Total posts: 816
-->
@Tradesecret
Knowing the history of the handing of biblical manuscripts, do you really have to ask?
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
You have entirely, completely, and irrevocably misrepresented what I said for your personal foil. Sorry, can't let you get away with that.
Read what I said, again, because I do not say that God gave us flawed scriptures. I said that we do not have original manuscript one of any of the books of the Bible. As revealed to prophets, and as revealed by Christ during his earthly ministry, yes, that was pure. But the originals have been manipulated, mistranslated, lost, and otherwise0 made flawed by men. Fallible men. Get it?
I didn't think so. Argue for your limitations; they're yours.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Bloody hell! What does it take.
And you have received a "personal revelation" have you? Would you like to share it with us?Already shared and rejected as not possible since, according to many on this site, including alleged Christians, God no longer speaks to man by any means since faith has been sold in favor of determinism, meaning because we think we know the quantum physics of the universe, we no longer have need of God.My plethora of posts bear record of my "sharing" on all points of your current queries, and it is clear enough for those who will attempt to do likewise. You have proven to be unwilling regardless of what I say. Why say more of the same?
You still don't get it. do you? You want it on a solver platter, you stuck-up narcissist ?
Here it is: read James 1: --- the whole bloody chapter. Do what he says, explicitly and sincerely, and do not doubt.
I know you won't because you're already proud enough to know already. Really? Then why6 do you ask? Too proud to admit you don't know how to find out? You're back to square one: Read James. I know you won't.
Done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Personal freedom and responsibility, and, therefore, individual agency, is not exclusively the purview of any group. It is, by its definition, an individual purview and not group-think at all. But, yes, the concept is a threat to anyone who thinks in terms of any estate contrary to it.
Created:
Posted in:
It's curious that this thread is tucked in to the politics section, and one can note there is no justice section, but there is an aspect to this case alleged by the MSM that places it squarely in politics where it does not belong. That aspect is racism, as in the MSM maintaining that racism, in the guise of white supremacy, is at the root of this case. That's a spurious claim given that all directly involved in this case, the prosecution, the defense, including the defendant, the judge, the key witnesses, and the victims, are all white.
MSM does not explore that particular fact in their allegation. So, anyone who sucks up to MSM, hanging on their every word, please advise how this case is rooted in racism? Only in one manner that I can see, and absolutely no one, even in media, has offered this potential reason: Rittenhouse believes he is more white than all the others, and is therefore superior. I don't see it, but people who eat racism for breakfast, lunch and dinner, can easily fall for that theory.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Never have I said the scriptures are unreliable, and you demonstrate your hard-headed approach by insisting that I say that. Try again. You know what I've said, and how to engage it. You just don't get it
Created:
-->
@Stephen
And you have received a "personal revelation" have you? Would you like to share it with us?
Already shared and rejected as not possible since, according to many on this site, including alleged Christians, God no longer speaks to man by any means since faith has been sold in favor of determinism, meaning because we think we know the quantum physics of the universe, we no longer have need of God.
My plethora of posts bear record of my "sharing" on all points of your current queries, and it is clear enough for those who will attempt to do likewise. You have proven to be unwilling regardless of what I say. Why say more of the same?
Created:
Isn't it wonderful to be able to see Brother D and Stephen fawning over one another, again? Actually, no, it isn't. In fact, it's virtually pornographic by Tradesecret's apt definition.
But let's be clear about one thing. The Holy Bible is not categorically the infallible word of God. It contains a plethora of errors and contradictions, but there two glaring reasons for this fact:
1. God did not write it; men did. Men are imperfect, and it shows.
2. Any book, let alone 66 of them as generally acknowledged as canon for Christians and some Jews, subjected to the treatment of it by men over roughly three centuries in the Common Era who:
a. May not have had its best interest at heart, and, may have purposefully engaged in deceptive "translation."
b. May not have understood the multiple ancient cultures [culture drives language] to translate correctly.
c. Did not consider that translation as typically practiced is little more than dictionary-to-dictionary comparison, which expects syntax to be exact across the subject languages. It is not.
3. Depended on manuscripts of which none were likely original, compounding the above concerns.
In the end, even thought not 100% accurate and infallible, the Holy Bible can be understood properly by the same means it was inspired: personal revelation from God if sought properly and sincerely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Because tech, the cannibal of souls, replaced oil as the political power in CA, and flattered Hollowood into thinking it could call vanity virtuous, and mistake it for charisma.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If you had bothered to pay attention to any of the charges against Trump, you would know that failing to make the payment was never one of them.
If you bothered to pay attention to the result of the charges against Trump, you would know that the failure was on Nancy Pelosi and her keystone cops, Schiff & Nadler for the pathetic effort of prosecution of those charges. Not to mention - since I already have and you ignore it - that Nancy failed herself in disregarding her own House Rules in mounting the impeachment effort in the first place. All it takes a read of the House Rules to know it's true, but you cannot be bothered.
you aren’t seriously going to accept “but I never took a cookie” as a defense.
Of course, that is patent prog thinking, ignoring the consequence that no cookie was, in fact, taken. But, you would prosecute, anyway, because intent is, in your mind, all that is required in a criminal prosecution when the fact is, no one can read another's mind; you only think you can, because that's what progs do. Unfortunate for you, the House failed to convince the Senate it had a case, and broke its own rules in that failure. Some team you're on.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Absolutely right. And let's not forget, either, that the Obama/Biden admin was so interested in helping Ukraine, that they sent them tax-paid blankets to protect themselves against Russia. Who colludes with Russia, again?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The idea that the payment being made on time has any relevance here is just silly.
Talk about "silly!" Tell me how a payment that is due on Sept 30, and was actually pa0id, as you admit, on Sept 11, is "withheld?" Kind of makes payment schedule important, doesn't it? Who's being silly? You, bud. I won't ask if you need help with that; it's obvious.
Biden was acting on behalf of the United States,
Biden's own commentary says otherwise, because Biden made it about family, not the U.S. Biden's condition on releasing payment was not an issue affecting the U.S., or its national security, but firing the Ukraine prosecutor. What was the prosecutor doing? He was not threatening the U.S. https://www.nysun.com/editorials/well-son-of-a-bitch-biden-in-ukraine-part-ii/91270/. You have not seen the video sufficient times to understand that.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The question at hand is whether the president of the United States used the prospect of withholding foreign aid in an attempt to coerce a foreign nation into helping his re-election campaign.
Wrong, and the statement makes obvious that you entirely misunderstood the timing of events then, and now.
1. The payment in question was paid on time, which was due by Sept. 30, and was actually paid two weeks prior to that deadline. The accusation that it was late, and that Ukrainian troops were left unprotected because of it is wrong, and here's why:
2. Aid payments to Ukraine, and everything other expenditure of the U.S. Government is paid according to a fiscal year schedule which begins Oct 1 of each fiscal year, and ends Sept 30 of each following fiscal year. Therefore, the payment due on Sept 30 was actually the first payment for the following fiscal year, not the current year, so, the Ukraine troops were already covered for the end of the current [then] fiscal year by the previous month's payment, which was also paid on time. You were apparently unaware of this fact, being educated only by your MSM, which is not entirely, ever accurate.
3. Who did threaten non-payment? JoeBiden. He bragged about it on video, about Jan 18, 2017 as then VP to Obama. Look it up.
Let's cite "The other thing" to see exactly what it says:
"The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great." https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html
and you claim it says
Trump... asking a foreign nation to investigate his top political rival’s son.. Let me know if you need help understanding what that means.
The timing of this telephone conversation between Trump and Pres-elect Zelensky of Ukraine is 7/25/2019. At that time, does Trump have a political rival? No, because 2020 presidential primaries had not yet begun, let alone not yet having either party's convention to select the presidential rival candidates. Speculation, yes, but what meaning does that have? Biden didn't place in the the top three candidates in the first two primaries of spring 2020, so, at the time, speculation didn't mean much.
Was Trump asking about Biden's son as the thrust of the pg. 4 commentary, or Biden's stopping the prosecution? By the transcript, one cannot tell. One can certainly speculate, and you do so well, but, we see just now the value of speculation... let me know if you need help with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Historically, in 43 presidential elections since its statehood in 1850, CA has voted for the R candidate more often than the D.
Created:
I have previously compared the vax mandate with the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, and have been summarily raked over for the comparison, because progs cannot see the comparison. Hint: Both issues deal with personal bodily privacy, and the infringement of that privacy by an alleged legal standard on the one hand [prohibition of abortion] and the insistence on a legal standard where none presently exists, on the other hand [enforcement if the vax mandate].
