949havoc

To learn to to administrate a heavenly kingdom, which is likely a lot different from any earthly kingdom ever established. You think heaven runs the way we do, now? Good joke.

Gross and net improvement: in the bowl, and the bowl is empty.

Gross and net worsening: in the bowl, and it is overflowing, because Biden's porcelain, unfortunately, is not big enough to take a dribble, let alone the full stream. In Biden's case, an old man's dribble.

The guy is simply not worth the pot to piss in.

He is not yet here. We will know it when it happens. I agree; it is close at hand. However, I personally believe that it is not known to us when it will occur because it is a big secret only God nows, but that there is need to have a sufficient number of people prepared, ready, and availably equipped to bear the necessary administration of the kingdom of heaven on their shoulders because Jesus is not going to administrate by himself. Did he ever but for the one essential act of his mission: the atonement? He, alone, could do that and no other to help. But administration of the kingdom of heaven will require many, many people, but they have to know what they're doing. Qualification for the job; simple as that. I guess there are not enough, yet.

We'll know when enough of the people utter the words sincerely offered in the Lord's prayer: "...thy kingdom come..." That's not a wish, as most people pray, wishing for blessings not really deserved, yet. As Jesus demonstrated when he said, "After this manner, pray ye..." Prayer ought to be a positive statement of agreement that we need to change our hearts, and be about changing them, not wishing they be changed by some magic mumbo-jumbo. We have to say, "Lord, I'm ready, willing, and able to serve in the kingdom. See my heart, See the mighty change you have allowed to happen in me. I'm ready." When enough people can do that, I think the lord will come. To the faithful, the Lord will not come as a thief in the night, but at mid-day when we are awake and alert, and full of joy at his coming because we've been expecting him, prepared for him, and knowing he will come.

Is truth logic? Yes. You misunderstand my definition of faith, which amounts to much more than mere belief. The latter may be your definition, but not mine.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11: 1

"Now as I said concerning faith - faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore, if ye have faith, ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Alma 32: 21

Faith must lead to truth, or it is not faith, but mere belief. There's a difference, and it is palpable if applied correctly. It is most akin to the sense of touch, but it is internal, as if the spirit within us, recognizing truth when it is heard, because it has heard it before from God, himself, meeting the conditions set forth in the following verses, lets us know by touching our inter-physical body self. Tat's the best way I can explain it, as I have had this experience on many occasions.

Where in this string have I c/p from Wiki? Don'r assume because most use Wiki exclusively that I limit myself to Wiki. I do use it on rare occasion, but not as a rule. It says of itself that it is not reliable. 

Yes, real divinity

There's a wide world of research available out there. Go find it.

not my argument.

Our physical bodies are nade ofd star stuff, yes, but we're more than physical bodies. The spirit is of divine origin, and that is our destiny, as well.

Determinism: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. 

This site is both a debate site and an open discussion forum. They each have exclusive and shared users. Most of us, I'd say, use both, and the games forum is both for playing and for discussion. I'm no gamer, so its a useless section to me, but, there are many avid gamers on this site, and I'll leave the space to them. No skin of my bones, so I simply don't care. 

Because the scriptures tell us so, such as Genesis:  " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."  [1: 26]

God is not so vain as to need to use the mortal royal "we," God is speaking to other gods, participating in creation. Add to that the clues, also in Genesis, that the creation is not of the entire universe, but a more local setting, where specific lights are created to be used specifically by Earth for her "times and seasons, and days and years" {1: 14] and lights to rule the day and night [sun & moon] [1: 15, 16]

Additionally, because of this specific creation, I believe other gods have participated in creating other regions of the universe, and continue to do so.

The extremes, no doubt, are multiplied many fold because there is not just one creator. They are legion.

So, Zuckerberg at least admits that his industry has a problem, but he throws up his hands and asks Congress to fix it. Has he learned nothing but how to manipulate a face? Ask Congress to fix anything, the only guarantee is that it will take more than a generation just to start the serious conversation among themselves.

This is clearly a condition of "physician, heal thyself." As in, self- regulate. It is, after all, his industry, and not necessarily that of Congress. He really wants amateurs to regulate his industry? He's allegedly a smart guyt; figurer it out, and stiop worrying what it will cost to do it. It's necessary. That's what it costs. That's why Trump deregulated so much. We expect too much regulation from Congress. We need less.

Biden is proposing legislation [part of the omnibus-that-isn't $3.5T package that isn't just 3.5 that would have banks report to IRS every private individual and business money transaction, in or out of accounts, $600 or greater. I often have several of those transactions monthly, and I'm just 1 of 330M.

Also to oromagi...

You say tomato, I say tomato, short or long 'a,' we say the same

I believe that not only are science and religion on the same coin, I believe true science and true religion are the same side of a coin, and, therefore, can use either forum. 

Obviously, you do not.  That's okay.  I, unlike some, do not believe anyone should be banned from either forum for their thinking.

Biden's incompetence is continuing on its course of reductio ad absurdum. It appears he has personal problems handling any banking transactions of $600, or more. It is difficult, I'll admit, for some. Apparently for Joe, at least. For a three-year-olds, too. Granted, some grade school kids may have issues with it, but most figure it out. They realize that the difference between $10 and $600 is just a matter of scale, but the math remains the same technique. Not so, Joe. Well, that's him. Let him have IRS oversight, then, but the cost of hiring all those added IRS agents to babysit the rest of us may become a little beyond Joe Biden's "paid for" status. By a lot.

Now, I will attract all the Prog defense team for Joe. Come on ahead. This is plain nonsense, but you're good at that. so bring it.

Reading comprehension is an acquired skill, not an automatic. I discussed both socialism and communism, and pointed out the distinct difference.

Not returned to mortality, but that's not the end, is it. They will resurrect, and then, will be restored to Job. The time interval is meaningless, for eternity is far longer; infinitely longer. Don't discount the forest for the trees.

That's called a metaphor. It's linguistic excess for a purpose.

A line is defined as being without dimension, and infinite in both directions. At least it was when I went to school. Any truncated line is no longer a line; it's a ray, having an origin point, which a liner, by definition, does not have.

Paraphrasing usually misses original intent. It's the nature of editing.

You're close, and far, with. little to justify either position, but excessively DiSoRgAnIzEd. That type, for example, does not help. So. why do it?

Semantics.

Luke, yes, and also Mark 10: 17 - 31. So; they all say the same thing, effectively, and that is that the young man's treasure was inappropriately identified and placed. One lesson is that, indeed, where our treasure is, there is our heart, and it's value ought to be placed in God, and in fellow man, not on ourselves. Greed is the enemy, and some, even rich people, have it properly controlled. So, why should they sell all; they are already putting God and fellow man in a prooper, perspective, and they should continue doing so. T/hey serve the correct purpose of acquiring wealth. Why stop them? Story of Job, yeah? After losing everything, he was restored for having his treasure in the proper place.

What does truth, then, have to do with informed consent? They are not necessarily compatible, so who's tangling the thread, again?

Is the first premise of the KCA true, that everything in the universe has a cause? I do, but not in the way you would approach traditional KCA, because there is also, in the universe, no cause. They are coexistent. First, I believe the question, why is there something rather than nothing is virtually impossible to answer with the knowledge we currently have. I’m not saying it’s an impossible question, that it has no logical answer, but just that we lack the necessary knowledge, to date, to give it an answer.
 
Creation, is, perhaps, the wrong word because of its implications that something did come from nothing. I prefer the term, organizing, as in matter and energy. The Bible describes things before “creation” as “without form, and void.” Disorganized matter and energy, needing organization from chaos. If you want to put a name on it, I’d call it junkyard.Junkyards are civilization’s refuse; things that have broken down, or never were organized in the first place, yet, like the contents of some peoples’ desks. Junkyards can be anywhere, just that they are composed of chaos where order is the preferred state.
 
