dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/01/84)
> I don't know about Mr. Rosen, but I consider science to be reasonable > because it *works*, not because of what any person says about it. > Nothing in the bible has ever put more food on the table. Agricultural Malachi. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (12/03/84)
[]
Pardon my ignorance, but what are "Malachi"? One-word responses are
really not very enlightening...
--
"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
Ken Montgomery
...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/05/84)
> [] > Pardon my ignorance, but what are "Malachi"? One-word responses are > really not very enlightening... Sorry. Malachi is one the "the twelve", i.e., one of the minor prophets. The reason for submitting his name was that the people of Israel were starving (among other things). Malachi delivered the message that the reason was due to disobedience to God. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (01/05/85)
[] >> Pardon my ignorance, but what are "Malachi"? One-word responses are >> really not very enlightening... > >Sorry. Malachi is one the "the twelve", i.e., one of the minor >prophets. The reason for submitting his name was that the people of >Israel were starving (among other things). Malachi delivered the >message that the reason was due to disobedience to God. >-- >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois The original challenge was to show an occurrence of God putting (more/better) food on the table, not of God preventing any from being available. -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (01/11/85)
> [] > >> Pardon my ignorance, but what are "Malachi"? One-word responses are > >> really not very enlightening... > > > >Sorry. Malachi is one the "the twelve", i.e., one of the minor > >prophets. The reason for submitting his name was that the people of > >Israel were starving (among other things). Malachi delivered the > >message that the reason was due to disobedience to God. > >-- > >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois > > The original challenge was to show an occurrence of God putting > (more/better) food on the table, not of God preventing any from > being available. I know. The idea is the non-food on the table was due to disobedience to God. The implication is that obedience results in food on the table (and that this situation was the antecedent of that during which the people were starving). Another example would be that of the prosperity enjoyed by Israel during the reign of Solomon, resulting at least in part from the relationship which his father David had with the Lord. Is this any clearer? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | "And the streets shall be full of boys and girls playing --+-- in the streets thereof..." | Zechariah 8:5 |
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (01/16/85)
[] >From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) >> [] >> >> Pardon my ignorance, but what are "Malachi"? One-word responses are >> >> really not very enlightening... >> > >> >Sorry. Malachi is one the "the twelve", i.e., one of the minor >> >prophets. The reason for submitting his name was that the people of >> >Israel were starving (among other things). Malachi delivered the >> >message that the reason was due to disobedience to God. >> >-- >> >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois >> >> The original challenge was to show an occurrence of God putting >> (more/better) food on the table, not of God preventing any from >> being available. > >I know. The idea is the non-food on the table was due to disobedience >to God. The implication is that obedience results in food on the >table (and that this situation was the antecedent of that during >which the people were starving). The ability to prevent something is *not* the same as the ability to cause it; the implication does not hold. The strongest interpretation I can make of the above example is that the Israelites would have been able to feed themselves if their God had not interfered, except their God was running a protection racket (to extort obedience instead of money). > >Another example would be that of the prosperity enjoyed by Israel >during the reign of Solomon, resulting at least in part from the >relationship which his father David had with the Lord. How do you know that it was not just that the God of the Israelites left them well enough alone so long as their king gave him his daily ego boost? > >Is this any clearer? No. >-- >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]