Total posts: 816
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Good list.
Here's one bio inclusion of interest:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
What effort is needed to ask a question about the identity of a person? /?A bit over the top to make that accusation. He's asking you to do research, not to bitch about a question. If you don't want to do it, that's yours to decide. Leave it at that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I repeat my #1:
Several statements led him [McAuliffe] down the road to defeat, but one stands proud as a woke nutjob: That parents should not have a say in their children’s education.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You continue to insist on limiting God. The greatest sin is to limit God. Don't.
NOW he speaks through Jesus.
"Now" was then, in the time of Paul writing to the Hebrews; first century CE. But Jesus ascended to heaven, where God dwells. But, do not ignore Perter's words in Acts 2, 3. Read these entire chapters how, on theDay of Pentacost. the Holy Ghost descended on the crowd of roughly 3,000 souls, who spoke on tongues and prophesied contrary to your claim that prophecy ended with Christ.
Do not ignore that Peter prophesied that in the "times of trhe restitution of all things" that would include the return of the Lord, Jesus Christ to Earth, that prophesies and miracles would again fill the Earth, contrary to your claim. Sure, you can pick out scriptures that appear, to some, to say others, and I challenge you to show me that the verses you idewntifi3ed say specifically that God should cease speaking to man, even through his Son, Jesus Christ. They don't say that at all. Hebrews, Corinthians, Daniel, and Acts do bot contradict me. Period.
You continue to wringing your hands over James. Just do what he says and see if he is wrong. Do all of it, in the order given, even, if you want to be that precise. If you do not want to try it, you cannot claim he might be wrong. You have the means to do everything he says. So stop bitching about it and do it. The entire epistle is a gold mine, Use it.
You don't worship Jesus since you don't worship the Trinity.
Rather cheeky to accuse me of whom I worship. I said: [#44]
I also worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - 3 persons of divine nature.
That equals the Trinity; three personages. I also said: [#41]
Since all three personages of the godhead are worthy of worship for all they individually do for us, I worship them for the individual roles they perform in and on our behalf. Worship is praise, not some unidirectional fawning over one person, alone.
I also said: [#33]
our God is a product of generations of gods before him, perhaps one of his Fathers created the heaven our Father now inhabits. Just so, as we are able to attain godhood, we will create the heaven our children will inhabit, distant from now into the future... and so on.
Did I ever say that I worship these other Gods. No, I did not, and I do not. Acknowledging their existence does not mean I worship them. I have no reason to worship them; they have nothing to do with me, personally, nor anyone else living on Earth.
Do you intentionally just misread the bible? The vision was sealed up within a generation of Jesus being crucified on the cross.
Daniel 9 contains the visin and the visitation of Gabriel, who tells Daniel of seventy weeks which will pass with the following results
1. Finish the transgression,
2. Make an end of sins,
3. Make reconciliation for iniquity,
4. Bring in everlasting righteousness,
5. Seal up vision and prophecy,
6. Anoint the Most Holy.
6. Anoint the Most Holy.
So the vision was not sealed up in the first century CE, but within the seventy days Gabriel described and which Daniel records and bears record in his Chapter 9.
Do you intentionally misread the Bible?
The Mormon church is not a Christian church. I
It is not the Mormon Church. We do not worship Mormon. The name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is self-described as being Christian. That others discount it as such, such as you, do so in ignorance. Do I accuse the Roman Catholic Church of being the Pope Church? No, I do not. I call it by the proper name that it gives itself. The members of that church deserve that appropriate respect. I'll thank you to do the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I never said that Youngkin has a mandate; it's clear that VA is divided. It's purple, not red.
Created:
Posted in:
A week following the election last Tuesday, I’ve reflected on the surprising results, particularly in VA, where McAuliffe snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by being, frankly, stupid. Several statements led him down the road to defeat, but one stands proud as a woke nutjob: That parents should not have a say in their children’s education. Many people believe this. Apparently, not enough to win in a statewide election in a blue state. Not yet. The trend is definitely turning sour against parents because such a statement, even four years ago, would have been laughed off a campaign stage.
I am not going to claim that the Covid pandemic was a conspiracy because, frankly, it doesn’t matter. Trying to take advantage of the issue by Democrats, however, was laughable in the extreme. Can’t really blame Democrats for the general shutdown last summer, and maybe a brief closure did help control the spread of the disease, but I heard few complaints from Democrats. It worked to their favor, or so they thought, because the shutdown was not just business; it was education, too. And because schools shutdown, at least one parent needed to stay home even if their particular work situation continued to remain open, just to be with their kids. 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, but with a parent home to witness what was being taught first hand, the inevitable occurred: Parents learned just how radical the curriculum was, and they have obviously rebelled in large numbers.
Democrats shot themselves in the head on this one. With Double-down McAuliffe speaking his empty-headed mind, what semblance of a victory he had flew up his nose. Well, the last week of his campaign, he was dancing around on stage like a giddy-smile cokehead. It was hilarious, and revealing.
I am not going to claim that the Covid pandemic was a conspiracy because, frankly, it doesn’t matter. Trying to take advantage of the issue by Democrats, however, was laughable in the extreme. Can’t really blame Democrats for the general shutdown last summer, and maybe a brief closure did help control the spread of the disease, but I heard few complaints from Democrats. It worked to their favor, or so they thought, because the shutdown was not just business; it was education, too. And because schools shutdown, at least one parent needed to stay home even if their particular work situation continued to remain open, just to be with their kids. 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, but with a parent home to witness what was being taught first hand, the inevitable occurred: Parents learned just how radical the curriculum was, and they have obviously rebelled in large numbers.
Democrats shot themselves in the head on this one. With Double-down McAuliffe speaking his empty-headed mind, what semblance of a victory he had flew up his nose. Well, the last week of his campaign, he was dancing around on stage like a giddy-smile cokehead. It was hilarious, and revealing.
Democrats may want to re-think their education strategy because this one educated too much. Good thing. The last thing we need is a bunch of little Communists at our dinner tables.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Hebrews 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 13:8; Daniel 9: 24.
Hebrews: Nothing in these verses describe an end of God speaking to man. Yes, at Christ's beginning of his ministry, Jesus spoke as the Son of God, and he said on many occasions that what he spoke were not his words, but those given him by God the Father; iow, still God's word.
Corinthians: Nothing in this verse indicates a cessation of God speaking to man [except as through Christ, as noted in Hebrews]. Paul is saying that there may be prophesies, tongues, and knowledge, but that these shall fall when "that which is perfect [Jesus Christ] is come" that these other utterances will cease, because Christ, himself, will again be on the Earth. He is speaking of that future time, not in Paul's time in the first century. This would necessarily imply that god speaks to man by prophecy from heaven until the time Christ returns.
Daniel: Nothing in these verses say God stops speaking to man. Daniel and the Israelites have been allowed to return to Jerusalem, released by the Babylonians in ~525 BCE, after spending roughly 80 years in Babylon [from ~605 BCE, when Babylon sacked Jerusalem and destroyed Solomon's temple. Daniel is told to re-build the temple, which is completed ~505 BC. The "seal up the vision and prophecy" speaks to Daniels own vision and prophecy being sealed as told in this chapter, but says nothing regarding a cessation of prophecy or visions to instruct on a further basis, else we should not have the records of Hosea through Malachi, 12 prophets in all. Do we ignore them based on your interpretation of Daniel, let alone the advent of Christ 500+ years later?
Perhaps James is mistaken?
Did the Holy Spirit tell you that, too?
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons - but they are all ONE GOD.
Three personages = one God? What's wrong with three personages = 3 Gods, united in purpose, but separate individuals? If nothing else, Occam's razor... makes more sense without having to noodle something out of "let us make man in our image." I also worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost - 3 persons of divine nature. 3 = 3 makes a whole lot more sense, and less contradiction, than does 3 = 1. Particularly sense my whole purpose here, on earth, is to ultimately become like them with my continued obedience. I am, after all, as all of us are, a child of God. Should I not try to become like my parents? [Implying that I also have a Mother in Heaven, a Goddess, yeah?]
Created:
Posted in:
I thought I had said all I intended to say on the subject of man’s free will, but a suggestion by one of you pertaining to another Forum thread that connects in this regard. I had forgotten the thrust of why I believe the concept of free will over determinism, at least beyond the core of my belief in it which ‘I’ve already expressed: that there is purpose to free agency unlike it’s opposite. Though no one has said determinism is purposeless, the entire idea seems to lack purpose at all; it just is, or, rather, is alleged to be just the way things are.
The suggestion had reference to the dichotomy of people on this site relative to belief in God, and not believing, and that it seems the numbers of non-believers exceeds the believers. I believe this.
Here’s how that ties to my argument for free will, and it has everything to do with purpose. The primary reason for free will is to choose to accept Jesus Christ, his divine fathership and mortal motherhood, and the glorious atonement he suffered for our benefit to overcome our weakness in sun by repentance, out suffering at the hands of oppressors, our pains of life, and our sorrows in loss. All of these limitations are removed from us, ultimately, in accordance with our choice to accept Christ, and live in joy, or reject him and die in misery.
Sounds like an easy choice when couched in these terms, life and joy, or death and misery. Who would not choose Christ, and his declaration, “I am the life and the light.” The fact is, some us do just that, and we who have find determinism to be nothing but limitation imposed on us, whereas freedom of choice by virtue of the great gift of the atonement, leads us to joy in this life, and anticipation of the next. The difference is a recognition, by our will to do so, of a personal Savior and Redeemer, or the impersonal limitation of thinking the universe imposes its will on us by messing with our brain chemistry by its particles, fields, waves, and forces.
The suggestion had reference to the dichotomy of people on this site relative to belief in God, and not believing, and that it seems the numbers of non-believers exceeds the believers. I believe this.
Here’s how that ties to my argument for free will, and it has everything to do with purpose. The primary reason for free will is to choose to accept Jesus Christ, his divine fathership and mortal motherhood, and the glorious atonement he suffered for our benefit to overcome our weakness in sun by repentance, out suffering at the hands of oppressors, our pains of life, and our sorrows in loss. All of these limitations are removed from us, ultimately, in accordance with our choice to accept Christ, and live in joy, or reject him and die in misery.
Sounds like an easy choice when couched in these terms, life and joy, or death and misery. Who would not choose Christ, and his declaration, “I am the life and the light.” The fact is, some us do just that, and we who have find determinism to be nothing but limitation imposed on us, whereas freedom of choice by virtue of the great gift of the atonement, leads us to joy in this life, and anticipation of the next. The difference is a recognition, by our will to do so, of a personal Savior and Redeemer, or the impersonal limitation of thinking the universe imposes its will on us by messing with our brain chemistry by its particles, fields, waves, and forces.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Some people are unable to overcome their natural instinct for survival, even when they think they have willed to off themselves. Having agency does not guarantee one will succeed in acting on their agency.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
There's a better source than a "device," which is, after all, just another fallible product made by fallible beings.
I trust the advice of an infallible being, and that is not simply restricted to reading scripture. I believe wholly in personal revelation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
God did.
Show me where God said he has stopped speaking to man, remembering that god wrote not one word or punctuation of the Holy Bible; men did, and men can make mistakes. That is why James tells us how to properly interpret to gain wisdom.
I agree with your assessment that the Genesis account "Let us make..." is not a royal we; God is far greater than that need that royals have to be more than their subjects. I believe gods are stratified. Yes, God is the "creator god," but others can be delegated by him to perform certain functions of creation. We know a movie producer does not do all the work, just because he is called "producer." Skilled delegates do much work of the work on God's word.
God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate, distinct personages who are completely aligned and one in purpose, but not one in body.
Jesus is not the Father.
Since all three personages of the godhead are worthy of worship for all they individually do for us, I worship them for the individual roles they perform in and on our behalf. Worship is praise, not some unidirectional fawning over one person, alone.
Well respectfully, you are not certain.
Well, respectively, back at you. You have no idea of what I am certain. Return to James' epistle, and read the entirety of it. We can be certain, but there are specific steps to follow, and they cannot be short-circuited and expect to have that which is lacking in certainty. Learning is a continuous process, and we'd best be about it with all our heart, might, mind, and strength. Therein is my evidence. It's called putting faith to work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
it appears your objection wasn’t actually objection.
Concession? You sure like to read between lines that are not there. My #119:
Ignored for good reason. As I said, the SS Act, enacted in 1935, and to take effect in payout as of 1942, did not anticipate the explosive increase in population following a war that did not exist in 1935, and its successful conclusion by the Allies. Further, as I already said, by 1985, we realized the SS accounts were not taking in sufficient funds to accommodate that increased population rate, but Congress has never fully corrected the issue. Yes, SS funds should be left alone, but they should have also been Congressionally augmented.
Your reply:
We’re not talking about Congress withdrawing money from the ss fund.
"We" who? You and your sock puppet? Congress acts by non-action by pre-empting money that should go into the SS funds, and only they can do it. My argument in a nutshell. That you fail to see the nuance of robbery by their lack of action is entirely on you and your puppet.
Between you and me; always best to google your argument before it’s pointed - you pick up more errors before people notice that way.
There happens to be a better source than Google, but I'll let you find it on your own. I mean exactly what I say, and often do it in nuance. I am a writer by profession, after all. The failure to capture nuance just means you do not read, you skim. That's on you, too. Go pick on someone who is at your speed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Who says God stopped speaking with Biblical uttering? That places limits on God, and we, certainly, have no authority to do that.
The Genesis creation account refers to multiples in the creation process:, specifically in the creation of man " in our image" Gen 1: 26
Yes, there are plentiful verses that advise that we worship no other gods but God, our Father. But that does not discount that there are others with whim he associates, who are the progenitors of other people not of this earth, as I am certain our Father has also populated other earths like ours. That I owe them no allegiance does not say they do not exist.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Reply:
Re-read my conclusion of #140, buddy. It's already explained. This is parental territory. That they abstain is the problem that is not properly corrected by the institution of education.
"Not that parents are all good teachers; they're not. But if children cannot trust parents to guide them, society is in trouble, and it is."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Ignored for good reason. As I said, the SS Act, enacted in 1935, and to take effect in payout as of 1942, did not anticipate the explosive increase in population following a war that did not exist in 1935, and its successful conclusion by the Allies. Further, as I already said, by 1985, we realized the SS accounts were not taking in sufficient funds to accommodate that increased population rate, but Congress has never fully corrected the issue. Yes, SS funds should be left alone, but they should have also been Congressionally augmented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Hamlet will die no matter what.
Yes, as will I, and all of us. However, we necessarily reduce, or expand the means by which death comes to pass. I am pretty certain I have eliminated death by falling from an airplane due to a failed parachute because I have never worn one, and plan never to do so. Many other examples of the myriad ways to die that are possible due to my decisions to avoid those circumstances. Hamlet made choices, too. One of them ended his life, by association with the wrong people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Firstly, God created Heaven
Did God create his heaven, or ours? Genesis does not tell us. It does tell us there are multiple gods, however. Considering that string theory allows for the potential that the universe operates in cycles of expansion [from a big bang?] to contraction, in repeated cycles over timelessness, or, eternity, if you will, and that our God is a product of generations of gods before him, perhaps one of his Fathers created the heaven our Father now inhabits. Just so, as we are able to attain godhood, we will create the heaven our children will inhabit, distant from now into the future... and so on.
ASo, perhaps the "heaven" of "heaven and earth" as described in Genesis is a more local phenomenon than the entire universe., such as is suggested by Genesis, since the sun, moon and stars that volume describes are to be used for our "day from night, and times and seasons, and days and years." [Gen 1: 14] Not very many stars out there are used for those purposes for us on Earth, are they?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I don’t know how it’s possible to engage with someone who clearly is not arguing from a position of good faith, or reality.
This appears to be an issue you're having with several people, which, given the similarity of your "I don't know..." conditions, appears to be an issue closer to home than to any of us. Just sayin'...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Are you able to think beyond the end of your nose?
Congress has not acted to revise the system, thus leaving less accumulation of SS payouts
Therefore,
that the government has continuously robbed from the contributions for other purposes
because without having legislated changes to the SS contributions, Americans are taxed higher rates to pay for hair-brained entitlement schemes, allowing us less disposable income without contributing more to our individual SS accounts, either. Therefore, robbery. And which does not clearly contradict what I said at first.
Right, I did not ask math questions, but mention ]ed them because you did not make the above calculations, yourself to realize that Congress is to blame for the current SS shortfall mess. Stop accusing me of anything and think through what's been going on for over 30 years, particularly considering that the whole SS program is not much more than double that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Heaven is a place, there is no place that is eternal.
Change is what makes eternity bearable.
Nice rebuttal of your own argument. These statements do not agree, because your first premise implies that there is no change to a place, yet your second implies change must occur. I submit your first premise is incorrect, while the second has merit, except that it is not merely bearable, but glorious. What makes you think eternal things, including places, cannot change? The idea of perfection does not imply that perfect things cannot change; it just is always change for the better. Continuous improvement exercised to its ultimate capability, because the change is not random, but planned, organized, and executed perfectly.
This is not to say that what can be created [I prefer the term, "organized"] must also be perfect. That, I believe is a fallacy, else God would created us as perfect beings as originally organized. No, we perfect ourselves, with his assistance, should we choose to listen to him and obey. The other fallacy is that creation is a finite act that began and ended. I do not believe that. I believe creation continues to this day by change. Evolution, as it were. Imperfect evolution, for now, in mortality, but perfect evolution in immortality. Eternal change, but always improvement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
if you completely change the definition of robbery to something that is completely different from robbery -
As you like to accuse, so I must to you: explain the math.
Boomers began being born in 1946. They began retiring, less those who retired early, in 2011, at 65. Congress knew as of 1985, 26 years before Boomers began retiring, that the system would be endangered unless they acted to update the system. To date, they have failed. A failure that continues to fail, 36 years later. Congress has not acted to revise the system, thus leaving less accumulation of SS payouts. What would you call it? That I call it robbery is not a traditional view, because robbery would typically mean the money was their in the first place to rob. Effectively, Congress has prevented the money from being there, a robbery of principle, a take-back of a promise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
But they haven’t…
That's what some people think. Wrong. The truth is, the robbery has been indirect, not direct. No, Congress does not really have sticky fingers greedy for cash, but they do have malaise of purpose. That is, Congress has know for about 35 years that the SS funds would have a future shortfall if they did not act to update the entire system to adjust retirement age, investment portfolios, and/or contributions, but they have failed to act over those 35 years. Net result: less in reserves than there woulds be had they acted then. Meaning the shortfall is still ahead. Meaning that Congress has effectively ignored Peter while paying Paul [with more and more expensive spending schemes, i.e., wasting their time; an identical bad outcome that can be squarely blamed on Congress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m not going to explain basic maths to you.
I note you have ignored that the SS funds, which should have been left alone, have been robbed for years - a couple of generations - by Congress to fund other spending programs they love to enact. The program as designed should have been self-sustaining, and would have been but for robbery, in spite of boomers. Boomers created more contributions, too. Easy to ignore, I know, because everyone piles on boomers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
And while the labor force was at its historic maximum before Covid, contributions were also at an increased level. The Biden admin is still about 4M jobs down from that max level. It doesn't help that he shut off the XL Pipeline and Anwar just to beg Opec to increase production. Production of oil and nat gas that is dirtier than ours. And I thought climate change was the greatest existential threat to us, according to that same Biden. Guess not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
My understanding:
1. Heaven is actually a realm of multiple kingdoms, not a single place, each geared to the relative success of people to be obedient to God's law. Thus, we will be stratified by judgment, but all kingdoms, will be more glorious than Earth is now.
2. We will all resurrect with physical, but perfect bodies at roughly our prime in mortality; about 30.
3 & 4. Hell is in outer darkness wherein no light exists, and which will be miserable in the extreme, but not really a place of fire and brimstone, just a place of utter and complete disappointment and lack of progress. Satan's domain. The difference is, however, that while people who will be in Hell are still resurrected, physical beings, those bodies will be of no advantage to those peopple because there will be no ability to continue to progress, and they will have power over Satan, who remains a spirit only.
5. Heaven is eternal. Time, in effect, is meaningless. In heaven, we will continue to learn and progress and have the opportunity to become3 like God, being gods and goddesses, ourselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
The way social security works is that you pay in
Nice, in principle, but, you ignore three things:
1. Employers pay into each employee's SS account a matching sum each month to what each employee contributes, which doubles the payment in, and this was established when the Social Security Act of 1935 was enacted. Plus, the law established that payments would being as of July 1, 1937, and payments out of the accrued payments in would not begin until 1942, making a total of five years of preliminary payments in before any payout began.
2. The system first established worked, and still works, much like an investment in a life insurance policy in which contributions in would accrue dividends folded back into the account, increasing the total fund account to payout upon retirement, while the remaining balance in the account continued to accrue interest.
3. With the addition of employers' matching contribution, overt a career, the SS payout is almost entirely funded by employees and employers, plus interest earned, so there was no reason for the funds to deplete, except that the government has continuously robbed from the contributions for other purposes which, if the federal government remained a small enterprise, which it should, and not expand its entitlements, which S.S. is not, by the way, there would continue to be sufficient for payout.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/35actii.html#Method which contains the text of the Act.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
At least he admitted it. Biden, on the other hand, who doesn't know [ ] fill in the blank, doesn't know it.
Otherwise, from "The Prophet" - He that knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child. Teach him. He that knows not, and knows not that he knows not is a fool, shun him.
Created:
Posted in:
Since no one else will: Congratulations to the Atlanta Braves, and a blunt, desewrevd farewell to Stacey Abrams. You will recall that in the midst of a successful season, even at the midpoint of the season's All Star game, Abrams, virtually single-handedly, forced the MLB, strictly for political reasons, over new election laws in GA, to move the All Star game, a game that also featured a tribute to Hank Aaron, but not in his home park, to Denver. Just desserts that the Braves brought home the World Series title. As for Abrams, and the MLB for caving to her demands [and who is Stacey Abrams, anyway, but a failure?] she belongs on the scrap heap of failed political enterprises.
I'm not at all a Braves fan, but a job well done deserves recognition.
Created:
Posted in:
Anyone with an open mind may read the forgoing posts and judge whether, as Ram charges, that I have argued dishonestly, or have merely offered a conflicting opinion to his regarding my assessment of free will's superior ability, and Ram's assessment of determinism. Opposition is not the equivalent of dishonesty, much as Ram argues that it must be since I disagree with his assessment.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Trump's grandfather, Friedrich, came to America nearly 30 years before WWI, becoming a real estate investor.
Trump was not the cause of 300,000 deaths; the Covid virus was, which Trump attempted to limit exposure to Americans by imposing inbound travel restrictions, which Biden called unnecessary. More deaths have occurred in US in 2021 than in 2020, but I notice you avoid comment on that against Biden. Convenient, but inaccurate.
Any more inaccuracies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
ignoring everything I’ve said.
The most valid statement made in that excessive verbosity. A fitting conclusion.
That you do not acknowledge the very clear difference between direct argument and rebuttal sufficiently ends any further need to say anything more.
That you continue to argue for a theory that, frankly, implies limited potential of human imagination by your physics laws, which are not immutable, sufficiently ends any further need to say anything more.
That you, by adherence to a limiting theory, cannot see that you argue for limitations, and that they are yours, sufficiently ends any further need to say anything more.
"Merely this and nothing more,
Quoth the Raven 'Nevermore.'"
Created:
Posted in:
Biden was the single least left-wing candidate on the whole fucking Democratic Party candidate board
Very true. Biden is no Progressive, let alone a Socialist. However, that latter brand is what is leading him by the nose, because Biden truly has no core, he's as malleable as soft clay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Two posts, one verbose in the extreme, and, therefore, TLDR, frankly, that both display an utter ignorance of additional styles of argument, traditional in debate, but informal and still a feature in a public forum. I speak of a secondary method of argument: the rebuttal, in which the form is one of discrediting another's direct argument rather than argument in support of one's own position. Simply put, I'm attacking your argument of the alleged ability to "read" peoples' thoughts as evidence that determinism guides thought, not free will. I have demonstrated that your own source debunked the notion of detailed thought-reading at all, whether or not any particular "force" is at work. Since this is your only cited reference in support of your determinism, I declare it a failed argument, becuase everything else you have offered, including the base theory of quantum physics of particles, forces, fields...
Rebuttal, my friend, has a place even in informal forum discussion.
I repeat an earlier statement from my #18:
You have offered all but the most pertinent activity; the decision process, alone, once the review of all factors considered is complete, and which certainly has physical, measurable attributes, but the measure of those attributes does not include an exact measure of the processes' resulting action, else one would not be able to display a repeated experience-stimulation with a varied pattern of resulting action, which humans demonstrate all the time. And, the fact is, by those measurement techniques, the data collected, alone, does not indicate with any accuracy what decisive action will be rendered. The physical, organic process you outline simple does not include an outline of the decision made; that must wait for observation of the individual's action. We can measure that thinking/decision processes are in play, but not the decision, itself.
And my #58:
Show me how thought is a physical entity. Just show me.
So far, these challenges have failed to be met.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MonkeyKing
As a perfect father he would never abandon Christ.
One of the concerns I believe is a misconception is this idea that God is omnipotent, and perfect, which I believe he is. However, I do not think he always acts omnipotently if the occasion does not warrant it. For example, being perfect, one might expect that the entirety of his creation was perfect, when, clearly, it is not. We are the best examples of that, because we clearly are not perfect. So why does anyone think we should be, now, if God is truly God? It is really the same question as that which we pose when we are faced with a personal tragedy - why did God allow that to happen? If he were truly God, I would not be facing this suffering and loss. That thinking is, first, arrogant, and second, misunderstanding our purpose here, not to mention the purpose of Christ's atonement, which is infinite. Our purpose here is to learn and grow; to become perfect, eventually, but to suffer hardship as challenges to our faithfulness during the course of our mortal lives. We must recognize that usually, we are the cause of our own suffering by making poor choices of thought and action. We were given free agency, but must use it to learn how to be more obedient. Not that we will avoid suffering, but because we can learn how to overcome these challenges and not be swayed to blame God, or worse, dismiss him as irrelevant because we thin he should coddle us like children.