The universe is composed of junkyard, disorganized matter and energy, and order; organized matter and energy. Form “without form, and void,” God organized to be form, and place.
 
Is that cause, and effect? Yes. And it is order opposed to the junkyard.
 
Therefore, there is, always, chaos and order, coexistent. Therefore, there is opposition in all things, We deal with opposition by learning how to organize order from chaos. It cannot be learned without their being a means to effect organization from chaos. The means is agency, and that agency must have freedom to engage it, else there is no means to organize order from chaos. God is also a free agent.
 
Yes, that necessarily sets up an infinite regress, because this opposition of chaos and order has always existed; it had no beginning, and there is no end to it. It is, mathematically, a line, only, it is, in fact, infinite lines in all directions. There is no center to it, because there are no edges.
 
Infinite regress cannot be contemplated because no one has a pencil sharp enough to continue the regress, as if it needed to be drawn, at all. It doesn’t. We think regress must have a center, but only because we demand the pencil to illustrate it. Don’t use a pencil. Use thought. Thought drives action. It’s an eternal principle and cannot be confined to such clumsy tools as a pencil. Thought-to-action is the organizing of matter and energy in chaos. It is a process.
 
The KCA is not a completely correct principle because it demands a beginning where there is none. What happened before the Big Bang? A regression from a previous cycle of expansion and contraction of the universe. It has always done this, and always will. Chaos, and order. Rinse and repeat
 
We speak of God as the original organizer, or creator. I say, which God? There have always been Gods in infinite regress, and infinite progress. It’s an eternal family. We are one branch of that family, and the tree, of course, is, itself, infinite.

it's a better explanation than better living through chemistry, universal style. Yeah, flower-power style. Somebody just never got off the bus, still acid-heading.

it isn't conservatives who invented "democratic socialism," is it? Propaganda? TYeah, on the left. Far left/..

This is the story from Matthew 19 of the rich young man that many misinterpret as a command to all to give all they have to the poor.

Here is havoc: I say this is misinterpretation because not all who are rich are saddled by greed, and certainly few others have sufficient to have cause to be greedy. And so, the common interpretation that all should follow this advice have misunderstood the advice of the Savior, and this is why taking one verse out of context to sell an interpretation is not what it is.

Here it is. Read the rich man's response to earlier advice. "Keep the commandments," Jesus tells him. "Which?" the man replies. What, there are commandments that need not be kept? So is this man honest with himself, let alone with Jesus, when he says he has kept the commandments from his youth? I might ask him: "Which?" for he evidently is lacking the keeping.

What is his response when he is told to "sell all thou hast?" He sorrows and walks away. Why? Because "he had great possessions." But he has already implied he keeps the commandments. The greatest? To love God? The second greatest? To love his neighbor? The first, maybe, maybe not, and probably not so much. The second? Apparently not. Where is his treasure? You know; that which is where his heart is? Where is his heart? It is sorrowful, for he is asked to give his treasure, which implies that he is hoarding it; he does not use any of it to benefit others.

Would a rich person who is generous and charitable to others need to walk away sorrowful because his treasure is kept in his pocket? No. His treasure is already secured in heaven because he is generous and charitable, and is doing good to others already. Why deprive that person of his wealth that affords him his generosity? The Lord does not need to tell that person to sell all, because his treasure is not his wealth. His treasure is is love of God, and his neighbor.

That's what they call themselves, but the term, created out of somebody's butt, is worth about what comes out of it. The reality is that they know Americans will not embrace socialism, the naked word, but hang "democratic" on the front of it, they think, makes it palatable.

Look up the definition of "democracy," you'll usually encounter something like, "a system of government by the whole population, typically through representation.

That is not what progressives really want. They know that socialism isn't really what they want, either, because socialism's mantra, at least what it sells, is that ownership of property and businesses is still owned by the people, and that is somewhat palatable, too. 

What progressives really want is communism, but that is, in America, wholly unpalatable, so far, because that distinction is that government owns everything.

