3RU7AL

No. At least I don't think so. Why would you think that?

What claim specifically about "Adam and Eve" were you wanting me to answer?

What claim specifically about "400 years of Hebrew slavery in Egypt" do you want me to answer?

What claim specifically about "4million people and livestock wandering in a wilderness for 40yrs." do you want me to answer?

I suggest that reality is objective, almost by definition. Reality is the state of things as they are, not as we imagine them to be.

What is evident is that a foreign servant can leave.

He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

Yes, the Bible condems chattel slavery.

People measure things because measurements provide useful information about reality..If reality was wholly subjective, then people would never agree on measurements, and things like houses and cars would never get build.

Sure but don't confuse that with an objective reality. Your view of gnostic just means category, my view means objective reality. 

: ) I mean I'm a genuine proponent of that form of government, not just a patriotic observer. 

The true nature of the soul has no gender identity and neither does God. The only aspect of our experience that identifies us with gender is our physical parts at birth. Religious people aren't aware why souls stuck in male or female bodies wish to express themselves as the opposite gender. Reincarnation plays a huge role is this phenomenon. Sometimes a soul leaves the physical world by accident, too early or whatever...since the soul has no gender it can take on either form, both male or female and mostly it's the nature and attitude of the soul that dictates which form it takes on. But because of Karma the soul can inhabit either bodily form due to what it needs to learn from the choices it has made. Since the soul keeps and retains all it's experiences in it's conscious awareness that exists beyond the physical form it can come back within another gender role and still have the desire to express itself in female or male form, even though it has a definitive role. Of course the Creator doesn't really care lol, it's religion and fundamentalism that make this expression evil or bad. In reality that soul is neither, it's just wanting to express itself beyond the physical role because their awareness is beyond the physical body. They may not know why, but they feel they have a more direct connection with the other role. 

Heretical beliefs?? I don't care and that's irrelevant to the truth of the matter. 

I'm a pretty staunch proponent of republican federalism (by the people, for the people with checks and balances), rule of law, and respect of property rights.  

I would tend to think left wing (libertarianism) is socialism, which opposes individuality.

Conservatism isn't libertarianism, although liberty is an aspect of American conservatism, and I'm specifically referencing conservatism as differentiated from neoconservatism, which I take to be more invasive or imperialistic in general.

I mean this "the holding of political views that favor, free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas"

Old school conservatism pretty much says that my house is my house and your house is your house.

He needs to eat more food to maintain such a body shape. Has to workout harder and for more time if muscular etc.You also need to realise that when it's at the general manager level, they realise there's no one further up than the police/media to fight with or via. With her there was still the hope that even if they completely fucked it up with her they could make it work with the general manager.I have seen women tame beasts that men like that really pissed off but ultimately there is a link between being masculine and staying calm in aggressive scenarios, so I won't deny on balance that fits the correct stereotype.

There is no such thing as passive intimidation.

So Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Dogmatic whereas Protestants are Gnostic, if we take Christianity?

No, that's where you're wrong. All religions are gnostic and scripture-based in their own way. If Islam was not 'gnostic' as you put it, everyone would be using the ISIS-chosen lines on top of the Saudi-Sharia-Law ones too yeah? The only reason there's decent, peaceful Muslims is they are not following the dogmatic teachings of the Qur'an and Hadith.Similarly with Christianity and Judaism, they evolve with time but with Islam it is actually impossible to be pleasant and peaceful to non-believers and sinners if you're going to properly follow the scripture.

Just because a model provides close approximations in the short term does not mean it matches reality,

most especially if there is another model that makes better estimates.

The Copernican model make much better estimates.

the trajectory of an object relative to that frame of reference is objective.

Any observer in any frame of reference will observe the trajectory,

No, subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." If has nothing to do with a frame of reference. Your frame of reference, in the Einsteinian sense, is not a matter of opinion.

Depends on the frame of reference, of course.

But the speed and trajectory relative to a frame of reference is an objective fact.

What is the exchange rate of this "steem dollar/token"? It doesn't necessarily have to be to the dollar, but to a basket of various online goods. From what I gathered, the "steem dollar" is worthy only a "steem dollar."

So consider these my closing remarks

as we've now come full-circle: everything you [COMMUNICATE ABOUT YOUR] experience is inextricably tied to the abstracts you ascribe them.

In order to substantiate your posit of an "actual reality" you must be able to control for the portion of your experience which is independent from abstracts.

That is, you separate it, you isolate it, and you observe its behavior.

That means no Science, no Math, no Language, no Logic, no Sensations, no Thought--because as soon as you think about it, you're subjecting it to the "bias" of your imagination/abstraction.

What is it you'll experience then? "Something" you're able to neither communicate nor rationalize.

Hence, it would be epistemologically insignificant.

You're unwittingly stating that there's a significant difference between abstracts and an experience rationalized by abstracts. I am here to tell you: no there isn't.

The irony is that abstracts dictate your distinctions: "reality" vs. "imaginary" (scientific veracity -- concept); "truth" vs. "falsehood" (logic -- concept.) 

Furthermore, your argument operates on a non sequitur.

Your analogy doesn't suffice and demonstrates your lack of understanding of my argument.

ie that 'the truth' varies from place to place!

It is objectively true from any frame of reference that you threw the ball to your fried.

Back to the revolution example. I would argue that the frame of reference is implicit in the definition of revolve, which means to orbit. Object A and object B orbit each other if they move in an elliptical path around their common center of mass. Implicit in this definition is that the elliptical path is relative to the common center of mass; The center of mass itself may of course be bobbing and weaving through space relative to other objects, but even if your frame of reference was one of those objects, you would still observe object A and object B orbiting each other.

Semantics are not really necessary here.

I don't subscribe to notions of "reality" and "imagination."

I think you do, given that you manage to get through each day.  When you wake up tommorow, will you eat a real breakfast or make do with imagining having breakfast?   If the latter, why not stay in bed and imagine the whole day...?

Theology is merely data.As is Dogma.Both are generated from within the human computer and do not occur externally.

Now, do you believe there is an important distinction between TRUTH and FALSEHOOD?

Rather than lead me through a maze of yet to be contextualized queries, might we skip to the point?

In that light, the earth-centred view is certainly not correct - our planet (and we on it) are not the hub around which everything revolves (literally and figuatively).  

A valid reality exists despite a general agreement.

Actually, to be precise, the Earth and Sun each revolve around their common center of mass. Because the Sun is so much more massive than the Earth, the Earth-Sun barycenter is actually inside the Sun, very close to the center.

...no, I don't believe there's an important distinction between that which you call "real" and that which you call "imaginary."

You experience raw sensory input (like an infant) BEFORE you understand the concept of "existence".

What about this isn't abstract? You state that an infant experiences raw sensory input before understanding the concept of existence, but how do you discern this independent of your abstracts? Is any of this information indicative of a substance independent of your representation? In order for one to do this one must isolate the abstract and that which isn't abstract; and thus far, you've only attempted to do this by arguing semantics--an abstract. Even when we speak of physical senses and the experience of sensation, what is "sensation" without conceptual contextualization? How does someone know that they're doing something different with vision, audition, gustation, olfaction and somatosensation independent of the abstracts? They don't because sensation (or sensory input) is abstract in and of itself. 

The map is not the territory.

This analogy doesn't suffice. Your argument essentially amounts to "your notions of that which you see, isn't the same as that which you see." Except your notions rationalize that which you see. 

I think it's always a good idea to ask youself if an argument is over concepts or the words used to describe them.

Were we discussing concepts? Or is there no distinction between the aforestated and this: