From: azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips)
Subject: Re: Sticking to your principles
Reply-To: azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (John Paul Phillips)
Organization: NASA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:48:55 GMT

In article <01GIT7W5C3IO8X2TXZ@canal.crc.uno.edu>, DCBCS@CANAL.CRC.UNO.EDU 
(Dennis Baker) writes:
> 
> Uh oh.  I could get into trouble here, not to mention chancing that this
> will all be off-topic.  But here goes...
> 
> On 13 Apr 92 12:29:04 GMT, azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov
> (John Paul Phillips) writes:
> 
> >    I believe that the church was called "Worldwide Church of God", because
> >I'm currently attending their services. (They being nuts, well... I won't 
> >exactly call myself nuts 8^) ). The people who has been members since the 
> >early '70's have told me that Bobby was a member but left. They didn't know
> >why, just that he stopped attending services. In a nutshell, (pun very much
> >intended), the church practices most of the Jewish customs described in the
> >Old Testament while believing that Christ is the Messiah. Thus, they 
observe
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 				Is this a *fact*?

If you're referring to the practices of the church I described, yes. As
to whetever Christ is the Messiah, that isn't a proven fact. Just a 
possible fact. (If anything is true, then it's a fact, If not, then fiction)
> 
> >the Sabbath from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset and devote it to 
services 
> >and church activities. Also, there is some special days of observance, 
like 
> >the Passover and The Days of Unleavened Bread. Members believe themselves 
to
> 						^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >be true Christians. 
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Is this a *fact*? (They believing it; yes. As to being actually true  
 Christians, that's up to debate.)
> 
> >   I can't help but be curious... Dennis, why did you call that church, if 
> >that was the one you were referring to, as "that nut group" ? Any facts to
> >back that opinion up? (If they indeed were nuts, then I'll like to know! 
;^)).
> 
> Perhaps you should first tell me just exactly what a *fact* is first! <grin>
>
Okay, Let's see... The Webster's dictionary's definition of the word "fact" 
is as following....   Relax, I'm kidding. Facts are done deeds or provable
truth concerning this debate.
> 
> As for backing myself up, yes, I can.  Can you?  My question to you would 
be,
> how do you know what you know?  Seriously.  How do you know what you know?
> Or what you think you know?  Or what have you decided you know?

Aaahhhhaaa..... now we're getting into philosophy. You're right, this is 
getting truly off-topic. I could just say that I'm a figment of your 
imagination, and that you're arguing with yourself. But I won't. (If 
someone else try that argument on you, just kick him and say it's only his
imagination. ;) ). 
      Well, I must warn you... I'm studying to be a mathematican, and 
historically, Great mathematicans have been philosophers.
(To wit. Descartes, the architect of Cartesian system, wrote "Cognito, ergo 
sum" e.g. "I think therefore I am.")  If you wish to continue this, we should
resort to e-mail and spare other readers the boredom.

------------------------
       John Paul Phillips   
             "Azjohn"         
         NASA/Langley        
azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov