In article <c1pde2$1vuu$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>
>
>"Carlos Santander B." <Carlos_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c1ofnp$ck1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> In article <c1nhml$1of2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
>> >
>> >The website gives this form for WinMain:
>> >
>> >----------
>> >import std.c.windows.windows;
>> >
>> >extern (C) void gc_init();
>> >extern (C) void gc_term();
>> >extern (C) void _minit();
>> >extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
>> >extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();
>> >
>> >extern (Windows)
>> >int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
>> > LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
>> >     int result;
>> >
>> >     gc_init();
>> >     _minit();
>> >
>> >     try {
>> > _moduleCtor();
>> > _moduleUnitTests();
>> >
>> > result = doit();
>> >     }
>> >
>> >     catch (Object o) {
>> > MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
>> >     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
>> > result = 0;
>> >     }
>> >
>> >     gc_term();
>> >     return result;
>> >}
>> >----------
>> >
>> >I've been using a slightly different version, which works as far as I can see:
>> >
>> >----------
>> >import std.c.windows.windows;
>> >
>> >extern (C) void gc_init();
>> >extern (C) void gc_term();
>> >extern (C) void _minit();
>> >extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
>> >extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();
>> >
>> >extern (Windows)
>> >int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
>> > LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
>> >     gc_init();
>> >     _minit();
>> >
>> >     try {
>> > _moduleCtor();
>> > _moduleUnitTests();
>> >
>> > return doit();
>> >     }
>> >
>> >     catch (Object o) {
>> > MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
>> >     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
>> > return 0;
>> >     }
>> >
>> >     finally {
>> > gc_term();
>> >     }
>> >}
>> >----------
>> >
>> >But is there any possible reason not to use this form?  If not, I'm inclined to suggest putting this one in the documentation in place of the other one, as it seems neater and more logical.
>> >
>> >Stewart.
>> >
>> >-- 
>> >My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
>>
>> I might be wrong, but in your version, the program returns before the
>'finally',
>> so maybe gc_term is not called. Can't test it now, though.
>
>If finally has the same semantics as in Java/.NET this would not work.
>
>
int main(char[][] args)
{
try
{
throw new Exception("are you there finally?");
return 0;
}
catch (Object o)
{
printf("Caught object %.*s\n", o.toString());
return 1;
}
finally
{
printf("yes, I'm finally here");}
}
outputs:
"Caught object are you there finally?"
"yes, finally here"
finally always runs, regardless of natural returns or caught exceptions.

cheers
Stuart

I think that the only reason here that finally ran
is because you threw the exception, if you never
threw the exception finally would not run(or IMO should not run), because
the method would return.

Phill.


"StuartD" <StuartD_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c1q8gs$ecq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <c1pde2$1vuu$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> >
> >
> >"Carlos Santander B." <Carlos_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c1ofnp$ck1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> In article <c1nhml$1of2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
> >> >
> >> >The website gives this form for WinMain:
> >> >
> >> >----------
> >> >import std.c.windows.windows;
> >> >
> >> >extern (C) void gc_init();
> >> >extern (C) void gc_term();
> >> >extern (C) void _minit();
> >> >extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
> >> >extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();
> >> >
> >> >extern (Windows)
> >> >int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
> >> > LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
> >> >     int result;
> >> >
> >> >     gc_init();
> >> >     _minit();
> >> >
> >> >     try {
> >> > _moduleCtor();
> >> > _moduleUnitTests();
> >> >
> >> > result = doit();
> >> >     }
> >> >
> >> >     catch (Object o) {
> >> > MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
> >> >     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
> >> > result = 0;
> >> >     }
> >> >
> >> >     gc_term();
> >> >     return result;
> >> >}
> >> >----------
> >> >
> >> >I've been using a slightly different version, which works as far as I can see:
> >> >
> >> >----------
> >> >import std.c.windows.windows;
> >> >
> >> >extern (C) void gc_init();
> >> >extern (C) void gc_term();
> >> >extern (C) void _minit();
> >> >extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
> >> >extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();
> >> >
> >> >extern (Windows)
> >> >int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
> >> > LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
> >> >     gc_init();
> >> >     _minit();
> >> >
> >> >     try {
> >> > _moduleCtor();
> >> > _moduleUnitTests();
> >> >
> >> > return doit();
> >> >     }
> >> >
> >> >     catch (Object o) {
> >> > MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
> >> >     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
> >> > return 0;
> >> >     }
> >> >
> >> >     finally {
> >> > gc_term();
> >> >     }
> >> >}
> >> >----------
> >> >
> >> >But is there any possible reason not to use this form?  If not, I'm inclined to suggest putting this one in the documentation in place of the other one, as it seems neater and more logical.
> >> >
> >> >Stewart.
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being
the
> >> >unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please
keep
> >> >replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
> >>
> >> I might be wrong, but in your version, the program returns before the
> >'finally',
> >> so maybe gc_term is not called. Can't test it now, though.
> >
> >If finally has the same semantics as in Java/.NET this would not work.
> >
> >
> int main(char[][] args)
> {
> try
> {
> throw new Exception("are you there finally?");
> return 0;
> }
> catch (Object o)
> {
> printf("Caught object %.*s\n", o.toString());
> return 1;
> }
> finally
> {
> printf("yes, I'm finally here");}
> }
> outputs:
> "Caught object are you there finally?"
> "yes, finally here"
> finally always runs, regardless of natural returns or caught exceptions.
>
> cheers
> Stuart
>
>