In both cases, that standard is health-related.
In the case of Roe, the standard of personal bodily privacy is jaded only because it ignores the separate humanity of the fetus and that it also enjoys the right of personal bodily privacy [see the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which has a conflict with I USC §8].
In the case of the vax mandate, the same standard of personal bodily privacy appears to have no legal conflict. However, 5th Circuit Court has stayed the mandate, ruling that OSHA, overseen by DoL, cannot extend health and safety regulations to the extent of enforcing a vax mandate on all people, even extending to people who are not in the workplace and part of the workforce population, but not only for that lack of jurisdiction.
Progs want personal privacy for abortion, but reject it for the vax mandate. You're conflicted and don't get it.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
If using the power of an elected office...
But JoeBiden is not being looked at for those concerns, and the party who is looked at for impeachment on those matters cannot be impeached since that party has already left office; the one punishment impeachment and conviction on that impeachment can impose. Your 'if' is meaningless. Try reading the Constitution once in a while and comprehending its text.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Climate change activists remind me of Thomas Malthus.
Yup. An early example of progressivism: argue for the limitations of man, and for the ability of those limitations to keep us from accomplishment. i.e.: victimization as an art form that is nothing but profane, all the while denying they are afflicted with those limitations.
Progressivism is driving full speed ahead looking in the rearview mirror.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
moral backbone
Really? Moral backbone? How about the fact that Nancy Pelosi violated her own House Rules she ratified in Jan 2017 in the impeachment phase. Forget moral fortitude, the Democrat5s violated their rules. Read them. I know you won't. I did. They were violated on several points.
We have the call notes.
Which notes? The notes Adam Schiff read into the Congressional Record, which was a parody, by his own admission, or the actual transcript, which indicates that between the time Trump asked for a "favor" and mention of investigation of Punter Biden, seven other named subjects were discussed. Which was the favor? The last? Only in the minds of zealots. Read the transcript. I know you won't.
The court of public opinion is just shorthand for the use of common sense
Really? Does that apply to the "common sense" that Rittenhouse is a racist, as suggested by Biden's campaign ad last summer, when both Rittenhouse and the three men he shot in apparent self-defense [because the video shows all three men coming after him, not the other way around] are all white. What racism? that's common sense? Maybe to you and your sock puppet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You think Darwin was wrong, too? No adaptability? I don't think you do.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If it’s ok...
You will note, for the record, and not your prog proclivities, nor the opinion of your sock puppet, that the trial to which you refer ended in acquittal; there was no extortion of a foreign nation, and the Jan 6 incident seems a far cry from any trial soon, yet you and your sock puppet have already filed convictions. The court of public opinion is not recognized in my republic. Sorry about yours.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
By adaptability, unless we have defrocked St. Darwin, and which the GND appears to have completely ignored, seems to me we'll be just fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Says you and your sock puppet? Your credentials are...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You had your shot belittling Trump. You no longer have him to kick around.
Now, it's my turn, yeah? What, can't keep up with what's current?
You're throwing up old news. Doesn't play anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yes. That you don't appear to see it is not my problem. Think it over. You'll accomplish more than by my giving it to you.
Hint: an earlier Biden deep thought: "truth over facts," or, the ever popular "I will beat Joe Biden."*
*Yes, I happen to own a professional sound studio to do freelance voiceovers. There is a measurable and visible plosive 't' on the end of that "bea..." on the vocal track.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Are you vaccinated
Yes, with a booster just obtained
2. Which vaccine, why that vaccine?
Moderna, the one available locally.
3. Do you support vaccine mandates?
No, because the current administration will not acknowledge natural immunity as any benefit instead of a vaccine when natural immunity by contraction of any other disease with a vaccine is commonly accepted. plus, there are examples of vaccinated people who have still contracted the disease. No masndate should exist for something not 100% effective.
4. Do you believe Covid is a left-wing conspiracy?
I think the jury is out on origin, whether natural or man-made, but I definitely believe governments, including the US, have taken advantage of the situation to test how willing the citizenry are willing to cede personal freedom to the government for a perceived emergency.