The problem is, once given sufficient power by socialism, political man is too greedy to be satisfied by populace ownership. They will take it the first night you're not watching. Observe, for example, how they already want to own your voting rights, specifically to prevent our maintenance of populace control.

I see, in the Green New Deal, something called "Participatory Budgeting," by which a GND government commission would "participate" in private industry budgeting. Participate? Sure, and pigs fly. "Participate" really means "occupy;" the government occupies private industry budgeting. What, pray tell, has that to do with environment?  Absolutely nothing. GND is a buzz word for communism.

So, yes, you are correct: progressivism is bad for democrats, and everybody else.

Absolutely! To say "It's paid for" implies the money is already in hand to pay. It won't be in hand unless Biden is successful in raising everybody's taxes, because that's the only way it will be paid for. I'm not in favor of raising taxes, by the way.

When God placed Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden, they were told [Gen 2: ] "...of every tree thou mayest freely eat." That's free agency. Their's, and ours, was and is the choice, to eat of all, some, or none. No determinism. God made one exception, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Not that they could not choose it, for they were free to choose, but that its choice had a dire consequence, like us telling a young child to avoid touching a hot stovetop; that it had a dire consequence. Nevertheless, they were free to choose. Even Satan told them they would not surely die [God told them they would, in the day that they ate of that tree. ] Tells us, by the way, that "day" ["yom" in Hebrew] was not just a 24-hour day, but also an understanding of a longer period of time. But,  they did eventually die because one of the things they also learned is that by eating that particular fruit, they introduced mortality into the world; they would now die, eventually.

Satan told them by eating that fruit, their eyes were opened to an understanding of both good and evil. From these, God later told them, they were also free to choose. Their actions would not be forced. "Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself," [II Nephi 2: 16]

No, determinism is false because the universe is not the creator of man. God is, and he granted us free agency, which is a law unto itself by which the universe does not operate nor understand.

To admit that we operate by determinism is defeatist and self-limiting. Argue for your limitations; they're yours. What, can't handle having the freedom your own agency? Too bad.

Up to him to say. Hint: he hasn't a clue.

Nope. What I said to Ram I say to all.

And people wonder why I say I come to bering havoc; that that is not a christian attitude. Well, Jesus did not come, the first time, to bring peace. He is peace, and he is the Prince of Peace, but we do not accept him as such, and, thereby, deserve no peace but by embracing him. He will come again and peace will follow in short order, but only for those who embrace peace because they happily choose to do so. In the kingdom of heaven, as now, no one is forced to be peaceful; they choose it, or they don't.

The devil made me do it is a defeatist attitude, protracted by all those who deny freedom of choice. I didn't make the rules, but I will profess them to my dying day.

My chemistry and the state of the universe? What a load of absolute, unmitigated bullshit defeatism! IIIII am the master if my destiny, no one and no  thing else, unless I allow it by my free choice, worlds without end. The greatest sin is to limit God. Don't do that. The second greatest sin is to limit ourselves. Don't do that, either.

Actually, I believe, we do choose to be born as physical beings. Our existence does not begin at birth, nor even at conception, but existed previously as immortal, spirit children of God, our Father, which, of course, means we also have a Mother in Heaven, a perfect, resurrected female being as is God a male. Gender has purpose, and it is not an alphabet soup. Curious that among the officially-recognized soup, there is not an M or F, isn't it? But nothing and no one, but one, in mortality was ever intended to be perfect in mortality. Perfect, because only a perfect being to offer himself as sacrifice for our sins and sorrows to meet the demands of justice. God, by design,  did not create a perfect mortality. We are intended to become perfect, by our effort to be so. Having a physical body in which our spirit would reside was always the plan; a plan that was available to all, even to Satan and his minions, who are also spirit children of God, but who rejected the plan of God, choosing to not to be born in flesh, and now are damned forever to remain spirits, forever an imperfect state. Being our distant past, our destiny is divine, to die and resurrect as immortal, perfect physical beings, as did Jesus Christ, our elder brother, the firstborn in the spirit of God, our Father, and Mother.

yes, predetermined chemistry and structure, to the effect that we walk in circles. It is also true that advocates of determinism also seem to prefer the notion of solipsism. Convenient.

Whereas, proponents of free will can easily solve the dilemma of walking in circles: get a map, and learn, by free will, how to use it.

True, but Biden & Co. declare that the bill is completely paid. By what, they do not say, but you have, and I fear that it is another fantasy as unlikely as AOC's Green New Deal, which is not green, is not new, and certainly is no deal.

And we already know taxing the "rich," alone, will not cover the expense of those new taxes. All will be touched.

Disclaimer: I am currently engaged in a debate with Benjamin regarding  free will vs determinism. As this is outside that debate, and not even in the debate section, I do not want anyone to think I am posting this as an argument in that debate. I have concluded my arguments, though not all defenses, and do not post this as either. It's something that just occurred to me. I do not want anyone to think I am attempting to influence potential voters, so, beware to potential voters.

My subject regards human nature, and that it is, curiously, and demonstrably by experimentation, the habit of people of just about any culture who are without a map, or recognizable landmarks, when attempting to walk a straight line for a considerable distance, actually tend to walk in circles. https://outdoormeta.com/avoid-going-circles-lost-in-wild/

In fact, it seems such circles can have a limited size as small as a 20-meter circumference. Why?

Well, the why is not the subject of this post. But it is a natural phenomenon we humans appear to share. What has that to do with determinism? Simply this: Determinism would have our thoughts and actions predetermined, even when those thoughts and actions have specific purpose, such as walking in a straight line.  However, the condition of such an attempt, as noted above, fails. Seems to me, if determinism were at work, why would it have us defy the object of our attempt; to walk a straight line?

The Southern Cross being "at the base of the Milky Way" is an Earth perspective and not its actual location in the Milky Way. Only from Earth is that, or any constellation, visible in that pattern. From any other vantage point, they do not appear as a cross, at all. Not to mention that constellations are not permanent patterns. Leo, for example, in 20,000 years, will appear, from Earth, to resemble a radio telescope.

Some brains, those void of even thought, act like atoms. That's a general comment, not directed to you.

Tell you what:

I'll exit when climate alarmists admit that cries of climate abuse by over-population are first in the line on the left where volunteers of self-extinction gather.

So sorry to see you go. Best wishes to you.

Nice try, but that statement ignores that:

Individuals that have already had the virus, and survived, may also have natural immunity.

Individuals who contract the virus have seen marked improvement and cure by therapeutics. Vax is not the only game in town.

Sorry, not at all a choice of mine. Nice try.

You keep ignoring my three points that a vax mandate ignores. It isn't semantics; it's the ignorance I oppose.

That is and should always by my choice. What if my own health declines after I have agreed, by choice, to donate a kidney, and I now need both kidneys. No, my withdrawal denial means another life has been valued higher than mine. No, no, no, not unless it is still by my choice and not the government. Of course, to me, government needs to get the hell out of healthcare in the first place.

I agree, but not specifically targeted.

Because I believe it is a matter of free choice, not by mandate. Is that so hard to understand?

As a matter of fact, I also believe with paid healthcare by individuals by private health insurance, if necessary - what we used to do, healthcare is also by free choice, by the way. I am not compelled to have healthcare if I don'n need it. I'm not certain anyone will have choice in having healthcare under a completely mandated healthcare for all. How, where, and by whom your healthcare is managed under medicare for all will become a crap shoot, I guarantee it, but you will be mandated to take it.

So far, no.

Entirely different thread. You're welcome to initiate it.

It's an economy of scale. The risk of a non-vaccinated person transferring Covid to another is much less than the risk of an impaired person causing harm to another in the workplace, or anywhere in a public setting where the lives of others in the arena of direct cause of harm to them is the impaired person. The reason for the lowered risk is provided in my three factors in my #47, which, again, a vax mandate does not consider as credible factors.

No, neither my #43 or #45 justify a mandate.