicitly identified as carrying a > >Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > And? It's something that called a "fact". You should invest a few minutes in learning what that word means, and what application/pgp-signature's specification says. > Its still base64 encoded, something you denied. It is not MIME base-64 encoded, you are simply incapable of understanding the difference between PGP ASCII armoring, MIME content, and MIME content transfer encoding. It's a very nuanced, but a very important, distinction. A distinction you are clearly incapable of understanding. Too many big words… Too many big concepts… I really can't understand why can't someone just write a large coloring book, to help people like you understand these complicated things? And even include a box of crayons, to make the whole thing easier. > Any other not-up-for- > debate facts you wish to deny or are you done for the week? Well, here's one "not-up-for-debate fact": you are a clueless dummy with a severe case of delusion of self-grandeur, who thinks that he/she/it is hot stuff because he/she/it can successfully compile helloworld.cpp in Visual Studio. I am not going to deny that. Grow up, young man/woman/non-gendered-entity (just doing my part to be inclusive); you're in the adult world now, and what you think you know, doesn't really amount to much. Which is why you must pay attention, and make careful notes, when your mental superiors are schooling you. There is slight, just a slight, chance that you might understand and learn something. Which would be a step forward; but even if not, at least you've tried. But you're not even trying. And that's a shame. All those helpless, innocent electrons, being sacrificed on the altar of Usenet, just in order for your shining paragon of ignorance to make it to every corner of the world, and for everyone to laugh at it. Although we, mere mortals, certainly gain some enjoyment, we can't ignore the utter waste of useful energy that was needed to propagate such rubbish. Win some, lose some, I guess. > [rest of tl;dr drivel snipped] Oh, please. It's quite you've read every word of it. And loved it. Just like you've read every word of this, and despite being embarrased at daring to try to match wits with your mental superior, you found your experience to be strangely to your liking. > You can always tell when someones on the back foot when they post a mini > dissertation to try and put their point across. Give it rest mate, honestly > its just laughable. Nope. Why would I give up on free entertainment? And you call /that/ a dissertation? You really have low standards. Maybe it would be a dissertation of a lifetime for you, but my record for a Usenet flame racks up to about a 3000 line post, as I recall*. This, right here – what you're reading right now – is nothing. Absolutely nothing, compared to the flames of long ago, in a galaxy far-far away. You've yet to learn much, young padawan. *Of course, I had some, shall we say… technical assistance in writing it up. But let this be our little secret, just between you and me. Nobody else needs to know, and may the schwartz be with you. |
| boltar@cylonHQ.com: Sep 13 08:35AM On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 17:59:14 -0400 >to post to Usenet=E2=80=A6 Well, when you find that someone, let me know, = >so I can =20 >also set him/her/it straight. Oh look, another goalpost move there by mouth breather. Every time he gets caught out he changes the argument slightly to match what he said. Nice try. First you claim that MIME is required for posting non ascii data then after I've shown you 2 ways its done without it (because you're too dim too google it) you're now claiming I said its required to post to usenet full stop. Seriously, your 101 debating tactics wouldn't fool a class of pre-teens. >> 441 Missing required From: header >> 441 Required Subject: header is missing >Your NNTP server is not an authoritative source of the NNTP specification= Good like finding one that will accept a post without them. [Usual self justifying BS snipped, tl;dr] You really are too stupid to argue with. You were amusing, now you're just borderline pathetic. Feel free to have the last fatuous word and goalpost move yet again, I'm done here. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 13 11:04AM +0200 > I'm done here. Hurray! |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Sep 13 07:10AM -0400 > >so I can =20 > >also set him/her/it straight. > Oh look, another goalpost move there by mouth breather. Every time he gets Have you yet figured out what ASCII armoring means? > caught out he changes the argument slightly to match what he said. Nice try. +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | $1 OFF | | | | COUPON | | | | EXTRA-STRENGTH BUTTHURT CREAM | | | | $1 OFF | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Here you go, I think you might be able to use it. > First you claim that MIME is required for posting non ascii data then after It is. That's absolutely true. > I've shown you 2 ways its done without it (because you're too dim too google You've done nothing of that sort. Maybe in your fevered mind, but in noone else's. > it) you're now claiming I said its required to post to usenet full stop. > Seriously, your 101 debating tactics wouldn't fool a class of pre-teens. So says Mr. "What is ascii armoring?" PGP expert. > >> 441 Required Subject: header is missing > >Your NNTP server is not an authoritative source of the NNTP specification= > Good like finding one that will accept a post without them. Sure, I have one right here. > [Usual self justifying BS snipped, tl;dr] Translation: please ignore the bootprint on my forehead. > borderline pathetic. Feel free to have the last fatuous word and goalpost > move > yet again, I'm done here. Your toys are all packaged, in the cardboard box, over there in a corner. You may pick them up when you're ready to go home. Another satisfied customer. You're welcome, everyone. |
| boltar@cylonHQ.com: Sep 13 11:31AM On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:04:56 +0200 >On 13/09/18 10:35, boltar@cylonHQ.com wrote: >> I'm done here. >Hurray! Don't get too excited, I'm sure our little friend sammy will be along soon to make a fool of himself once again. Just give em the rope... |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 13 01:57PM +0200 >> Hurray! > Don't get too excited, I'm sure our little friend sammy will be along soon to > make a fool of himself once again. Just give em the rope... Look, the two of you are equally guilty of having a childish name-calling argument. It is utterly irrelevant which, if either, of you is right. Any factual or informative discussion is long since over, and the two of you both lost - you both made fools of yourselves. |
| boltar@cylonHQ.com: Sep 13 12:57PM On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 13:57:32 +0200 >name-calling argument. It is utterly irrelevant which, if either, of >you is right. Any factual or informative discussion is long since over, >and the two of you both lost - you both made fools of yourselves. Sums up usenet for the last 30 years doesn't it? :) |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 13 03:13PM +0200 >> you is right. Any factual or informative discussion is long since over, >> and the two of you both lost - you both made fools of yourselves. > Sums up usenet for the last 30 years doesn't it? :) No. This group is usually much better than that. It is far from perfect, but this "battle" between you and Sam is well below average. I have nothing against the odd off-topic thread (although some other people here do) - a rational discussion about newsreaders or Usenet standards is fine by me. But no one here is interested in a insult and name-calling competition. If that is what interests the two of you, please take it elsewhere - I am sure there are Usenet groups where it is suitable. |
| boltar@cylonHQ.com: Sep 13 01:32PM On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 15:13:09 +0200 >> Sums up usenet for the last 30 years doesn't it? :) >No. This group is usually much better than that. It is far from >perfect, but this "battle" between you and Sam is well below average. I At least its about something computer related, unlike the vast tracts of biblical gibberish Hodgkin keeps inflicting on the group. |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Sep 13 11:16AM -0400 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >and the two of you both lost - you both made fools of yourselves. > Sums up usenet for the last 30 years doesn't it? :) No, just your own posts. |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Sep 13 07:35PM +0300 > At least its about something computer related, unlike the vast tracts of > biblical gibberish Hodgkin keeps inflicting on the group. Hodgin can be safely killfiled as he never posts anything even remotely interesting. It's a shame some people are responding to him, ruining my filters. |
| Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Sep 13 09:02AM -0700 Hello.. I think i will implement the following GUI components to be able to write GUI applications with WinGraph(that is like the graph unit of Turbo Pascal): - Button - Label - TextBox - MessageBox - Memo - Panel - RadioButton - CheckBox - ProgressBar And of course i have already implemented my Winmenus component, and i will enhance it much more. Also i have implemented my Graph3D unit that looks like the graph unit of Turbo Pascal but it is for 3D graphism. You can download my Winmenus and Graph3D unit from here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/winmenus-using-wingraph Look at the source code demos inside the zip file and i have also included the windows executables demos inside the zip file , please read the readme file to understand how to run my cube3d.exe demo inside the zip file. Thank you, Amine Mouly Ramdane. |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 13 09:56AM +1200 On 13/09/18 01:54, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > That's the point. The arguments of "millions of years" or "billions > of years" is unprovable. People are asked to take it on faith, and > even that the science-so-called they use to "prove" it is accurate. So what you are saying is your god is a joker who created a universe where all of the physical evidence points to it being billions of years old just to trick people? Yeah right! -- Ian. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 12 06:01PM -0400 On 9/12/2018 5:56 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > So what you are saying is your god is a joker who created a universe where > all of the physical evidence points to it being billions of years old just to > trick people? No. I'm saying He implemented a system that is wholly integrated, and then put man in that system. It's as I've said before ... for video game scenes, we load from our databases all of the components to make the things in those games exist. We can load entire solar systems for space games. All manner of fish and coral and what not for marine games, etc. Think of God creating Adam. He would've had to have already distributed nutrients to the various storehouses in the body. It could not be that Adam woke up famished and dehydrated. God is comprehensive, complete, and amazing. You should get to know Him, Ian, rather than badmouthing Him and those like me who are His. > Yeah right! Yeah. Right. :-) -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 13 09:53AM +0200 On 12/09/18 15:54, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > That's the point. The arguments of "millions of years" or "billions > of years" is unprovable. People are asked to take it on faith, and > even that the science-so-called they use to "prove" it is accurate. No, people are /not/ asked to take science "on faith". Science is about basing your understanding on evidence, observation, experiment, and rational theory. Now, it is a long time (a couple of centuries) since it was practical for any given person to have a broad understanding of most of science. We have got so advanced that there simply isn't enough hours in the day for any one person to study more than a few niche areas in detail. But key to science is that there is no fundamental hinder to anyone learning anything, finding out for themselves, or repeating the same experiments. So if /you/ want to be sure about radio carbon dating of an object, there is nothing but time, effort and some money stopping you from learning all about how radioactive decay works, how to measure it, how the biological carbon cycle works, and how these work together to give a handy clock to see when a plant or animal died. It would be a lot of work - but anyone can do it, and lots of people /have/ done all those parts. Science is not "taken on faith" - it is repeated, questioned, challenged, with experiments duplicated by different people in different ways at different times. It is only when the evidence is overwhelming, the theory is sound, the predictions born out, the experimental results replicated by different groups - only then is it solid enough to be called a "theory". And a scientific theory must be disprovable to be valid - otherwise it is a pointless generalisation. And only when a theory has stood the test of time, been shown to work in a wide range of cases and fit with established knowledge, do we start to think of it as "scientific fact" or "scientifically proven". "Faith" is when someone says something, and you believe it simply because you trust the person who said it. There is no room in science for faith. > our written history goes back beyond a few thousand years. There are > things we think are older, but we don't know ... because we weren't > there. We have to have a certain amount of trust in the world we see around us, and in the knowledge and experience passed on by others. Otherwise you decay into a philosophy of "How do we know /for sure/ that we are not all living in a matrix-like simulation?" Such ideas cannot be disproved, but are pointless (precisely because they cannot be disproved). > me, and I know that when I came to Him in 2004 asking forgiveness I > was changed ... and each of you can see the fruit of that change in > the way I conduct my life to this day, 14+ years later. I don't have any argument against you wanting to read the Bible, or believe in God. I am a strong fan of religious freedom - if you are happier due to your faith, or you feel it makes you a better person, then great. People can have whatever personal beliefs, faiths or religions they want - and they can call them what they want. I /do/ have something against how those beliefs might affect others. But it is not because they are religious ideas, or anything else - it is what people /do/ and /say/ that count in how they interact with others. (Their motivation and reasons are important, but they are their own business.) I am keen on karate training. I can't say I am naturally well suited to it, and started many decades too late to be particularly good. But it is great for my health and general well-being. I have no doubts at all that there are many people in this group who, like me, spend far too much time in front of a keyboard - and who would greatly benefit from starting karate. I am confident that if I persuaded people to take up karate, at least some people here would live longer as a result. But if I were to constantly harp on about it in this group, do you think it would be appropriate? No one else would. Do you think it would be right of me to claim that karate was the only true way to stay in shape, and that people going to the gym, or playing football, or walking in the hills are all wrong? Do you think it would be right of me to patronise or degrade people who choose not to exercise at all? Of course not - we should respect people's freedom to choose for themselves. The same applies in religion - I respect your right to choose to be a Christian, but I expect /you/ to respect other people's right to have a different religion or no religion. And I expect you to understand what your faith is, and not claim it to be something it is not. I don't claim that karate is a good way to get fresh air, and I don't expect a footballer to claim their training is self-defence. I don't expect a scientist to say his is proving or disproving the existence of a god, or ghosts, or any other supernatural phenomena. A scientist can say he/she finds no evidence supporting such things - but no more than that. (Some people in this group have suggested that science such as evolution, DNA, or the speed of light "disprove" God or the Bible. They are wrong. The science removes the /need/ for religion to explain many things that were beyond the knowledge of people long ago, but it does not /disprove/ them.) Equally, however, you cannot use religion to change or "disprove" science. You /can/ say "I believe the Bible's story of the creation of the universe. Therefore science has got something wrong" or "I believe the Bible's story of the history of mankind. Scientists and historians have been fooled by Satan." What you /cannot/ say is "science says the Bible is right", or "scientific evidence shows the flood really happened". These things are plain and simple nonsense, and they are unworthy of any thinking person. They are the kind of drivel used by TV preachers to con money out of the easily fooled - and I would like to hope you are not one of those people (either the money-grabbing con men, or the naïve souls they prey on). Now, that is far too long an off-topic post for this group. I will try to resist the temptation to do so again for a while - unless, of course, someone wants to know more about karate :-) |
| boltar@cylonHQ.com: Sep 13 08:40AM On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 18:01:24 -0400 >databases all of the components to make the things in those games exist. >We can load entire solar systems for space games. All manner of fish >and coral and what not for marine games, etc. If you believe the universe is some kind of artificial construct with a built in "cheat mode" whereby its creator can bypass the laws of physics to do anything he wants then anything is possible and any argument about it is utterly pointless. |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 13 09:57PM +1200 On 13/09/18 10:01, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> trick people? > No. I'm saying He implemented a system that is wholly integrated, and > then put man in that system. A system that is wholly integrated where all of the physical evidence points to it being billions of years old? Why would creator go to such extraordinary lengths to deceive its creation? -- Ian. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 13 04:41AM -0700 On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:58:04 AM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote: > A system that is wholly integrated where all of the physical evidence > points to it being billions of years old? Why would creator go to such > extraordinary lengths to deceive its creation? It's not deception. It's truth. It's the way things are, but the enemy of God teaches you, attempts to convince you it is deception, but it is not. YOU believe it's deception because you are willing to listen to that enemy and are unwilling to give God an ear. As such, it appears to you to be deception, and this turning away from God will further divide you from Him by your choices. It's the same reason Jesus spoke in parables, so they would be ever hearing, yet never understanding. Every seeing, yet never comprehending: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A10-17&version=KJV 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? ==> 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. ==> 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. ==> 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: Here we see God is willing to save all people, but because of their hard heart, He cannot. They divide themselves from God's grace by their willingness to follow falseness: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. ==> 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. 17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. ----- This world is a proving ground. It sifts people. It bins them. Each is given opportunity and scenario after opportunity and scenario. We respond as we do and our responses are recorded in books in Heaven to be used on the day of our judgment. "It bins them," you say? CPUs are binned. The hardware silicon dies come off a wafer that's been processed. They're sliced up and tested. Most fall in an average range and are binned into middle-of-the-road chips for sale. Some have defective cores. These are sold as value parts. Some perform exceptionally and are sold as server parts or high-end enthusiast parts. Others are defective and are scrapped. We reveal to ourselves, to God, to the angels, to all od creation, who we are, what our makeup is, what we'll believe, and what we'll reject. We "prove" ourselves out in our lives, day by day, even minute by minute. God searches our hearts and minds, and for all those who will believe the truth, He draws them to it, to His Son, so they can ask forgiveness and be saved. The rest remain as they are, ever hearing, ever seeing, yet never perceiving. This world is not our permanent home. It is the test equipment used to bin us, to prove us out, to set our future, to be that part of God's Kingdom, either an average part, a value part, or a high- end part given much responsibility and duty. All of us will enter Heaven to be judged after we die, but not all will remain there. Whether we do or not depends entirely on whether or not we asked Jesus to forgive our sin, for the only way to enter that perfect Kingdom is to be perfect, and in our sin we fall short. Jesus came to take our sin away, to make us perfect, so we could enter in. Think about this, and ask questions in your mind. God will teach you the truth if you honestly seek to know it. But beware, because the enemy will give you an alternate explanation, a "lookalike" that is not truth, but is the lie. Press in and seek the truth and ask God to help you and He will. It would be your best end to do so. You, Ian, and everyone else. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| 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. |
No comments:
Post a Comment