Friday, May 24, 2019

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics

jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu: May 24 08:06AM -0700

> On Fri, 24 May 2019 11:23:13 +0100
> Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
...
> time since most of those instructions were executed as is on the silicon so
> what is your point? There is a clear mapping from a C instruction to 1 or
> more assembly instructions.
 
Such a mapping might seem clear to you, but the C standard specifies no
such mapping, and is quite explicit about the fact that only the
observable behavior matters - the actual assembly instructions used to
achieve that behavior does not matter.
 
> >gives rise to undefined behaviour which imposes no requirement for
 
> Undefined behaviour is for something like 2 / 3.
 
The expression 2/3 has behavior which is very precisely defined by the
C standard: it has result which is of int type and a value of 0. Were
you, perhaps, meaning something else by that statement?

> ... When the types are specifically
> given in the program and the operations simply and clear there is no excuse for
> behaviour being undefined.
 
None the less, the C committee has decided to that the behavior of the
code we've been talking about is undefined, despite the fact that you
disagree. The committee has official authority to make such decisions,
you do not. You get to choose whether or not to use the language they
specified. You're free to criticize their decisions, and to lobby for
them to be changed in the next version of the standard. However, your
personal belief that such code should not have undefined behavior
doesn't change the fact that, as currently defined by the C standard, it
does. And as long as that is the relevant specification, you can't
justify calling an optimization "wrong" which produces behavior
consistent with the standard's specification for what the behavior
should be.
 
...
> No, its an indication that I've written my own and debugged others code enough
> to know that optimisers can get it wrong, quite badly in some circumstances.
 
Oh definitely - but this is not an example. Since the behavior of the
code is undefined, there is no such thing as behavior which is "wrong".
Bart <bc@freeuk.com>: May 24 05:12PM +0100

On 24/05/2019 15:12, David Brown wrote:
>> converted to pointers).
 
> Right - that is an unusual and specialised case. Very, very few
> programmers get involved in the details of any kind of byte code.
 
Then they will have come across examples in their own field. Even in my
own code, such examples come up everywhere.
 
>> For that purpose, it may be necessary for any element of A to be
>> interpreted as one of:
...
>> You get the idea.
 
> Yes. Use a union. Problem solved.
 
Is it? Isn't there a problem writing to one union member then reading
from another which is of a different type? (And how does it manage to
split that 128-bit type? Since we don't want every byte-code element to
be 128 bits wide.)
 
I also go on to say, that because the original source for such a program
doesn't have this kind of gratuitous UB, it can use an int-array
representation, which is simpler and uncluttered with union member
operations.
 
How then does the union get into the C code? The translator is not going
to restructure my program! It would have be done at the lowest level on
an op-by-op basis. The resulting C code is going to be dreadful, and
we're back where we were a few days ago.
 
> You make such mountains from molehills because you fixate on the wrong
> ideas from day one.
 
Sorry, it's not me creating the mountains. Since I design languages I
can make them a good fit to what I do. It's C that is a bad fit and that
is made worse by all this UB business.
 
(Otherwise, I think in nearly all cases, it would make programming in C,
and generating C, simpler with fewer silly UB quirks to have to keep in
mind. It certainly adds nothing to help with coding. The only plus is to
make possible some extreme optimisations.)
 
It can't be chance that using other people's languages I can spend 90%
of my time battling the language and compiler, rather than 90% getting
on with the real work.
blt_S1kHa7t3t@2ui.co.uk: May 24 05:37PM

On Fri, 24 May 2019 14:09:34 +0200
 
>x86 assembler is a spec for the x86 ISA. Yes, it is abstract in that
>the underlying hardware is physically different. But so what? What
>possible bearing does that have on C or C++ ?
 
Its called an analogy, look it up.
 
>> There is a clear mapping from a C instruction to 1 or
>> more assembly instructions.
 
>No there is not.
 
Isn't there? So + wouldn't give rise to an add, calling a function wouldn't
create a call assembler instruction?
 
>> Undefined behaviour is for something like 2 / 3.
 
>What an odd example to pick, given that its behaviour is fully defined
>in all programming languages I have seen.
 
So is the answer 0 or 0.66666... then?
 
>things we are discussing here are not bugs, and the optimiser has not
>got anything wrong. The /programmer/ has got things wrong - that is
>vastly more common in my experience.
 
Each of the operations in the example code was perfectly valid. The optimiser
made an incorrect assumption and created non working code.
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: May 24 08:59PM +0300


>> No there is not.
 
> Isn't there? So + wouldn't give rise to an add, calling a function wouldn't
> create a call assembler instruction?
 
Nope. If the + is for floating-point add and the CPU does not support
floating-point and there is no floating-point coprocessor (for example:
Intel 8086), then + does not generate an ADD assembler instruction
(because there is no such instruction). Instead, it calls a software
emulation routine.
jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu: May 24 11:00AM -0700

> On Fri, 24 May 2019 14:09:34 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> >On 24/05/2019 12:50, blt__6qv0@o2s9b3.edu wrote:
...
 
> >No there is not.
 
> Isn't there? So + wouldn't give rise to an add, calling a function wouldn't
> create a call assembler instruction?
 
No, + might give you a function call if addition on the types involved
is being emulated in software. Depending upon the context, it might
result in an fma instruction. It could also result in a register being
loaded with the result of an addition that has already been calculated
elsewhere that has the same value. It also might not result in any
instructions being generated at all, if the compiler realizes that the
result of the addition has no effect on the observable behavior. If a
compiler happens to notice that the numbers being added are powers of 2,
it might generate a bitwise-or instruction, instead of an add.
 
Calling a function might result in an add instruction being executed, if
the implementation chooses to inline the function call (which it is
permitted to do, whether or not the function is declared "inline"), and
the first step of the inlined function is an add.
 
 
> >What an odd example to pick, given that its behaviour is fully defined
> >in all programming languages I have seen.
 
> So is the answer 0 or 0.66666... then?
 
0, of course. 2 and 3 are both constants with type of int. "When
integers are divided, the result of the / operator is the algebraic
quotient with any fractional part discarded." (6.5.5p6). This is a
very basic feature of C, which has been around since the language was
first created.
 
...
> >got anything wrong. The /programmer/ has got things wrong - that is
> >vastly more common in my experience.
 
> Each of the operations in the example code was perfectly valid.
 
The C standard specifies otherwise: it gives anti-aliasing rules that
were violated by that code, so they were not valid.
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: May 24 09:13PM +0300

On 24.05.2019 20:59, Paavo Helde wrote:
> Intel 8086), then + does not generate an ADD assembler instruction
> (because there is no such instruction). Instead, it calls a software
> emulation routine.
 
Not to speak about function calls. In heavily templated code like STL it
is not rare to see half of function calls optimized away.
Bart <bc@freeuk.com>: May 24 08:04PM +0100


>> What an odd example to pick, given that its behaviour is fully defined
>> in all programming languages I have seen.
 
> So is the answer 0 or 0.66666... then?
 
That's usually defined like this:
 
int / int -> int
float / float -> float
 
Both 2 and 3 are int constants, so it does an integer divide, and the
result is zero.
 
2/3.0 or 2.0/3 or 2.0/3.0 would give 0.66666...
 
(This is slightly tricky to test in C as you have to supply a %d or %f
format, so really have to already know the result type. C++ might be a
bit easier with cout and/or << (whichever is the actual thing that
converts an expression to text).)
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>: May 24 09:27PM +0100


> 2/3.0 or 2.0/3 or 2.0/3.0 would give 0.66666...
 
> (This is slightly tricky to test in C as you have to supply a %d or %f
> format, so really have to already know the result type.
 
You can write
 
#include <stdio.h>

#define PRINT(e) printf(_Generic((e), int: "%d", double: "%g"), (e)), puts("")

int main(void)
{
PRINT(2/3);
PRINT(2.0/3);
}
 
so whilst you don't have to know the type, I think it still counts as "a
little tricky".
 
--
Ben.
Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org>: May 24 05:54PM +0200

Am 24.05.19 um 13:31 schrieb Paavo Helde:
> How to make offsetof() usage legal in this example?
 
I think there is no legal variant for your use case. AFAIK offsetof and
inheritance shouldn't be used for the same type.
 
> Is there a better way instead of using offsetof?
 
Well, normally you should use (multiple) inheritance in this case. I.e.
 
class Derived : public Base, private Inner
{ public:
Inner* GetInner() { return this; }
static Derived* OwnerOf(Inner* inner) { return (Derived*)inner; }
};
 
Now it is just a downcast.
 
Assignment to Inner (if required) could be done by slicing.
 
 
Marcel
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: May 24 08:21PM +0300

On 24.05.2019 18:54, Marcel Mueller wrote:
> static Derived* OwnerOf(Inner* inner) { return (Derived*)inner; }
> };
 
> Now it is just a downcast.
 
Thanks! Apparently this works, but I'm pretty surprised it does. The
OwnerOf() function does not have any knowledge that the passed-in inner
pointer actually belongs to an Inner base class object inside a Derived
object, but it still agrees to perform the cast. Amazing, usually C++ is
much more picky!
 
Well, I guess I can learn something new every day!
Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org>: May 24 08:23PM +0200

Am 24.05.19 um 19:21 schrieb Paavo Helde:
> OwnerOf() function does not have any knowledge that the passed-in inner
> pointer actually belongs to an Inner base class object inside a Derived
> object, but it still agrees to perform the cast.
 
Well, if you pass something else you get UB.
 
Only if you have polymorphic types you could use dynamic_cast<> which
has defined behavior in such cases.
 
> Amazing, usually C++ is much more picky!
 
I can't confirm this. You can do almost any dirty hack in C++. Container
classes with type erasure, smart pointers that are /binary/ compatible
to some C pointers like const char*, efficient arrays with members like
_size in a single allocation with the array content and without an
offset from the objects pointer to the start of the array, type safe and
strongly thread safe smart pointers without DWCAS and so on. Whether
this is defined behavior according to the language standard is another
question. Sometimes it is only defined behavior on some platforms.
 
 
Marcel
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 24 07:22AM -0700

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 10:10:27 AM UTC-4, Daniel wrote:
 
> > You ... cast the true teachings of God into something negative
 
> Well, there are some things negative in the texts. Why was it necessary when
> taking Jerico to kill every man, woman, baby, ox, sheep and donkey?
 
I already answered that in the previous post.
 
> cry out for help when raped? Or put to death gays and lesbians? Why is it
> permitted for a man to sell his daughter as a slave, and why cannot she be
> freed as male slaves were after seven years?
 
It has to do with the spirit nature inhabiting our flesh, and
the evil spirits we let in by our sin. It's the same reason
God commanded stoning for various offenses.
 
We now know, on this side of Pentecost, about the spirit nature
and the flesh relationship. God has given man His Holy Spirit,
so we can be guided by Him spiritually.
 
Until we are born again and have our own spirit (John 3), we are
totally at the subjection of our flesh, which evil spirits use
to entice and keep us in sin. They influence our flesh, to make
us think things, feel things, believe things, that are not our
own thinkings, feelings, beliefs. They inhabit our invisible
components and our flesh tells us we feel a particular way, or
believe a particular thing, when in fact that feeling or belief
is being injected into us by those evil spirits. It causes us
to respond to it in this world, causing us to sin, and do harm,
and to go into all manner of depravity.
 
When those spirits were in Israel, God commanded that the flesh
be destroyed so those evil spirit would not take hold, because
just like cancer, once you get it in one place, it quickly will
spread to other places. It has to be cut out completely.
 
> And herein is your problem, when you read the texts, you assume everything
> in them is good, in some sense, and hence all of the things above permit
> themselves of a positive spin.
 
Not everything they convey is good, but everything they convey
can be used for good:
 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203:16-17&version=NIV;KJV
 
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished
[equipped] unto all good works.
 
The examples of bad behavior teach us how not to be. The examples
of good behavior teach us how to be. And the culmination of it
all teaches us what we will encounter in this world, and what it
all means with regards to our responses.
 
> Jefferson knew about the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of
> Jupiter, and much else, but you don't seem to know _anything_ about the
> wider context in which the great religions evolved.
 
I'm not speaking anything whatsoever about religion.
 
Christianity is not religion. It is a relationship with Jesus
Christ. Religion relates to those who are not able to be born
again, such as in Judaism. They have a religion. Christians
do not have a religion in the traditional sense. We have a true
and fruitful RELATIONSHIP with God Himself through our now spirit
nature. We still do religious things to keep our flesh in line,
but our RELATIONSHIP with God is what drives us, not our flesh,
and not our "religion."
 
This is part of the teaching to undo the unfruitful works of the
devil, who likes to ascribe everything into only that which our
flesh can know. But Jesus came to teach us there is more, and
for those who will ask forgiveness for their sin, they are born
again and have new spirit life, which manifests itself in a new
way, teaching us new things, new understandings, new perspectives,
and it is there, from within that new ability / faculty / add-on,
that we are able to know and follow and do and believe in the
things of God.
 
Ever see Transformers? The scene where the kid puts the spark
into Optimus, but it's not enough to get him up and moving. That
SR-71 Decepticon gives him his own internal heart thingy, and when
that happens Optimus now has all manner of new flying abilities he
didn't have before. The new nature given him on the inside made
him able to do things and know things (like how to fly) he didn't
and couldn't before.
 
When we come to Jesus and our sin is forgiven, we have new spirit
life. That new spirit life enables us to know things and believe
things and do things we couldn't before. It's not physical like
the add-on of jet engines and wings as with Optimus, but it's all
entirely invisible as it is spirit, not flesh.
 
Go to a local Bible-believing church and speak to born again
Christians there and ask them for their witness about the presence
of the Holy Spirit in their life after salvation, how everything
changed for them, how they are amazed at how they were internally
re-wired from the ground up.
 
You'll be amazed at their testimonies. It's not flesh. It's new.
It's different. It's spirit (John 3).
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 24 03:43PM +0100

On 24/05/2019 03:32, Queequeg wrote:
 
>> And Satan invented fossils, yes?
 
> Leigh,
 
> Did you really have to quote all his BS just to add one line?
 
For the required effect of fully taking the piss, yes.
 
/Flibble
 
--
"You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais
 
"I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." –
Ricky Gervais
 
"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 24 03:44PM +0100

On 24/05/2019 15:22, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> re-wired from the ground up.
 
> You'll be amazed at their testimonies. It's not flesh. It's new.
> It's different. It's spirit (John 3).
 
Nonsense.
A) Your bible is false.
B) Your god the existence of which is predicated on your bible being true
is, given (A), also false.
 
/Flibble
 
--
"You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais
 
"I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." –
Ricky Gervais
 
"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 24 07:49AM -0700

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 10:10:27 AM UTC-4, Daniel wrote:
> ...Why was it necessary when
> taking Jerico to kill every man, woman, baby, ox, sheep and donkey?
 
You have to understand the eternal perspective. Everybody dies.
It's just a question of when. But if God chooses to end the lives
of those He created prematurely, it's His right. But because of
who God is, He's not going to be cruel, mean, unfair. When He
makes a decision on something, it's for perfect reasons. It is
the full force of perfect thought brought to bear on the situation.
 
God sees things with different eyes than we do. He eyes eternity.
He eyes the long part of our existence, after this little short
part of our existence here is over. And His plans incorporate
both parts.
 
When He orders a people to be completely wiped out, it's for a
long-term goal. As I said in the prior post, killing a few now
could literally save billions and billions and billions later on.
 
How many people could've been saved if Hitler and Stalin could've
been killed before they came to power? Two lives to save how many
10s of millions?
 
It may not have been that way if Hitler and Stalin would've been
killed before coming to power, however, because maybe Smith and
Jones would've come to power and been worse than Hitler and Stalin.
But with God, He does know what's going on. He does know the truth
about what would happen, and when He makes decisions, they are
right.
 
It's time to stop doubting God, and to start recognizing that He's
right and learning from Him. Start asking questions like you did
on this message I'm replying to where you say, "Why did God...?"
 
Those kinds of questions, from a truth-seeking heart, are what God
is after. He's not going to hide behind any of His actions. We
don't need to make excuses for God for what He's done. We don't
need to apologize for things written in scripture. But all of it
gives us occasion to come together and ponder and examine and co-
ordinate with other things we know of God in scripture, and assem-
ble it all together into a proper and coherent picture of who God
is and why He's done what He's done.
 
God will never fail you. When you press in and pursue Him to the
uttermost, He will only amaze and astound you with His wisdom, His
vision, the power and authority to move on such scales that makes
us weep with joy when we begin to understand it all, just as we do
when we look into the vastness of life on this planet, and the
vastness of space out there in the universe.
 
God has done amazing and mighty things, and it is ours to press in
and pursue and discover to learn more about the God we only know
in part today, but in eternity will know face-to-face.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 24 03:56PM +0100

On 24/05/2019 15:49, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> God has done amazing and mighty things, and it is ours to press in
> and pursue and discover to learn more about the God we only know
> in part today, but in eternity will know face-to-face.
 
And Satan invented fossils, yes?
 
/Flibble
 
--
"You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais
 
"I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." –
Ricky Gervais
 
"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: May 24 07:59AM -0700

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 10:49:42 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> You have to understand the eternal perspective.
 
It's asking a lot of a woman about to be sold into slavery, or a woman about
to be stoned because she did not cry out for help when raped, to understand
the eternal perspective. The closest thing you'll find to ancient biblical
values in the modern world is the Taliban or ISIS. But most of the modern
world has moved on.
 
Daniel
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 24 08:03AM -0700

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 10:57:05 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> And Satan invented fossils, yes?
 
You can post your flippant, gainsaying responses all you want,
Leigh. You are not bothering me. And if you persist in your
rebellion until you leave this world, without coming to Christ
and asking forgiveness, I will not shed one tear over your de-
struction because you have been given SIGNIFICANT opportunities
to know the truth, but you've rejected all of it.
 
The destruction of a man's soul is great, Leigh. Greater than
all of their accomplishments multiplied many times over, because
their destruction goes on forever, their accomplishments existed
only here, and only for a time.
 
You're pursuing death in your flippancy. It is your right, but
it is exceedingly unwise.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 24 04:10PM +0100

On 24/05/2019 16:03, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> only here, and only for a time.
 
> You're pursuing death in your flippancy. It is your right, but
> it is exceedingly unwise.
 
Nonsense.
A) Your bible is false.
B) Your god the existence of which is predicated on your bible being true
is, given (A), also false.
 
/Flibble
 
--
"You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais
 
"I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." –
Ricky Gervais
 
"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 24 08:13AM -0700

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 11:00:17 AM UTC-4, Daniel wrote:
> values in the modern world is the Taliban or ISIS. But most of the modern
> world has moved on.
 
> Daniel
 
We do not live in that time any longer. The type of relationship
God had with His people, the force with which things believed would
impact the flesh is not known to us presently.
 
We live in this age. Our understanding is of things present, and
we can project back into the past, but we are not there, have not
lived there, were not raised with the spirit that exists in that
land, etc. It's foreign to us.
 
What God calls us to is the present. He has revealed more to us
about His nature, about the spirit nature, about eternity. We now
have Paul's writings, Peter's writings, John's writings, etc. We
know things now they didn't know then.
 
God calls you into faith with His Son now, rather than (from the
Old Testament perspective) some future Messiah that will one day
arrive. We can know Jesus, who seeks to call us friends, and is
closer to us than a brother.
 
If you stop concluding God is wrong, and start realizing God is
right, and then stop projecting your conclusions about God's actions
as being wrong upon Him, and start asking legitimate child-like
questions seeking answers as to "Why would you do that, God?" and
to be inquisitive like Mary asking, "How can this be since I know
not a man?" contrasted to John the Baptist's father Zacharias who
asked a similar question ("Whereby shall I know this? for I am an
old man, and my wife well stricken in years."), but in disbelief,
and was rendered mute for the duration of her pregnancy
 
It's in the way you approach God, for He sees through to the heart.
 
If you will seek Him with earnest seeking, He will know, and it is
to that soul He will open up and reveal Himself. But if you seek
Him not in earnest, or with ulterior motives to learn about script-
ure convinced you are right ready to expose God's "heinous acts" to
justify your rebellion against Him, God will know that too, and He
will not reveal Himself to you, and you will remain trapped in the
web of lies you create around yourself, guided by Satan, so that
you are fully consumed in your own hate and rebellion on Judgment
Day.
 
God gives every man, woman, and child on this Earth, the ability to
come to know Him today. He says in Matthew He will never turn any-
one away, and everyone the Father brings to Him will be saved.
 
People will not walk in that light because they like darkness (sin)
more than light. But for those who will walk in it, they will be
drawn to Christ where they can ask forgiveness and be saved.
 
It is an incredibly beautiful gift that God saves any of us. It is
something to be regarded most preciously, and when we step forward
to teach others that THEY TOO can be saved ... it is to be taught
from that precious gift perspective.
 
God will forgive people for their sin. Like it never even happened.
But it cost God significantly to do this, and we must not forgive
who He is, and what He's done and gone through to set us free. It
is the greatest love story imaginable. It is God revealed through
His Son, Jesus Christ, that while we were YET sinners... He died to
save us.
 
The perspective needs to flip around, to inquire of God with a sin-
cere inquisitive heart. That is fertile ground for receiving the
free gift of salvation.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 24 04:21PM +0100

On 24/05/2019 16:13, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> The perspective needs to flip around, to inquire of God with a sin-
> cere inquisitive heart. That is fertile ground for receiving the
> free gift of salvation.
 
Nonsense.
A) Your bible is false.
B) Your god the existence of which is predicated on your bible being true
is, given (A), also false.
 
/Flibble
 
--
"You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais
 
"I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." –
Ricky Gervais
 
"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
cdalten@gmail.com: May 24 09:46AM -0700

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 3:05:40 PM UTC-7, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> you.
 
> https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/
 
> --
 
So you've alienated so many people in comp.lang.c that you decided to move this circus down the hall to comp.lang.c++? Ya know, I hate to say this, but in a few months you would have pretty much alienated everyone in this group like what you did for comp.lang.c. Then where are you going to post your B.S to?
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 24 05:55PM +0100


>> https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/
 
>> --
 
> So you've alienated so many people in comp.lang.c that you decided to move this circus down the hall to comp.lang.c++? Ya know, I hate to say this, but in a few months you would have pretty much alienated everyone in this group like what you did for comp.lang.c. Then where are you going to post your B.S to?
 
The obtuse fucktarded cockwomble has been spamming this group for a while
now. His is an untreatable case I'm afraid.
 
/Flibble
 
--
"You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais
 
"I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." –
Ricky Gervais
 
"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 24 10:16AM -0700

> So you've alienated so many people in comp.lang.c that you decided
> to move this circus down the hall to comp.lang.c++?
 
I don't arbitrarily post. I post to the areas to which I have per-
sonal interest. I have always posted to clc, clc++, comp.arch, and
a couple others depending on what I'm doing presently in my life.
Currently I am working on C/C++ and hardware architecture design.
This also lends itself to OS development, but I am not currently
working on my kernel.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 24 07:04PM +0100

On 24/05/2019 18:16, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Currently I am working on C/C++ and hardware architecture design.
> This also lends itself to OS development, but I am not currently
> working on my kernel.
 
Nobody cares you obtuse, fucktarded cockwomble.
 
/Flibble
 
--
"You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais
 
"I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." –
Ricky Gervais
 
"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."
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)