Created:
Posted in:
A Veterans' Day deep thought by JoeBiden:
"You're not just the backbone of America; you're the spine."
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
It doesn’t state that humans are the only cause - as you appear to claim
If you properly read my comments, I do not claim that anthropogenic causes of climate change are the only causes, but both GND and the Biden admin only address anthropogenic causes, as if they are the only causes of climate change. Look to them, not5 me. I acknowledge there are natural causes, too, and should be addressed as best we can. It's called, as I mentioned, having dominion of the Earth, which we have. Can't that, bat least, be agreed?
It’s technically easier to use solar power instead of coal
Really? Then why was solar power tech only developed for wide-spread use in the 20th century, and only late in that century? Coal tech has been around for multiple centuries because... it's easier? Because... it's not much more technical than the knowledge that it burns?
is not saying or implying that there is a singular ideal climate.
Well, we don't say climates change, do we? And who says that an increase of 1.5 to 2 degrees C is catastrophic for all climates, or that a decrease of that range is as well. GND doesn't happen to specify, does it? No one bothers to say so. Are we supposed to assume they don't mean. that? This is supposed to be science, which is supposed to address all variables, isn't it? Is it only because I'm the only one thinking these issues through? I don't think so, but I've never heard a Prog admit it.
I agree, earth doesn’t care - the deadlines are for us; or specifically to limit the range of warming.
But your thinking, and the GND thinking, completely ignores the adaptability factor that was so prevalent in Darwin. Have we defrocked St. Darwin in our rush to catastrophe that does not appear to be eminent according to global warming predictions?
Because it’s easier to make cars have a better gas mileage than stopping volcanoes from errupting.
Sure, but isn't it also easier to con0struct aqueducts from the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers to limit flooding further downstream, and offer more water to the southwest, than mere react with reconstruction after flooding. Cheaper, too. But we don't do it. Why not? Isn't it also easier to desalinate seawater for drinking that fret about lack of fresh water? But we don't do it very much, do we? Why not? It's easier to claim that natural and cultivated wetlands emit more methane into the atmosphere than cows, and push rice use while claiming the beef industry is a danger to our environment. I smell an agenda.
There are 1.5tn proven reserves,
That says nothing for why development of more and better green energy solutions is so slow in implementation to actually prove there are better, safer, and more efficient energy resources than fossil fuels. Until that lack ids justifie4d and ameliortated, green energy claims of efficient fall on deaf ears.
Created:
Posted in:
Part of Biden's too-simple supply chain policy is the excessively simplistic energy supply chain, to wit: shutting down the XL Pipeline and Anwar in Alaska, effectively eliminating American energy independence in favor of OPEC sourcing for the US and Russian supply to Europe. Hint: XL and Anwar are both already in the US; OPEC is not. What supply chain issues do you see there? Assuming you're not economically blind. Not to mention that just in proven reserves, the US far outnumbers the OPEC and Russian supply. Continuity, anyone?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Well said. Typical progressive ignorance of all factors involved, aka cherrypicking.
Created:
Posted in:
Seems this time around, even OPEC is chanting "Let's go Brandon!" SloJo can't catch a break from anyone.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
since the climate does not change exclusively die to anthropogenic effect, where are there no non-anthropogenic effects calculated into the the GND, or /the Biden admin plan? As we have been given dominion over the Earth, and we have according to Genesis, we have the means, by observation and learning, to put into effect things we learn. to improve natural causes of GHGs and other climate issues. That these plans do not is clear indication of an agenda, and not a true effort to improve0 our planet. It's just another blame-game to demonstration our victimization; a primary progressive tenet.
You claim the GND is not abut a singular, ideal climate. In temperature range, alone, it sure does. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2878/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/ The following several points you make do support a singular, ideal climate just doe to the alarm over temperature.
The GND is completely structured around an established deadline beyond that is, itself, anthropogenic, but is no natural deadline: 2030 as a milestone; 2050 as a secondary milestone. https://www.gp.org/gnd_full
The arrogance of establishing carbon credits is thinking that economic sacrifice, a purely anthropogenic exercise, will do anything to rid the clouds [euphemistic for the atmosphere] of GHGs, since natural contribution of GHGs occurs unabated, even by the efforts of the Biden admin policy, or the GND.
