PERDITION - Nothing For You

The two occurrences of the Greek phrase have traditionally been translated consistently in English Bibles from the Wycliffe Bible, following the Latin Vulgate which has "filius perditionis" (son of perdition) in both instances. However this is not the case in all languages; for example the Luther Bible renders the use in John as "das verlorene Kind" (the lost child), but the use in 2 Thessalonians as "das Kind des Verderbens" (the child of corruption).

PERDITION - nothing for you

2 Thessalonians 2:3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;" King James Version, 1611

Similar uses of "son" occur in Hebrew, such as "sons of corruption" (Isaiah 1:4 בָּנִים מַשְׁחִיתִים banim mashchitim), however the exact Hebrew or Greek term "son of perdition" does not occur in Jewish writings prior to the New Testament.

Of the kings that came after Antiochus nothing is here prophesied, for that was the most malicious mischievous enemy to the church, that was a type of the son of perdition, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming, and none shall help him.[15]

Michael Sullivan was betrayed by John Rooney. Rooney was his "father," a man he trusted with his life and family. All of that means nothing now. In fact, not only does it mean nothing, but it means that Sullivan (once regrouped) will stop at nothing to take Rooney's life out of revenge for his dead son and wife. Taking Rooney's life will also guarantee the safety of his son.

Plenty of people, including Judge Garrity, realized that this pattern would emerge. In the South, where school districts generally cover entire counties, integration orders have proven more successful because they transcend town lines. In the North, however, the sovereignty of towns, each with its own school district, is a source of fierce pride. Garrity could order busing in Boston's schools, but was powerless to do anything in the suburbs, where everyone knew the city's whites would flee to escape integrated classrooms. Boston had violated the Constitution, but those suburbs, with their independent school districts, had done nothing illegal to make their schools mostly white. Intentionally or not, the system creates segregation.

It would be this way, you see: As I owned all the land, they would of course, have to pay me rent. They could not reasonably expect me to allow them the use of the land for nothing. I am not a hard man, and in fixing the rent I would be very liberal with them. I would allow them, in fact, to fix it themselves. What could be fairer? Here is a piece of land, let us say, it might be a farm, it might be a building site, or it might be something else - if there was only one man who wanted it, of course he would not offer me much, but if the land be really worth anything such a circumstance is not likely to happen. On the contrary, there would be a number who would want it, and they would go on bidding and bidding one against the other, in order to get it. I should accept the highest offer - what could be fairer? Every increase of population, extension of trade, every advance in the arts and sciences would, as we all know, increase the value of land, and the competition that would naturally arise would continue to force rents upward, so much so, that in many cases the tenants would have little or nothing left for themselves.

Archimedes never dreamt of anything like that. Yet, with the earth for my fulcrum and its private ownership for my lever, it is all possible. If it should be said that the people would eventually detect the fraud, and with swift vengeance hurl me and all my courtly parasites to perdition, I answer, "Nothing of the kind, the people are as good as gold, and would stand it like bricks, and I appeal to the facts of today to bear me witness."

Archimedes never dreamt of anything like that. Yet, with the earth for my fulcrum and its private ownership for my lever, it is all possible. If it should be said that the people would eventually detect the fraud, and with swift vengeance hurl me and all my courtly parasites to perdition, I answer, \"Nothing of the kind, the people are as good as gold, and would stand it like bricks, and I appeal to the facts of today to bear me witness.\"

We must guard ourselves against the temptation to idolize money, for this may weaken our faith and accustom us to the deception of meaningless and hurtful desires that lead people to destruction and perdition. Pope Francis warned against this danger at Mass on Friday morning, 20 September, in the Chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae.

John 6:39-40And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Conventional wisdom from other languages is that exception handling is needlessly indirect and leads to non-obvious code paths, which hurts maintainability. Node's error passing paradigm was ever an issue for me (intuitive, even)... frankly I feel errors should be trapped within a level or two and always from within the module they originate in. From that perspective I gain nothing. I still have to manually transfer an error event across any scope/event return boundary, so really all I got is that chained callbacks can all throw to the same block. That's literally the only feature I got from all that indirection.

I'm probably being needlessly aggressive in my tone here, but it's deliberate to match those voices hailing promises as some radical new programming paradigm, rather than a clever layover from project Xanadu, much like the equally clever [Enfilade]( _(Xanadu)). This is nothing new, but in it's current incarnation threatens to completely infect js libs and I feel like voices are needed to stem this tide of needless indirection. If you disagree, I'd love to hear about your reasoning even if you just think I'm being a prick.

Man is born naked and when dead he is also naked. He brings nothing with him to this world, and when he departs he cannot take anything physical with him to the next. But whatever he has given to the Cause of God while on this earth, his time, his labours, his resources, as well as his services to his fellow human beings, these he can take with him to the spiritual realms. This is one way of transforming something which belongs to the world of matter into the spiritual worlds of God. 041b061a72