"StuartD" <StuartD_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c1q8gs$ecq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <c1pde2$1vuu$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> >
> >
> >"Carlos Santander B." <Carlos_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c1ofnp$ck1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> In article <c1nhml$1of2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
> >> >
> >> >The website gives this form for WinMain:
> >> >
> >> >----------
> >> >import std.c.windows.windows;
> >> >
> >> >extern (C) void gc_init();
> >> >extern (C) void gc_term();
> >> >extern (C) void _minit();
> >> >extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
> >> >extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();
> >> >
> >> >extern (Windows)
> >> >int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
> >> > LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
> >> >     int result;
> >> >
> >> >     gc_init();
> >> >     _minit();
> >> >
> >> >     try {
> >> > _moduleCtor();
> >> > _moduleUnitTests();
> >> >
> >> > result = doit();
> >> >     }
> >> >
> >> >     catch (Object o) {
> >> > MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
> >> >     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
> >> > result = 0;
> >> >     }
> >> >
> >> >     gc_term();
> >> >     return result;
> >> >}
> >> >----------
> >> >
> >> >I've been using a slightly different version, which works as far as I can see:
> >> >
> >> >----------
> >> >import std.c.windows.windows;
> >> >
> >> >extern (C) void gc_init();
> >> >extern (C) void gc_term();
> >> >extern (C) void _minit();
> >> >extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
> >> >extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();
> >> >
> >> >extern (Windows)
> >> >int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
> >> > LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
> >> >     gc_init();
> >> >     _minit();
> >> >
> >> >     try {
> >> > _moduleCtor();
> >> > _moduleUnitTests();
> >> >
> >> > return doit();
> >> >     }
> >> >
> >> >     catch (Object o) {
> >> > MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
> >> >     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
> >> > return 0;
> >> >     }
> >> >
> >> >     finally {
> >> > gc_term();
> >> >     }
> >> >}
> >> >----------
> >> >
> >> >But is there any possible reason not to use this form?  If not, I'm inclined to suggest putting this one in the documentation in place of the other one, as it seems neater and more logical.
> >> >
> >> >Stewart.
> >> >
> >> >-- 
> >> >My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being
the
> >> >unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please
keep
> >> >replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
> >>
> >> I might be wrong, but in your version, the program returns before the
> >'finally',
> >> so maybe gc_term is not called. Can't test it now, though.
> >
> >If finally has the same semantics as in Java/.NET this would not work.
> >
> >
> int main(char[][] args)
> {
> try
> {
> throw new Exception("are you there finally?");
> return 0;
> }
> catch (Object o)
> {
> printf("Caught object %.*s\n", o.toString());
> return 1;
> }
> finally
> {
> printf("yes, I'm finally here");}
> }
> outputs:
> "Caught object are you there finally?"
> "yes, finally here"
> finally always runs, regardless of natural returns or caught exceptions.
>
> cheers
> Stuart

I meant to post without the word "not".

;/

"Phill" <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote in message news:c1r5vq$23ao$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I think that the only reason here that finally ran
> is because you threw the exception, if you never
> threw the exception finally would not run(or IMO should not run), because
> the method would return.
>
> Phill.

And never have I been more wrong!

Phill.

>
>
> "StuartD" <StuartD_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c1q8gs$ecq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > In article <c1pde2$1vuu$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> > >
> > >
> > >"Carlos Santander B." <Carlos_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c1ofnp$ck1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > >> In article <c1nhml$1of2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
> > >> >
> > >> >The website gives this form for WinMain:
> > >> >
> > >> >----------
> > >> >import std.c.windows.windows;
> > >> >
> > >> >extern (C) void gc_init();
> > >> >extern (C) void gc_term();
> > >> >extern (C) void _minit();
> > >> >extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
> > >> >extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();
> > >> >
> > >> >extern (Windows)
> > >> >int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
> > >> > LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
> > >> >     int result;
> > >> >
> > >> >     gc_init();
> > >> >     _minit();
> > >> >
> > >> >     try {
> > >> > _moduleCtor();
> > >> > _moduleUnitTests();
> > >> >
> > >> > result = doit();
> > >> >     }
> > >> >
> > >> >     catch (Object o) {
> > >> > MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
> > >> >     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
> > >> > result = 0;
> > >> >     }
> > >> >
> > >> >     gc_term();
> > >> >     return result;
> > >> >}
> > >> >----------
> > >> >
> > >> >I've been using a slightly different version, which works as far as
I
> > >> >can see:
> > >> >
> > >> >----------
> > >> >import std.c.windows.windows;
> > >> >
> > >> >extern (C) void gc_init();
> > >> >extern (C) void gc_term();
> > >> >extern (C) void _minit();
> > >> >extern (C) void _moduleCtor();
> > >> >extern (C) void _moduleUnitTests();
> > >> >
> > >> >extern (Windows)
> > >> >int WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance,
> > >> > LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) {
> > >> >     gc_init();
> > >> >     _minit();
> > >> >
> > >> >     try {
> > >> > _moduleCtor();
> > >> > _moduleUnitTests();
> > >> >
> > >> > return doit();
> > >> >     }
> > >> >
> > >> >     catch (Object o) {
> > >> > MessageBoxA(null, (char *)o.toString(), "Error",
> > >> >     MB_OK | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION);
> > >> > return 0;
> > >> >     }
> > >> >
> > >> >     finally {
> > >> > gc_term();
> > >> >     }
> > >> >}
> > >> >----------
> > >> >
> > >> >But is there any possible reason not to use this form?  If not, I'm inclined to suggest putting this one in the documentation in place
of
> > >> >the other one, as it seems neater and more logical.
> > >> >
> > >> >Stewart.
> > >> >
> > >> >--
> > >> >My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being
> the
> > >> >unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please
> keep
> > >> >replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
> > >>
> > >> I might be wrong, but in your version, the program returns before the
> > >'finally',
> > >> so maybe gc_term is not called. Can't test it now, though.
> > >
> > >If finally has the same semantics as in Java/.NET this would not work.
> > >
> > >
> > int main(char[][] args)
> > {
> > try
> > {
> > throw new Exception("are you there finally?");
> > return 0;
> > }
> > catch (Object o)
> > {
> > printf("Caught object %.*s\n", o.toString());
> > return 1;
> > }
> > finally
> > {
> > printf("yes, I'm finally here");}
> > }
> > outputs:
> > "Caught object are you there finally?"
> > "yes, finally here"
> > finally always runs, regardless of natural returns or caught exceptions.
> >
> > cheers
> > Stuart
> >
> >
>
>

Have you seen the Passion of Christ ?

C

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +1100, Phill <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote:

> "Roel Mathys" <roel.mathys@yucom.be> wrote in message
> news:c1obba$4e1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> > SpookyET wrote:
>> >
>> >> In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of WinMain.
>> >
>> > <snip top of upside-down reply>
>> >
>> > What has C++ to do with the price of troll-meat?
>> >
>> > Stewart.
>> >
>>
>> now I'm going to troll a bit ;-)
>>
>> maybe his comments aren't always to the point but he's not the one being
>> negative towards other people.
>> The first one that never makes a remark that's not 100% spot on, may
>> throw the first stone. (Where did I here that?)
>
> I think you heard that in the Bible, I think it says
> "Let he that hath no sin, cast the first stone"
>
> Beleive it or not I remember that from about
> 30 years ago, when I went to Sunday school.
>
> Not that I follow this rule, unfortunately :o))
>
> Phill.
>
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Yes, why?

"C" <dont@respond.com> wrote in message news:opr35omkp2ehmtou@localhost... Have you seen the Passion of Christ ?

C

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +1100, Phill <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote:

> "Roel Mathys" <roel.mathys@yucom.be> wrote in message news:c1obba$4e1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> > SpookyET wrote:
>> >
>> >> In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of WinMain.
>> >
>> > <snip top of upside-down reply>
>> >
>> > What has C++ to do with the price of troll-meat?
>> >
>> > Stewart.
>> >
>>
>> now I'm going to troll a bit ;-)
>>
>> maybe his comments aren't always to the point but he's not the one being
>> negative towards other people.
>> The first one that never makes a remark that's not 100% spot on, may
>> throw the first stone. (Where did I here that?)
>
> I think you heard that in the Bible, I think it says
> "Let he that hath no sin, cast the first stone"
>
> Beleive it or not I remember that from about
> 30 years ago, when I went to Sunday school.
>
> Not that I follow this rule, unfortunately :o))
>
> Phill.
>
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

No I havent yet, but I will get around to it one
day(soon I hope)

How is it?

Phill.

"C" <dont@respond.com> wrote in message news:opr35omkp2ehmtou@localhost... Have you seen the Passion of Christ ?

C

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +1100, Phill <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote:

> "Roel Mathys" <roel.mathys@yucom.be> wrote in message news:c1obba$4e1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> > SpookyET wrote:
>> >
>> >> In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of WinMain.
>> >
>> > <snip top of upside-down reply>
>> >
>> > What has C++ to do with the price of troll-meat?
>> >
>> > Stewart.
>> >
>>
>> now I'm going to troll a bit ;-)
>>
>> maybe his comments aren't always to the point but he's not the one being
>> negative towards other people.
>> The first one that never makes a remark that's not 100% spot on, may
>> throw the first stone. (Where did I here that?)
>
> I think you heard that in the Bible, I think it says
> "Let he that hath no sin, cast the first stone"
>
> Beleive it or not I remember that from about
> 30 years ago, when I went to Sunday school.
>
> Not that I follow this rule, unfortunately :o))
>
> Phill.
>
>



--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Well, let me preface this by saying that I had very little religious
upbringing, but what little there was was Christian, so there may be bias
that I'm
not aware of.

In my eaerly teens, when various close members of my family died a variety
of
rather horrible deaths, I either fell out with God, or stopped believing in
Him/It,
or somewhere in between.

Being of a scientific bent, and always interested in physics, cosmology and
genetics, I "understand" that there is a scientific explanation for
everything from the Big Bang right through to the artificial creation of
thought-emulating machines by man. Indeed, I used to amuse
myself, when I worked in the centre of Sydney, in teasing some of the
<mentioning-no-names/> preachers (who walk around in black suits and ties in
35 degree heat) by explaining to them that I believe in the existence and
function of the flourescent lightbulb, and asking them whether they would
say the same. None ever denied the existence and function of flourescent
lights, but would chase me through the park after I would simply leave them
to their confusion. (Note: light flouresces on a path of virtual particles,
much
in the same way as the entire universe is one giant quantum flux that's
lasted
these 15,000,000 years.)

However, even though the scientist in me decrees atheism, there are two
things that have never been explained to my satisfaction: (i) self-awarenes
(the
awareness of one's self being aware of one's self), and (ii) mangos. The
former
seems to me to defy any kind of self-replicating machine to whatever level
of sophistication it might evolve. The latter are simply Divine - where is
the
selection pressure to make them so good; any self-respecting mammal would
eat them were they but a tenth of their splendour. So I'm an
agnostic. He may exist, He may not. If He does, I believe I can account for
myself, even though I do several of the sins on a weekly basis. (My
demanding an accounting of Him for some of the things I've witnessed
personally might not go down so well, of course. Is it hot in here, or
what?!)

Anyway, I went to see the Passion Of Christ mainly out of interest, but also with a view to see whether it would indeed touch/inspire me?

1. I enjoyed it
2. It was the most viscerally barbaric thing I have ever seen (or at least
continued to watch to completion), but yet I did not perceive a single
moment of
it as gratuituous.
3. I can say that it was, within the constraints of the language of a deeply
sceptical agnostic, a "spiritual" experience.
4. Even though I was open to the idea that it _might_ perhaps touch some
deeply hidden belief, I was also careful to not let myself fall into the
trap of seeing the truth of the film as The Truth. I did not have an
awakening.
5. As a parent, the torment of Mary at seeing her son's experience had me in
bits. I
was sobbing away along with all the lapsed Catholics I'd gone with, if
perhaps for
different reasons.

So I am very glad I've seen it, and I think I can say it's enriched my life
in
watching it, but I don't think I Believe any more/less than I did before. I
can say that if Jesus did live (whether Son of God or deluded
philanthropist), I have a *lot* more respect for his experience, and for
those that loved him in this mortal coil, than I did before. (And that's
accounting for the likely exaggeration in the film.)

As for anti-Jewish bias, all I can say is that, as a non-Jew, I didn't see
anything anti-Jewish in it. It showed a group of people corruptly using
religion for power, but you can find plenty of them throughout the last 200
years,
especially right now - pick a religion: there're all at it!. (Since
Jesus was Jewish, I've always had a problem understanding the real/imagined
stigma involved anyway, but then I'm not Jewish, and it's not easy to walk
in someone else's shoes.)

The Roman officers were portrayed as men of conscience, but trapped by their own circumstances (and ambition, if we're fair). The only "group" of people that looked bad were the Roman soldiery. But men of any time, when taught nothing but war, are going to be violent and inhuman, are they not? It's human nature.

(btw, one of my friends, who _is_ Jewish felt pretty much the same way as me
about it all.)

Anyway, that was the long answer.

The short answer is: beautiful, (incredibly) brutal, awe-inspiring, well-crafted, a must-see, but not likely to bring on an epiphany unless you've one ready to pop anyway.

:)

Matthew



"Phill" <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote in message news:c1uhcv$1s81$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> No I havent yet, but I will get around to it one
> day(soon I hope)
>
> How is it?
>
> Phill.
>
> "C" <dont@respond.com> wrote in message news:opr35omkp2ehmtou@localhost... Have you seen the Passion of Christ ?
>
> C
>
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:34:05 +1100, Phill <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote:
>
> > "Roel Mathys" <roel.mathys@yucom.be> wrote in message news:c1obba$4e1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> Stewart Gordon wrote:
> >> > SpookyET wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In Visual C++, you can set the entry point to main intead of
WinMain.
> >> >
> >> > <snip top of upside-down reply>
> >> >
> >> > What has C++ to do with the price of troll-meat?
> >> >
> >> > Stewart.
> >> >
> >>
> >> now I'm going to troll a bit ;-)
> >>
> >> maybe his comments aren't always to the point but he's not the one
being
> >> negative towards other people.
> >> The first one that never makes a remark that's not 100% spot on, may
> >> throw the first stone. (Where did I here that?)
> >
> > I think you heard that in the Bible, I think it says
> > "Let he that hath no sin, cast the first stone"
> >
> > Beleive it or not I remember that from about
> > 30 years ago, when I went to Sunday school.
> >
> > Not that I follow this rule, unfortunately :o))
> >
> > Phill.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>
>

Now this is bound to be a hot topic!  We'll have to see how this group handles it!

I haven't seen this movie yet, but when Matthew renders such "balanced" (literally straddling the fence so that he couldn't possibly offend anyone ;-)...) considerations as this, I'm inexplicably driven to respond.

> Well, let me preface this by saying that I had very little religious
> upbringing, but what little there was was Christian, so there may be bias
> that I'm
> not aware of.

Raised with Christian teachings or not, people end up having to determine the meaning of life on their own eventually.  Being taught it from childhood can influence a future perspective in life, but I doubt it will hold unless (a) they have allowed themselves to be "programmed" without ever considering epistemology personaly or (b) they've actually deeply and sincerely considered their Christianity and have come to the similar conclusions as they grew up with.  The former is a shaky way to for one to maintain a worldview.  Interestingly (a) does not apply only to the philosophical considerations of Christianity (Athiests and humanists love to blame the evils of religious programming as the source of this worlds problems).  Propaganda occurs every single day in America and all over the world: public schools, colleges, and universities teach as fact hypothesis that have not been seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched.  In the vast majority of cases, students lap up the assumptions of macro evolution, big bang theory, without ever considering whether what's presented is true, reproduceable, or verifable. They aren't even given the benefit of the phrase "might be so."  No sir, no critical thinking is needed here. The intellectuals, the scientists, the teachers say so, so it must be true.

> In my eaerly teens, when various close members of my family died a variety
> of
> rather horrible deaths, I either fell out with God, or stopped believing in
> Him/It,
> or somewhere in between.

I'm sorry to hear this.  I think this way of thinking has been a common source of bitter argument for the existance or non-existance of God.  On one hand, life seems too difficult or too cruel for people, leading them to postulate that a loving God could not allow such pain if He existed. In this instance, people place their ideals of existance on what they feel should be the way things work.  In truth, suffering has no real meaning or depth without the existance of God (paradoxically spoken). Everything is rendered to a mere chemical response and therefore is of no real value or significance (emotions are just such chemical responses, right?). In my opinion, the existance of suffering cannot prove the non-existance of a Creator. It is much more likely to support the idea.

> Being of a scientific bent, and always interested in physics, cosmology and
> genetics, I "understand" that there is a scientific explanation for
> everything from the Big Bang right through to the artificial creation of
> thought-emulating machines by man.

This has puzzled me for awhile.  Specifically why people think science has any bearing, strength, or soundness in and of itself.  Science is independent of philosophy.  It is merely a tool used by mankind to organize observation.  Science is a sea of hypothesis, changing, improving, and deteriorating ideas, guesses, valid and invalid suggestions; and no matter what people think, it is a tool controlled by a fallible creature -- the human being, who typically has his own philosophical biases to boot.  Strict obedience to carefully crafted protocol of observation cannot remove the most human of flaws, biases, and philosophical predilections.   Any deep trust in science as a messenger of truth is just finding another god to worship, and one that conveniently offers no moral structure.  People have placed a very real "faith" in Science (capitalized), and just as religiously follow it as any dogmatic Christian follows his own faith.  Such faith has lead to all sorts of horrible errors in history, as science changes with new discoveries: an example would be old medicinal cures (once hailed as critical discoveries by the scientific elite) being found to be a major destructive force in the human body.  Science is the king of trial and error.  That's how it succeeds... and fails.  In it's purest form, it was never meant to be worshiped and hailed as the bringer of perfect truth.  In short, science cannot be used to determine the meaning of life, knowledge, being, or existance: such things are abstract, immaterial and beyound it's reach; and that is why there is such a stuggle and debate in philosophy and religion.

 Indeed, I used to amuse
> myself, when I worked in the centre of Sydney, in teasing some of the
> <mentioning-no-names/> preachers (who walk around in black suits and ties in
> 35 degree heat) by explaining to them that I believe in the existence and
> function of the flourescent lightbulb, and asking them whether they would
> say the same. None ever denied the existence and function of flourescent
> lights, but would chase me through the park after I would simply leave them
> to their confusion. (Note: light flouresces on a path of virtual particles,
> much
> in the same way as the entire universe is one giant quantum flux that's
> lasted
> these 15,000,000 years.)

That's funny? You take glee in something you can't really answer yourself? How do you know the universe is 15,000,000 years old?  Were you there to see, hear, taste, smell or feel that it is that old? How do you know phyics, time, and space have remained the same over time? It's all assumed because the scientist must assume in order to postulate. Wait a minute, how did you get your 5 senses in the first place?

> However, even though the scientist in me decrees atheism, there are two
> things that have never been explained to my satisfaction: (i) self-awarenes
> 

The scientist in you can decree nothing.  Such decisions are beyond the realm of science and within the realm of your personal, emotional, human evaluation of things.

(the
> awareness of one's self being aware of one's self), and (ii) mangos. The
> former
> seems to me to defy any kind of self-replicating machine to whatever level
> of sophistication it might evolve. The latter are simply Divine - where is
> the
> selection pressure to make them so good; any self-respecting mammal would
> eat them were they but a tenth of their splendour. So I'm an
> agnostic. He may exist, He may not. If He does, I believe I can account for
> myself, even though I do several of the sins on a weekly basis. (My
> demanding an accounting of Him for some of the things I've witnessed
> personally might not go down so well, of course. Is it hot in here, or
> what?!)

:-)  That's what it trully comes down to.  We have to decide in what we believe without a perfect knowledge.  Sitting on the fence is a popular way to go, but it won't help you any at the end of your life when the real crunch comes. Personally, the more I study the intricacies of biology, the more incredible it becomes to me.  That "feels" like design to me far beyond the imperfect and unproven (yes, this opinion is unpopular) mechanisms of evolution (or should I say the many and varied hypothesis of it).  I'm not trying to bait anyone.  It's the opinion I hold.  The support of the masses never made something valid.

> Anyway, I went to see the Passion Of Christ mainly out of interest, but also
> with a view to see whether it would indeed touch/inspire me?
> 
> 1. I enjoyed it
> 2. It was the most viscerally barbaric thing I have ever seen (or at least
> continued to watch to completion), but yet I did not perceive a single
> moment of
> it as gratuituous.
> 3. I can say that it was, within the constraints of the language of a deeply
> sceptical agnostic, a "spiritual" experience.
> 4. Even though I was open to the idea that it _might_ perhaps touch some
> deeply hidden belief, I was also careful to not let myself fall into the
> trap of seeing the truth of the film as The Truth. I did not have an
> awakening.
> 5. As a parent, the torment of Mary at seeing her son's experience had me in
> bits. I
> was sobbing away along with all the lapsed Catholics I'd gone with, if
> perhaps for
> different reasons.

It sounds like quite the film.  It seems there were decidedly mixed feelings on it.  Thanks for your honest review.

> So I am very glad I've seen it, and I think I can say it's enriched my life
> in
> watching it, but I don't think I Believe any more/less than I did before. I
> can say that if Jesus did live (whether Son of God or deluded
> philanthropist), I have a *lot* more respect for his experience, and for
> those that loved him in this mortal coil, than I did before. (And that's
> accounting for the likely exaggeration in the film.)

That's quite the commendation.

<snip>

> 
> The short answer is: beautiful, (incredibly) brutal, awe-inspiring,
> well-crafted, a must-see, but not likely to bring on an epiphany unless
> you've one ready to pop anyway.
> 

Thanks for the post.  Once again you got me hooked on a friendly debate (even though it wasn't directed at me...oops!).  I can appreciate the frankness of your reply.  Forgive me if I got to carried away with my own.  I tend to have fairly strong opinions on philosophy and religion :-).

Later,

John Reimer

"Matthew" <matthew.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:c1unvu$27dd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Well, let me preface this by saying that I had very little religious
> upbringing, but what little there was was Christian, so there may be bias
> that I'm
> not aware of.
>
> In my eaerly teens, when various close members of my family died a variety
> of
> rather horrible deaths, I either fell out with God, or stopped believing
in
> Him/It,
> or somewhere in between.

Yes the devout christians say that there is a reason behind everything that "he" lets happen(or does).

Sometimes it is very hard to see that there
could possibly be a reason for a lot of cruel
barbaric things that happen, like rape, child
molestation(which seems to be quite common
inside the church lately, or is it just being noticed?)

I like to think that it is your behaviour that counts,
eg: a good hearted person would do better on
Judgement day than a church goer  that is hypocritical(doesnt practise what
he preaches).

BTW I can imagine you in a debate with the JW's
in the park. :o))

If the movie is half as entertaining as your review,
I believe it will be enjoyable :o))

Thanks
        Phill.