When did I ever say there are no anthropogenic causes to GHGs, or other environmental effects. Haven't I admitted by my sources that anthropogenic activity does contribute to climate change? But I've also demonstrated that non-anthropogenic, natural effects cause climate change, and my point has always been that man can address some of these causes and reduce them, for both man and the Earth's benefit, but neither the Biden admin, or GND address these issues. Why not? An agenda, again? See, I do acknowledge there are things we could do to improve climate against natural causes,. so I am not "cherrypicking" as your accuse.
Your oil consumption/natural production [replenishment] exercise is all for naught, because no one knows:
1. The quantity of what is available still in the earth, certainly at least partially due to ignorance of the quantity we don't know about..
2. The actual rate/year, or whatever timeline you want to use, of natural production replenishment.
3. The pitiful increase of green energy sources to replace fossil fuel use, and why we cannot increase the rate of production of green energy sources sufficient to meet the 2030 and 2050 arbitrary deadlines. In simple words, AlGore, the climate change guru, still has not invented AlGore Gooey Juice to replace petroleum-based lubricants, let alone fuel. Why not?
You see, what you're ignoring is that I am actually in the camp that wants to increase our green energy production, but most of the contributors to that suggestion who can make a difference are not doing so, yet they continue to press the deadline. An agenda? Are they really after usable green energy, or is the mantra of the 60s, that we humans have overpopulated the Earth really after our extinction? An agenda. The question stands, and no one will render an honest opinion. I have, and others have to, but we're ignored. The home I occupy has a 39-solar panel array on its roof. Surprised? Yes, I do support green energy. Seems the extinction line is entirely forming over there on the left. Politically, alone, that is suicide. Be welcome in the line. meanwhile, I will live my life since it is a gift not to be wasted over stupid claims that I have limited time. It is limited, but by my mortality, only, and that is not even an end game, so, why wring my hands that we are doomed?
Created:
Posted in:
"As long as goods and materials are getting where they need to go on time, there's usually no need to worry about the supply chains," Biden said.
Sorry, that statement, alone, is misguided, so SloJoe should include himself among the Americans who fit the description; "...but frankly, not a lot of people have a clear understanding, whether they have a Ph.D. or they didn't go to school, about how a supply chain works," Biden said in the same commentary that produced the above quote.
Is it world class strategy to ignore a process that appears to function efficiently? No. The concept is called process improvement, and it means a continuous effort to assess a process to work out it bugs and get pieces of the process more efficient that they were before. It is not a static environment. And no single change will fix all. That's one reason why comprehensive bills, such as the two going through Congress now, will not succeed as is hoped by the Biden admin. The comprehensive thinking plagued Obamacare, and even plagued Biden's own 1992 crime bill, as Clinton, himself, later admitted.
I thank Biden for telling us how stupid we are. Same to ya, Joe.
Created:
-->
@Bones
what would you say
I would say first, all that I repeated to Ramshutu in my #6. Then I would say: You want to destroy the cattle industry when you know, but will not admit, that natural and cultivated wetlands [like for rice, for example] emit more methane into the atmosphere than do cow farts, so eat your rice, but leave my steak alone!
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Fossil fuels are not really fossil fuels and are not renewable. Oil and natural gas do not come from fossilized dinosaurs!
not just dinosaurs, but ALL living matter that dies. I think so far, that includes all life, not just dinosaurs. Otherwise. let's see your citation as evidence, and not just your GND-jaded opinion. I've given mine.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
No is saying it does
The Biden administration has identified 5 factors to control by addressing sources of GHG emission:
Transportation 29%
Energy 25%
Industry 23%
Commercial & Residential 13%
Agriculture 10%
These five are all anthropogenic. Where's the effort to reduce GHG emission by natural wetlands? By vulcanism?
No one is saying it won’t.
The above policy statement by the Biden administration clearly leaves non-anthropogenic sources of GHG's unbridled.
No one is saying it is
Again, the above policy statement by the Biden administration clearly leaves non-anthropogenic sources of GHG's unbridled.
Also, the Green New Deal: https://www.gp.org/gnd_full. "The Green New Deal will convert the decaying fossil fuel economy into a new, green economy that is environmentally sustainable, economically secure and socially just."
No one is saying it doesn’t.
Repeat: https://www.gp.org/gnd_full. https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/federal-climate-policy-101/
No one is saying there is
"Climate policy includes policies... so that the climate does not change as much or as quickly). https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/federal-climate-policy-101/
Note the singular reference to a climate.
No one is really saying it does
"The Green New Deal starts with transitioning to 100% green renewable energy (no nukes or natural gas) by 2030." https://www.gp.org/gnd_full
There is no credible citation referring us to earthclimate.org saying it, so, clearly, the GND effort is saying it does, not the Earth, herself.
Why does this make it arrogant.
Because the above two sources, Biden policy, and the GND, are saying. carbon credits will clean the clouds of GHGs.
No they aren’t.
"fossil fuel's only origin is living matter now dead. Just because the process does not complete and end at the flip of a switch does not mean that fossil fuels are not renewable, and continue to convert from living-to-dead matter, and convert from dead matter to fossil fuel. Yes, the process takes millions of years, but maybe less. We simply do not know, but that the process occurs is well documented. https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/earth-system/biogeochemical-cycles
Why does that make it arrogant?
Because the GND, and Biden admin policy, rejects all the above.
Created:
Saule Omarova, JoeBiden's pick to head the Treasury Dept's Office of the Controller of the Currency, has said, more than once, ""a lot of...small players in those industries" fossil fuel industries, that is, "are going to probably go bankrupt in short order... At least we want them to go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change, right?"
Arrogant because climate does not change exclusively due to anthropogenic effect. The climate was changing long before the advent of man on Earth, and will continue to change with man on earth.
Arrogant to suggest that only the contribution of man's presence is taking climate beyond a recoverable condition.
Arrogant because climate changes, period, with or without man.
Arrogant because there does not exist one singular climate, if it could be controlled, that is ideal for the entire planet.
Arrogant because the Earth does not operate to any schedule, certainly none ever developed by man.
Arrogant because Earth's various system con tributing to climate do not recognize indulgences like carbon credits.
And, arrogant because at present, the total contribution of "renewable energy," which happens to include fossil fuels, because they are constantly being replenished, and will continue to be replenished as long as life on Earth exists, or, "green energy," which does not include fossil fuels [let them make up their minds], amounts to roughly 22% of all energy resources used on Earth, whereas fossil fuels account for about 66% of all energy consumed on Earth. Further, although the percentage of green energy increases annually, it is in small singular digits, and we have, according to green new deal proponents, 7 years to get it right. The math, let alone the science, or the economics, just do not add.
Bankrupt that sector of the energy industry precipitously, as Omarova suggests, and we will no longer be worried about climate change as an existential threat.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you ever consider that Democrats, being the victimization party, relish the elimination of "fun." Hell, they don't even consider sex fun, just kinky. That's why only a Democrat would allege pee tapes, or that Putin has a closet-full of them with a particularly packed shelf in the alphabetized collection in the 'T' section..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
People's experience as presented by the Pharisees was wrong.
Yet, you said
I would never base my theology on my own experience, let alone someone else's.
What of your experience as presented by Christ? Is that not also personal experience?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Are you not sure whether the curriculum is radical?
Let's go back to what I said:
I’ve known for a long time that school boards across the country were not chomping at the bit to maintain an open communication with parents once a more radical curriculum took hold
I'm comparing my own experience, actually from the time I was in school as to what I consider radical.
1. In a high school as a senior, [I was the senior class president], my history teacher, who always acted a little weird [and he kept a fifth of bourbon in his classroom desk drawer] told me to take all the male students [back then, we knew who we were], and leave the classroom to find the tiger roaming the hallways; he would stay behind to protect the females. To me, that's radical [+ crazy].
2. In the same year, in a physiology class, the teacher announced that human DNA did not contribute to behavioral personality traits, but that these differences in us were directed by the universe. Sound familiar? We didn't actually know, then, which I argued, but we have since learned that up to 50% of our personality and behavior is genetically inherited from parents. However, we also know that such chemistry can be altered, mutated, by our dietary choices. Thus choices, free will, if you will, does counter-intuit personality and behavior. Coincidentally, earlier that year, I attended a UCLA symposium featuring Dr. James Watson of DNA discovery fame, who revealed his own research that contradicted the teacher's opinion. To me, the teacher's position was radical.
3. The same history teacher in #1, covering Civil War history, taught that slavery in America was unique to black slaves [the teacher was an African immigrant], and, looking back, would have embraced BLM, CRT, and probably LGBTQ, but he was probably dead before the turn of the century. To me, the teacher's position was radical. One of the girls in my class mentioned to me once that she thought he had made a pass at her. I advised her to consult with the Girl's VP. To me, the teacher's position was radical.
4. In an undergraduate philosophy course, the professor, discovering I was religious, declared a personal challenge to me, in class, in front of other students, that by the end of the course, I would be an atheist like him. To me, the professor's position was radical.
5. In a late undergrad French course, the prof. addressed the student riots in Paris in 1968, declaring them justified as a protest against capitalism, among other charges. These students were largely motivated by a coalition of communists and socialists in French government and academics attempting to overthrow De Gaulle. My prof applauded the effort, and was disappointed that protests in the US were not so inspired socially as politically against the Viet Nam war. Problem was, my prof had never been to France. I'd already spent three years there, interrupting my undergrad studies. To me, the professor's position was radical.
That's what I mean by radical curricula.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I don't live in VA. I don't know what about the curriculum they opposed. I can guess, but that's all you're doing. So, have at it. I don't have the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
just like when people say they’re not anti Covid vaxx, they’re pro freedom! No, they're just trying to own the libs.
Sounds like the identical argument for pro-choice of abortion. Funny, a lot of people were offended by that comment I made in another thread. Can't have it both ways, my friend.
Created:
Posted in:
The truth is said in few words, most times. There are exceptions, but they are rare. Rare is not the case when the preponderance of evidence demonstrates verbosity.
I would never base my theology on my own experience, let alone someone else's.
Mark 2: 27 "The sabbath was made for man [to experience], and not man for the sabbath [for the sabbath to experience].
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Did I say someone was offended, and that is on Obama? I mentioned no offense; only that Obama is channeling the flubbing, tongue-tied Biden.
Shakespeare's popularity in Scotland is not disputed. That Obama linked Shakespeare to Ireland as Ireland's bard is just wrong. No offense implied. You will recall that Obama once said his presidential campaign would spread to 57 states. I never complained of being offended; he was just wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
No reference. I said it all. McAuliffe said parents have no business in oversight of school curricula. Obviously sufficient voters disagreed to hand him a loss. Sometimes, what is said is all that is said. If you want to read more into it from my perspective, you must provide the read. You did. And you're wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
Yesterday, at the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference, held in Glasgow. Obama seemed to channel JoeBiden: "Since we're in the Emerald Isles here, let me quote the bard, William Shakespeare," Obama said. "‘What wound,’ he writes, ‘did ever heal but by degrees.’"
Oops.
"We're" not in Ireland, "we're" in Scotland.
Shakespeare is England's bard. The bard of Ireland is Robert Burns. There was once a Robert the Bruce, King of Scots, in the early 14th century, but he was neither a bard, nor concerned about climate change. Shakespeare did write the quote, said by Othello in the play of the same name, but the "degrees" spoken of had naught to do with temperature.
Yep, sounds just like Biden.
Barack, you don't have to do this. One in your party is enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Where in this thread have I even mentioned CRT? Let's review....
Nope, but you did. My thrust was the senseless longterm shutdown of schools allowing parents to witness what their children are being taught [non-specific, until you brought it up]. But, go ahead, tell me what I'm thinking. You usually do. Funny thing. Your universe compelling thought and action is working overtime, but not working well on my behalf. Seems I still have a mind to think for myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The issue, my friend, is that McAuliffe refused to recognize that parents have a say in school curriculum. It's called "PTA" because parents are part and parcel of the. organization, yeah? What does the pTA exist to do? https://www.pta.org/home/About-National-Parent-Teacher-Association/Mission-Values
You do realize that, yeah? Perhaps not, you've missed the point on four occasions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
For the third time,
That parents should not have a say in their children’s education.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Were I to darken your door to seek enlightenment, tell me why I should, Christian, one who professes to be so, when I have been shown disrespect at every turn, regardless of my beliefs and my requests, to simply be called as I have described. I seek simple courtesy, and have been shown the door. Why, indeed, ought I knock rather than move on? I move on, my friend. Thanks for naught.
I leave you with my testimony of Jesus Christ, that he lives, that he is the atoning one, savior and redeemer of mankind.
Created: