There was this man who visited an animal shelter and decided to take home a parrot that he was told had once been owned by a foul-mouthed pirate.
When he got the parrot home, he found that it constantly uttered swear words and was very bossy. "Don't ###### do ##### that!" shouted the parrot all morning. "If you don't quieten down and stop swearing, there'll be trouble!" replied the man. "Oh #### ##### with bells on!" screamed back the parrot.
After a few days, the man had had enough. "If you don't shut up, I'm going to lock you in a dark place" he warned. "No you ######## ####### won't!" screamed the parrot. "Right! See how you like this!" the man replied.
He grabbed the parrot, tied it up, opened the chest freezer, put the squalking parrot in and shut the lid on it. There were furious shouting noises from the freezer for a few minutes and then it suddenly went quiet.
After 10 minutes of silence, the man cautiously opened the freezer lid. The parrot looked up at him. Not a word, not a sound. He lifted the parrot out, untied it and put it back on its perch. "Are you going to behave now?" "I sure am," replied the parrot, "I am truly sorry for being bad. But, please tell me, what did that poor chicken do?"
25 February 2011
13 February 2011
Is it important to use the name of God?
This is an observation about how "hiding" the name of God causes confusion of beliefs and appears to reduce God's role in our salvation.
In Romans 10:13, Paul says "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," He was actually quoting a portion of the Hebrew scriptures, or Old Testament. Joel 2:32 says "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered."
These quotations are taken from the King James version. In this translation, the Hebrew name for God (the Tetragrammaton YHWH) is shown as LORD in capital letters.
So, if someone reads Romans 10:13 in this translation, they will think that the Lord referred to is Jesus Christ. "Call on the name of Jesus and you will be saved" say many road-side pulpit signs. Er, no, actually. Paul meant for people to call upon the name of Jesus' father, Almighty God. That is why he quoted Joel 2:32. Jews knew that scripture meant the name of God, and Paul was a well-educated Jew and former Pharisee.
So, true Christians must call upon the name of Almighty God to be saved. Jesus Christ is vital for our salvation, but it is calling on the name of Almighty God that saves.
Notice how the New World Translation makes this clear:
Joel 2:32 "And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe."
Romans 10:13 "For 'everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.'"
The name of Almighty God is JEHOVAH. The name of the son of God is JESUS. These two must never be confused in our understanding of the scriptures.
If you have to call upon the name of God to be saved, you have to use his name, not substitute the word God or Lord for his name.
Jesus said we should pray "Our father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name" (Matthew 6:9 King James version). He expected us to acknowledge his father's name in our prayers.
Jesus prayed (John 17:26) "I have made your name known to them and will make it known." If he publicised Jehovah God's name, SO SHOULD WE.
Compare the above with this:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=60153
In Romans 10:13, Paul says "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," He was actually quoting a portion of the Hebrew scriptures, or Old Testament. Joel 2:32 says "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered."
These quotations are taken from the King James version. In this translation, the Hebrew name for God (the Tetragrammaton YHWH) is shown as LORD in capital letters.
So, if someone reads Romans 10:13 in this translation, they will think that the Lord referred to is Jesus Christ. "Call on the name of Jesus and you will be saved" say many road-side pulpit signs. Er, no, actually. Paul meant for people to call upon the name of Jesus' father, Almighty God. That is why he quoted Joel 2:32. Jews knew that scripture meant the name of God, and Paul was a well-educated Jew and former Pharisee.
So, true Christians must call upon the name of Almighty God to be saved. Jesus Christ is vital for our salvation, but it is calling on the name of Almighty God that saves.
Notice how the New World Translation makes this clear:
Joel 2:32 "And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe."
Romans 10:13 "For 'everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.'"
The name of Almighty God is JEHOVAH. The name of the son of God is JESUS. These two must never be confused in our understanding of the scriptures.
If you have to call upon the name of God to be saved, you have to use his name, not substitute the word God or Lord for his name.
Jesus said we should pray "Our father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name" (Matthew 6:9 King James version). He expected us to acknowledge his father's name in our prayers.
Jesus prayed (John 17:26) "I have made your name known to them and will make it known." If he publicised Jehovah God's name, SO SHOULD WE.
Compare the above with this:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=60153
05 February 2011
A joke about a JW who used to be in the Mafia
There once was a man called Franco, who lived in a small Italian city. He was in the Mafia, but found life very unhappy. After meeting some witnesses and having a study, he realised he'd found the Truth and he eventually got baptised, after changing his life of course.
Shortly after this, the Circuit Overseer visited his congregation. An elder encouraged the CO to work with Franco. "He's got an amazing record for placing literature!"
So on the Saturday, the CO asked to work with Franco. At the first house, Franco knocked and stood right on the doorstep. When the householder opened the door, Franco leaned over him (Franco was a BIG guy dressed in a dark suit) and said, "If you don't want to DIE, you will take these magazines and read them!" The householder took them, and hurriedly closed the door.
Aghast at this, the CO tried to think of some counsel as they walked to the next door. "Do you think it would be better to be more positive in your introduction?" he asked. Franco thought about this and said he'd try again.
Franco knocked at the next door and again stood right on the doorstep. When the householder opened the door, Franco leaned over him and said, "If you want to LIVE, you will take these magazines and read them!"
Shortly after this, the Circuit Overseer visited his congregation. An elder encouraged the CO to work with Franco. "He's got an amazing record for placing literature!"
So on the Saturday, the CO asked to work with Franco. At the first house, Franco knocked and stood right on the doorstep. When the householder opened the door, Franco leaned over him (Franco was a BIG guy dressed in a dark suit) and said, "If you don't want to DIE, you will take these magazines and read them!" The householder took them, and hurriedly closed the door.
Aghast at this, the CO tried to think of some counsel as they walked to the next door. "Do you think it would be better to be more positive in your introduction?" he asked. Franco thought about this and said he'd try again.
Franco knocked at the next door and again stood right on the doorstep. When the householder opened the door, Franco leaned over him and said, "If you want to LIVE, you will take these magazines and read them!"
04 February 2011
Why I'd never use a Star Trek transporter
Every fan of Star Trek is familiar with the transporter, which 'beams' people into a new adventure every week.
Gene Rodenberry invented the transporter as a plot device to get the 'away' team down to a planet's surface before the prop makers had delivered any shuttles for filming. He was also concerned at the time needed to show, each week, the crew embarking on a shuttle, traveling, landing and disembarking, before moving the story on.
Gene never intended to explain how the transporter works, in the same way that the warp engines are just so much technobabble. However, program episodes have included enough detail to give some idea of how the technology is supposed to work.
And I, for one, will NEVER step into a transporter. Why?
Well, the machine scans every molecule in your body and uses advanced computer tech to map their 3D locations. It then destroys your body and converts the atoms into an energy beam ("Beam me up, Scotty"). Now, hold on a second... you die when that happens. I know it sends your energy/atoms and instructions to another location to reconstruct your body, BUT YOU HAVE ALREADY DIED. That's enough for me. And Doctor McCoy speculated on exactly this point on more than one occasion. He said he'd died the first time he used a transporter, and only a copy of him had been around ever since.
So what happens at 'your' destination? The energy and instructions reconstruct an exact duplicate of your body with all the molecules, brain synapses, a complete consciousness, etc, all working fine. So you've arrived? Well to my thinking, a COPY of you has arrived. An incredibly detailed copy, but still a copy. It thinks like you did, everyone thinks it's you, but it's a copy. Do you remember the episode of ST:TNG when they discovered a duplicate Riker? He'd been copied in a transporter malfunction. So there were two of him, both thinking he was the original.
Supposing you had a laser photocopier which produced exact duplicates of any page put in it, but which destroyed the original during the process. To create a copy of, say, a letter, you would actually need two copies as the original is destroyed. Now, would you refer to one of those copies as the original letter, the original piece of paper you started with? Of course not.
It's the same with the transporter. The original object (or person) is destroyed, and a copy produced elsewhere.
You won't get ME using one of these machines!
By the way, I still love Star Trek, even if the tech is impossible.
Gene Rodenberry invented the transporter as a plot device to get the 'away' team down to a planet's surface before the prop makers had delivered any shuttles for filming. He was also concerned at the time needed to show, each week, the crew embarking on a shuttle, traveling, landing and disembarking, before moving the story on.
Gene never intended to explain how the transporter works, in the same way that the warp engines are just so much technobabble. However, program episodes have included enough detail to give some idea of how the technology is supposed to work.
And I, for one, will NEVER step into a transporter. Why?
Well, the machine scans every molecule in your body and uses advanced computer tech to map their 3D locations. It then destroys your body and converts the atoms into an energy beam ("Beam me up, Scotty"). Now, hold on a second... you die when that happens. I know it sends your energy/atoms and instructions to another location to reconstruct your body, BUT YOU HAVE ALREADY DIED. That's enough for me. And Doctor McCoy speculated on exactly this point on more than one occasion. He said he'd died the first time he used a transporter, and only a copy of him had been around ever since.
So what happens at 'your' destination? The energy and instructions reconstruct an exact duplicate of your body with all the molecules, brain synapses, a complete consciousness, etc, all working fine. So you've arrived? Well to my thinking, a COPY of you has arrived. An incredibly detailed copy, but still a copy. It thinks like you did, everyone thinks it's you, but it's a copy. Do you remember the episode of ST:TNG when they discovered a duplicate Riker? He'd been copied in a transporter malfunction. So there were two of him, both thinking he was the original.
Supposing you had a laser photocopier which produced exact duplicates of any page put in it, but which destroyed the original during the process. To create a copy of, say, a letter, you would actually need two copies as the original is destroyed. Now, would you refer to one of those copies as the original letter, the original piece of paper you started with? Of course not.
It's the same with the transporter. The original object (or person) is destroyed, and a copy produced elsewhere.
You won't get ME using one of these machines!
By the way, I still love Star Trek, even if the tech is impossible.
Some thoughts on the new Vauxhall Ampera
Update - 11 Feb 2010:
This post has been updated as I misquoted the UK price of a Vauxhall Ampera. The list price is £33,995, and the government's subsidy of £5,000 means the customer pays £28,995.
From the Vauxhall website (http://www.vauxhall-ampera.co.uk)
We estimate that an extended range electric car will save about 1,700 litres of petrol per year based on 40 miles of daily driving (15,000 miles per year).
Or if you drive 60 miles per day (21,900 miles per year) you could save about 1,900 litres of petrol annually (compared to a vehicle that averages 36.2 mpg).
The Ampera can be plugged into a standard 240-volt/13 A household outlet for charging. We estimate that it will cost less than £0.85 at night for a full charge that will deliver up to 50 miles of electric driving.*
* Based on UK average prices for fuel and electricity. Those may vary by market.
From the Vauxhall Ampera Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/VauxhallAmpera)
The Ampera is always powered by the electric motors that drive the front wheels of the vehicle and can travel up to 50 miles - dependant upon the way it is driven - on a single battery charge. When the battery charge has been depleted, the vehicle switches into Extended Range mode whereby the 1.4 litre engine kicks in to generate electricity to continue to drive the wheels for up to another 310 miles on a full tank of fuel - a tank takes 35 litres of petrol. When the Ampera is in Extended Range mode the engine will run at a series of constant RPM depending upon the amount of electricity determined by the vehicle's requirements, e.g. at 30 mph the engine will run at a lower constant RPM to when the car is driven at 70mph.
The generator does not recharge the battery. The way to recharge the battery is to plug the car it into a 13A socket and fully recharge it in less than four hours.
Some of my thoughts
1) Running costs
The fuel tank takes 35 litres and the car can do up to 310 miles on a tank. That is... about 40mpg. On a 350-mile journey, the first 40 or so miles are on the battery charge, then the remainder on 35 litres of petrol. At £1.30 a litre, that is £45.50. There is also the cost of the battery recharge, £0.85 approximately. Total is £46.35.
My Skoda Octavia diesel can do 55mpg. So on a 350 miles journey it uses 29 litres, which at £1.33 a litre is £38.57. And no battery recharge cost.
£46.35 v £38.57 for the same journey, hmmm.
The cost of a new Ampera is to be £33,995 including VATafter before the Government's subsidy of £5,000. After subsidy the price is £28,995.
A new Skoda Octavia L&K 2.0 litre diesel estate would cost me today £23,590 including VAT. For that, you get a car with a much higher spec than the Ampera.
Let's say I DO save 1,700 litres of fuel a year using an Ampera compared to my Octavia. At £1.33 a litre for diesel, that is the equivalent of £2,261. Just on that alone, I'd only recoup the extra purchase cost overfour two+ years. If fuel costs go up, which they will, the break-even point comes down well below four two years. When I say "just on that alone", I mean I have no figures on comparisons of servicing costs and tax/insurance between the two. I expect these costs to be less for the Ampera than the Octavia.
2) Emissions
Something else to consider. During that four year period, the Ampera will generate much less greenhouse gases than the Octavia.
Vauxhall claim:
Preliminary Fuel Consumption / CO2 emissions according to regulation EC 715/2007 and regulation EC 692/2008 (weighted, combined): 175mpg / 40 g CO2/km
(This is on a journey that includes solely electric running and also running in ER mode.)
Skoda claim:
2.0 Litre TDI 140ps diesel = 129 g CO2/km
So for a 350 mile journey (563 km), the Ampera emits 22,520g CO2 and the Octavia 72,627g CO2, or over three times as much.
I think I would prefer to have NO emissions!
This post has been updated as I misquoted the UK price of a Vauxhall Ampera. The list price is £33,995, and the government's subsidy of £5,000 means the customer pays £28,995.
From the Vauxhall website (http://www.vauxhall-ampera.co.uk)
We estimate that an extended range electric car will save about 1,700 litres of petrol per year based on 40 miles of daily driving (15,000 miles per year).
Or if you drive 60 miles per day (21,900 miles per year) you could save about 1,900 litres of petrol annually (compared to a vehicle that averages 36.2 mpg).
The Ampera can be plugged into a standard 240-volt/13 A household outlet for charging. We estimate that it will cost less than £0.85 at night for a full charge that will deliver up to 50 miles of electric driving.*
* Based on UK average prices for fuel and electricity. Those may vary by market.
From the Vauxhall Ampera Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/VauxhallAmpera)
The Ampera is always powered by the electric motors that drive the front wheels of the vehicle and can travel up to 50 miles - dependant upon the way it is driven - on a single battery charge. When the battery charge has been depleted, the vehicle switches into Extended Range mode whereby the 1.4 litre engine kicks in to generate electricity to continue to drive the wheels for up to another 310 miles on a full tank of fuel - a tank takes 35 litres of petrol. When the Ampera is in Extended Range mode the engine will run at a series of constant RPM depending upon the amount of electricity determined by the vehicle's requirements, e.g. at 30 mph the engine will run at a lower constant RPM to when the car is driven at 70mph.
The generator does not recharge the battery. The way to recharge the battery is to plug the car it into a 13A socket and fully recharge it in less than four hours.
Some of my thoughts
1) Running costs
The fuel tank takes 35 litres and the car can do up to 310 miles on a tank. That is... about 40mpg. On a 350-mile journey, the first 40 or so miles are on the battery charge, then the remainder on 35 litres of petrol. At £1.30 a litre, that is £45.50. There is also the cost of the battery recharge, £0.85 approximately. Total is £46.35.
My Skoda Octavia diesel can do 55mpg. So on a 350 miles journey it uses 29 litres, which at £1.33 a litre is £38.57. And no battery recharge cost.
£46.35 v £38.57 for the same journey, hmmm.
The cost of a new Ampera is to be £33,995 including VAT
A new Skoda Octavia L&K 2.0 litre diesel estate would cost me today £23,590 including VAT. For that, you get a car with a much higher spec than the Ampera.
Let's say I DO save 1,700 litres of fuel a year using an Ampera compared to my Octavia. At £1.33 a litre for diesel, that is the equivalent of £2,261. Just on that alone, I'd only recoup the extra purchase cost over
2) Emissions
Something else to consider. During that four year period, the Ampera will generate much less greenhouse gases than the Octavia.
Vauxhall claim:
Preliminary Fuel Consumption / CO2 emissions according to regulation EC 715/2007 and regulation EC 692/2008 (weighted, combined): 175mpg / 40 g CO2/km
(This is on a journey that includes solely electric running and also running in ER mode.)
Skoda claim:
2.0 Litre TDI 140ps diesel = 129 g CO2/km
So for a 350 mile journey (563 km), the Ampera emits 22,520g CO2 and the Octavia 72,627g CO2, or over three times as much.
I think I would prefer to have NO emissions!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)