As for Christ feeling forsaken, for his personal sacrifice to be completely successful, he had to endure the extreme of his suffering with no assistance from God the Father. This was Christ's mission, alone, relative to the atonement. Only he, by himself, a perfect, sinless man, could satisfy the demand of ultimate justice that he, alone, pay the price of sin, suffering, disappointment, and sorrow that would beset all of us. It was not a heartless, forsaking God who withdrew, but oone who know this was on Christ's shoulders, alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I'll note for the record that my brother is a radiologist, and reads these scans all the time. I note in your source that only one example of a scan was offered of someone thinking about gossip, spirituality, and a screwdriver. Do you think the scans of other test subjects would be identical to these? As it happens, according to my brother, no, they are not identical. Peoples' thoughts truly are their own, individually. Professionals are able to see trends that allow them to diagnose properly, but if it were truly that easy as demonstrated by 60 Minutes' guests, a burger-flipper should be able to read and diagnose these scans. Nope, takes a professional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Let’s first start by pointing out that you absolutely no evidence, argument or justification for this claim - it’s completely made up, as there is absolutely no direct or indirect evidence that anything non physical happens in your brain, or can even exist.
Yes, let's. For example, though you have claimed to have offered scholastic sourcing to support your determinism, I find in review of this thread that you have addressed me on 22 posts, only one of which has a cited reference, and that referring to the CBS show, "60 Minutes," with Leslie Stahl reporting on FMRI "mind reading" in 2019.
Within that article, a throwback to 2009 is offered, in which FMRI was said to "potentially show what a human being is thinking." Potentially, not absolute, therefore, just theory.
Well, the article says test subjects were told to think about gossip, spirituality, and a screwdriver, then "read" the FMRI scan, saying, effectively, see, they're thinking about gossip, and spirituality, and a screwdriver. However, if the subjects had not been told, prior to the scan, what to think about, would they know what the thinking was? Apparently, not.
After all your hype, and 60 Minutes, the conclusion of the 2019 reference? When asked by Stahl if out thoughts were truly no longer our own, the guest said, "I think it will be technically impossible to invade peoples' thoughts." Still no more than potential, and perhaps a little less.
Oops. What a load of of a strawman; your favorite word, which you succumb to, yourself.
Meanwhile, would you like to review what I've offered as source material to support my argument?
I thought not.
I know you said you do not typically cite sources in Forum, but maybe it wouldn't hurt your argument to do so, because trhis doesn't cut it. Maybe you should be certain your source supports your argument rather than concluding it doesn't fly. At least, not yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Why would I be there? I'm a water sign, and the vessel is mine. Don't see your name on the manifest. Sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
If psychics were not true charlatans, and actually had the ability to read others' thoughts, why do they ask questions of their subject before "revealing" their understanding of that person's thoughts? That's not psychic ability; that's just superlative interview skills. Would determinism save them from their folly, let alone the subject for believing in psychic thought-reading? We're dumb enough, most of us, to reveal more than we think to a skilled interviewer, and then are amazed how they reveal our alleged secrets. And we [I've never consulted one] actually pay these people, when our silence, alone, when asked, would foil them. The true psychic can read silence, but there are damn few of them around. So much for horoscopes, which depend entirely on fixed points in space at any given time, but only from an Earth perspective. Are Vulcan horoscopes on Earth valid? Probably not, but neither are those offered by Earthlings to Earthlings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
That’s called “begging the question”. you’re just asserting that there is a difference with no basis on fact.
You clearly do not know how to distinguish the thought process, which I agree can be measured, and the content of a thought. I'm saying what cannot yet be measured is the content of thought, the information in a thought. https://sapienlabs.org/measuring-a-thought/. "What is its relationship to information? Must a thought contain information?"
With a neuroscientist asking that question, and neither of us are that, yet can also ask the question, the answer appears to not be forthcoming, yet. So, no, thought content of a person is not yet measurable and definable by another person. Period. Don't throw your typical bomb; it's a dud.
Either the thought content does not reside within the brain, and all of its anatomy, or, the measurement of thought content is a test whose parameters currently escape our knowledge. Only be asking a person to reveal their thoughts is the current question answered. Unfortunately for you and determinism, that person enjoys freedom of speech, which includes the right to remain silent, in spire of inquiring minds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
doesn't tend to play as well in the suburbs as it does in the universities.
Gee, I wonder why.
You may recall in the 1984 "Ghostbusters," the Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray characters have just lost the university grant in paranormal studies. Murray is nonchalant, much like Biden; Ackroyd more realistic. He understands who live in the burbs, and who hide in the towers of academia; "In the private sector, they expect results."
