Bromich

I apologised that there was a misunderstanding. I not sure how that becomes a judgement? I'm not trying to pick any fights here.

Maybe tone would help, however I mentioned before that I knew what you were trying to say.Just pointing out the message your trying to get across and the one that actually comes across differ. Yeah, that was my point. You could actually go without any adjective there and it works perfectly Southern Buddhist covered this well (thanks SB)

Hi to you too. It was a joke, highlight the hidden text - sorry you misunderstood.

What he said. You're both coming off as a little childish.10 points to whoever says 'He started it' first...

No problems. As I said it's hard to convey tone in a written forum, so I'm hoping it's taken positively.Which points did you disagree with?

This comes off poorly. I realise you don't intend it to read this way, however it essentially says that Danny's father's heart attack was no more than an inconvenience to you. You are speaking with a little too much authority there. Some people believe exactly that based on their interpretation of the bible/Christianity. You are saying that your interpretation is correct and theirs is demented? I appreciate you go on to talk about the 'righteous man may have troubles', but nobody is without sin, correct? The implicit threats here are shallow and quite frankly insulting. Don't cross a fol

I'm conflicted now! I'm not sure if I'm mad with you for cursing Daniel or happy that you helped a fellow Aussie win 16FTF61Next one gets messy

This is brilliant! I've only been here for about a week and for Daniel to put in such a great perfomance is fantastic timing!Thanks DN & thanks Patty

Matt, logic is the deductive process we apply to known facts to arrive at sound conclusions. If we start with incompatible facts and arrive at the same conclussion then at least one of our deductive processes (ie our logic) is wrong.I've double checked what was typed above and we did start with incompatible facts (if righteous ----> inherit kingdom of God & if inherit kingdom of God ----> righteous are definately not the same), we did arrive at the same conclussion so the logic one (or both) of us used is wrong. As I pointed out with the tall man example and as Monty pointed out with

Thanks Frank. Appreciate the reply. Hope my closing joke in the last post was taken the right way I'd be surprised though, if the Bible specified only righteous Christians were allowed entry to 'the club' given that Christianity is a post-Christ concept. I'm not trying to be pedantic though because this is a good example of what I was talking about in adding to the message of the Bible. You've assumed that as well as being righteous you have to be Christian. Now I'm assuming by Christian you mean that a person need to believe in Jesus and the resurection. The good thing is that you are here

I agree that searching the Bible is the best way to get a 'list' of the expectations of a righteous person. However as FullMonty (who by the way must have the patience of Job from what I read) pointed out later in the referenced discussion, the 'list' is not a closed set.What I mean is that whilst the Bible gives a list of behaviours that gain righteousness there could well be more that are not mentioned and the Bible does not preclude this. There is no verse that I know of that states, "This is all that you can do to become righteous". I suspect FullMonty was using this point to discuss the

Thank you for such a warm welcome. I think I might stick around, there are some interesting discussions happening here. Quite a surprise for a poker site! As to where I came from this is probably the place to discuss it :)Of course I will be completely uncontactable and incoherant when Australia are winning the cricket <gloat/>

Also it depends on your constraints of time, in the sense that if we consider all time to be from the big-bang to now we are hardly dealing with an infintie set. However if we consider the possiblity that other universes have always been created prior to ours and/or will always continue to do so once ours 'ends', the fact that life can exist means the probability of life occuring was always 1. We are obvioulsy here to enjoy it and discuss this because it (life) was always going to happen

I'm sorry Mattnxtc (or do you prefer Matt?) however the statements above attributed to you are not logically sound. Let me see if I can explain it in non-religious terminology.We make the statement:If you are a tall man you wear a red hatThe only logicaly conclussive contrapositive we can assume from this is thatIf you do not wear a red hat you are not a tall manWhereas your 'logic' would produce the following If you are not a tall man you do not wear a red hatwhich is not implied by the original statement as the original statement does not preclude short men from wearing red hats.To use the n

Why you think it would take an infinite amount of time is a bit strange. You know that it will happen due to Kolmogorov's law. When it does happen there will be x amout of keystrokes proceeding it. If it takes an infinite amount of time to occur, then x would be a set of infinite keystrokes and within an infinite set of keystroke we know that Hamlet will appear. So another Hamlet would appear before our HamletTherefore x cannot be infinite, it must be finite, so Hamlet will appear in a finite amount of time. It will likely be a massively large amount even compared to the age of the universe