Therein is everything you need to know about the failure of Biden policies. Show me a positive result for 9 full months of "Being There" [a flick with Peter Sellers] by Joe Biden. If you've never seen that one, Joe Biden is actually portrayed by two characters: Seller's, the gardener, and Jack Warden, playing the clueless President.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I do recall giving you was an example of using an FMRi to read someone’s mind - proving thoughts are manifest in the physical brain
I ignored it because the statement is ridiculous. I have previously cited such an article - who knows, it may be the same one - in another thread, indicating that the measurement is not the manifest of thoughts, themselves, but that thinking is taking place. There's a huge difference; kind of like the difference between premature effectuation and real learning that can be acted upon. There is no evidence demonstrated, yet, that thoughts, let alone the mind, itself, is resident in the brain. It is a measurement of the process, not the manifest details of the material of thought. I'm surprised you confuse the two, and argue the point.
Otherwise, as usual, TLDR. Verbosity may not be scholarship
Created:
-->
@thett3
Good question.
My best answer is that no one owns these threads, particularly not the originator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I answer all salient points and provide a substantive justification of the claims I’m making
Justification? I've seen your opinion stated every which way, but I'll agree it's attempted to be justified when I see more than just your verbosity. let's see substantive source material in agreement with your opinion. You're a software engineer, not a physicist, and not a scientist, nor a cosmologist, nor a medical doctor. I've cited representatives of all those disciplines. You?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
you just admitted to being proud of arguing in bad faith and fusing falsehood with genuine historical fact...
No, you have completely jaded what I said. I said I write and publish fiction. I do. But my fiction has so much historic fact in it, it is difficult for readers to find the crossover. That's fiction, and every book of fiction I write contains the following disclaimer as the first words seen when the book is opened: "[Book Title] is a work of fiction..." My challenge in writing a successful fiction is that the suspension of disbelief is alive and well; the fiction is believable, in spite of the disclaimer. Now, you can read my fiction, and think you're reading history, and I cannot help that; it's entirely the reader's decision to accept the fiction as fact.
My argument in this thread, that humans have and use free will, and not determinism, is a solid opinion argued in good faith, not bad. I firmly believe in the concent as true, and that, also, is in. good faith. Do not blend my work with my thinking in this thread and charge that it is given in bad faith. The claim is bad faith on your part that you cannot see the difference. That's entirely on you, my friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Absolutely - if you assume decisions made in a fictional book are free will - then free will exists.
You're in my territory, now - writing fiction. Look up the implication of "suspension of disbelief." My particular style of fiction, recognized by some readers, is that in my arena of historic fiction, I weave the history and fiction so closely together, readers are not certain, with detailed study, where the history ends and fiction begins. Funny how I can be so brief, while you write a bible.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yeah, I should have included DR in my #41 post
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
More likely that they voted against Democrats than for Trump
Yeah, even Dems voting against a Dem, which does not bide well for Biden, and he may end up bidding farewell sooner than he thinks. He certainly bid farewell to the climate meeting, didn't he? According to him, the most serious, existential threat to us in our time... and he slept through it. Yeah, real concerned, isn't he? It's not even funny, anymore. He's a pathetic loser.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
@ILikePie5
I find the argument you're having a bit absurd, talking around the issue of when a federal officer can be impeached, with neither of you consulting the source. The Constitution tells all, and rather simply. Article I, section 2, clause 5 says only that the House has the power to impeach, and no other body. Article I, section 3, clause 6 declares that only the Senate tries cases of impeachment, and clause 7 that "judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."
Seems clear that any former officer is not impeachable, nor triable in a case of impeachment, nor, certainly, anyone who is dead, whether they died in office, or not. If they died in office, they have been removed from office, and are no longer eligible to hold a subsequent office, so all that impeachment and trial can do has been accomplished by other means. This clearly makes impeachment a political, not a legal act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Ramshutu
you need to consider memories to be included in brain structure,
But our resident self-identified software engineer [Ramshutu, #146] distinguishes software and hardware, and I would distinguish brain structure [tissue & chemistry] from mind and thought, considering software as the mind/thought, and hardware as the brain tissue and chemistry. While I will acknowledge that conditions of brain structure and chemistry have their effect on thought and decision-making, I do not agree that hey are the only influences on those processes, no do I accept that the result of thought and decisions are determinist in nature. And, Hamlet expresses that very idea in Act III,i by saying, as I previously cited, "That patient merit of the unworthy takes, when he himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin?" Any unfamiliar words no longer in the current common lexicon, [thgere are two just in that short offering] but certainly in use in the early 17th century when Hamlet was written, should clarify if consulted. Hamlet is not depending on stars, or universal particles, or anything else you guys push forward for explanation of his thinking process. It is him doing the thinking by his own wits.
Created: