Total posts: 2,182
-->
@oromagi
Again, you can use your biased opinions to argue whatever you want, but in the end, you have to face the facts.
Yes, Twitter is a private company, but they gave freedom to everyone on their platform to post.
Yes, Twitter let the Government take control of their website, but as soon as the Government itself is censoring certain information from the public, then it breaks the First Amendment. Twitter could censor all they want, and it would be fine, but as soon as the Government gets involved, then it becomes a violation of the constitution.
Elon Musk has released the Twitter Files, in order to show everyone that there is corruption in our government, controlling the media for the greater good of the left.
Do you really think it is a coincidence, that all of the leftist tweets were not censored, but all of those censored tweets, was from the right?
And I'm not talking about Trump, or Giuliani's take on it or what they had to do with it. Stop trying to bring it off topic.
I am simply saying that Elon has found incriminating evidence, against Hunter Biden, and the Government. Those are the facts, and if you can't accept them, then you just simply don't like the answer you were given.
Created:
You keep spouting out ALL OF THESE CLAIMS WITH NO EVIDENCE.
So, you can say all you want, but without evidence your words mean nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Please explain in English and not......whatever that is.
Created:
Posted in:
.....Creator Godi i..e Creator God i.........i.e. Godi { * U * ) not God, is the creator concept...................space( Godi )space........................Godi{ space }Godi..........space(> time <) Godi (> time <) space..........space( /\/\/ ) Godi ( /\/\/ )space.....
What?
Created:
Posted in:
Let's say you gathered a million ideologues in a massive vault, have them all sign power of attorney, and then perfectly freeze them so that they will be preserved for all time. Intuitively, do you have a million loyal voters for all time to tip elections, or just a bunch of meat popsicles?
We'll let me ask you this. If the ideologues are staying frozen forever, then we can treat it like a coma. If someone falls into a coma for all eternity, then is that coma patient still a human, or just a meat stick, given that they will stay alive, but not viable, and would it be morally ok to kill them.
So, if the answer is it is justified to kill that person, then you would be killing a living human.
This is a tricky question.
But what I believe, is that personhood is what the definition say's it is.
"The quality or condition of being an individual person."
So, I would think that a coma patient is being a person.
I would think that personhood starts right at conception, because even a zygote right at conception, has person qualities.
In their DNA, they have qualities like eye color, hair color, body structure, skin color, how tall they are going to be, body type, etc.
And I also believe that human's ability to think and perceive is what makes personhood, because even a coma patient still has brain waves. They are still doing something with their mind.
But I don't know it is a tough question.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
You can blabber all day about what happened, but can you provide evidence?
No, I will not believe you unless you have some shred of evidence to support what you just said.
one mentally ill immigrant named Elon Musk.
Also, the richest man in the world. It seems to me that your bias on Elon Musk blinds you.
Twitter is not a public website.
Yes, it is......I could download it right now, as could you.
Let's keep in mind that the NY Post story in question was invented by the President of the United States as poltical propaganda and smear against his opponent.
Well, I mean that may be what you think happened, but I don't see any proof.
Everybody knew then and still knows now that the laptop in question was tampered with by Biden's poltical enemies and therefore unusable as a source of evidence, as well as almost certainly the same laptop Russian Intellligence was selling for $5 million in 2018.
No actually, the people who "tampered" with it, as you would say, were the ones who convicted Hunter Biden of illegal crimes. Thats not called tampering, that's called finding evidence.
It wasn't just the FBI and the CIA who said the story was obviously Russian bullshit- all professional everywhere were calling it obvious bullshit.
So, when Trump becomes president, everyone assumes it's the Russians, but when we have actual proof, then it's not the Russians?
Read the documents for yourself: the ethics board at Twitter was not worried about government pressure to supress the story. The government was not applying one ounce of pressure because the story was already wide open. No single detail of the NY Post story was not entirely public before Twitter considered suprressing the story. The ethics board was worried about promoting obviously false, probably foreign propaganda obviously manufacture by and for the Trump campaign/administration/presidency. If Twitter let the story run free, were they betraying the integrity of US elections? Were they letting Trump get away with obvious tricks. For a couple of days, the ethics board decided not to propagate the President's fake news but then CEO Jack Dorsey overrode that decision and decided they should just let Twitter talk about whatever they wanted, even if it did harm American election integrity.
Have you even done your research for this? Elon is literally releasing what he calls the Twitter Files, and it is all the coverup, and corruption that went on in Twitter. I think you should read some of those tweets. Those tweets that were deleted wasn't misinformation, but was actually real information, but it just made the Biden administration look bad. And other messages between the Government and Twitter was also leaked.... those were pretty concerning too.
Yes there is a real laptop lost in Las Vegas in 2017 with a future President's fucked up son doing a bunch of sex and drugs. Yes, Hunter took some millions of dollars from Ukrainian and Chinese interests in exchange for introductions, lobbying, the appearance of supporting Democrats. That is quite corrupt but it is not illegal and nobody has abused those kinds of family advantages more aggressively than Trump's family and Bush's family so Republicans are fat fucking hypocrites for wanting to beat their chests on that subject.
.......I mean I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that stuff is illegal.
- Giuliani almost certainly bought Hunter's laptop in Kyiv in early 2018 for $5 million dollars. Either Guiliani or the Russians added about 80% of the contents found on the laptop after Hunter's last possession and made copies of the whole drive over and over and over to wipe out timestamps and authorship. Giuliani gave the hard drive to FBI in Dec 2018 but the FBI did not fall for the obviously faked poltiical propoganda so Giuliani invented that totally unbelievable story about Biden dropping off 3 laptops with gigabytes of incriminating shit in Delaware and never coming back for them. Totally unbelievable. The Mac repair guy had a prior relationship with Giuliani and was obviously paid well for paying the story (he shut down his business and retired to Colorado a few weeks later).
Again, this is just your biased opinion. Can you at least show me some facts?
Twitter shouldn't be forced to tell obvious untruths
So, we agree.
- Don't let Elon Musk make a buck off you by pretending that he's revealing something new or brave or interesting because if you take a breath and look at the facts, it is obvious that he ain't got jack shit- he's just trying to save a platform he overpaid for while scaring off most of the good advertisers
No, you need to stop feeding into the lives of headlines, and covers of stories, and actually take a dive into the facts.
You are only listening to the story's that you want to hear.
Created:
Posted in:
Does the sole fact that we are human, define personhood, or rather is it something deeper?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
How does a lack of knowledge constitute proof of a higher being again?
How else would you explain it?
There must be something that has intellect of some sort to create all of this.
It is your choice to perceive what you want to perceive, but based off of historical evidence, I chose to believe that the creator of the universe is God.
And people like Brother D. can misinterpret scripture, and use name calling as a way of arguing, but in the end, it is the actual evidence that matters.
Created:
The First Amendment:
"The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government."
The Congress/Government is prohibiting certain information, on a public website to be censored, then that violates the first amendment.
Created:
Do you have proof of government pressure?
Why else would Twitter have government workers filtering out certain things?
If it really was Twitters choice, then couldn't they just have a Twitter worker, do those things?
No, because the government wanted to filter out the things that they wanted to filter.
Created:
- why not try thinking through your own opinion?
That is my opinion. I just found more proof of someone else thinking the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
This is a reply to everyone. I am going to bring the conversation back on topic, so we can look at the actual facts.
Time:
Time is measurable. An example of us measuring time, is called measuring spacetime.
"In the illustration, the blue surface represents a curved space, which is not ‘flat’ but is distorted by the presence of massive bodies, like the spacetime described in Einstein's general theory of relativity. In the non-flat world of general relativity, free-falling objects subject to gravity alone move along geodesics – the equivalent of straight lines in curved geometry.
The two white lines represent the geodesics along which two free-falling particles are moving. In this thought experiment, the first particle sends a light ray (orange line) to the second, which receives it and sends it back. Even though light does not have mass, it feels the effect of gravity as it moves through curved spacetime, spending energy to escape the gravitational pull of a massive object and gaining energy upon approaching it.
These energy changes translate to changes in the light frequency, so monitoring variations in the frequency of the light rays that the two particles are sending back and forth is a way to measure the curvature of spacetime between them.
This is the principle underlying the detection of gravitational waves – ripples in the fabric of spacetime produced by accelerating massive bodies. If such a perturbation passes by, it would change the curvature of spacetime between the two particles, leaving an imprint on the frequency of the light they exchange."
The two white lines represent the geodesics along which two free-falling particles are moving. In this thought experiment, the first particle sends a light ray (orange line) to the second, which receives it and sends it back. Even though light does not have mass, it feels the effect of gravity as it moves through curved spacetime, spending energy to escape the gravitational pull of a massive object and gaining energy upon approaching it.
These energy changes translate to changes in the light frequency, so monitoring variations in the frequency of the light rays that the two particles are sending back and forth is a way to measure the curvature of spacetime between them.
This is the principle underlying the detection of gravitational waves – ripples in the fabric of spacetime produced by accelerating massive bodies. If such a perturbation passes by, it would change the curvature of spacetime between the two particles, leaving an imprint on the frequency of the light they exchange."
So now we know that time is measurable.
But does Time have a definitive beginning?
This lecture by Stephen Hawking, shows how time has not been around forever, and did have a definitive start.
Now Stephen does bring up the concept of a singularity in his lecture, but a singularity is a concept used by scientists for things that they can't explain. And, it has been proven many times, that the concept of a singularity, does not exist.
"Singularities can happen anywhere, and they are surprisingly common in the mathematics that physicists use to understand the universe. Put simply, singularities are places where the mathematics "misbehave," typically by generating infinitely large values. There are examples of mathematical singularities throughout physics: Typically, any time an equation uses 1/X, as X goes to zero, the value of the equation goes to infinity.
Most of these singularities, however, can usually be resolved by pointing out that the equations are missing some factor, or noting the physical impossibility of ever reaching the singularity point. In other words, they are probably not "real.""
Most of these singularities, however, can usually be resolved by pointing out that the equations are missing some factor, or noting the physical impossibility of ever reaching the singularity point. In other words, they are probably not "real.""
"The idea of a single point of infinite density comes from our conception of stationary, non-rotating, uncharged, rather boring black holes. Real black holes are much more interesting characters, especially when they spin.
The spin of a rotating black hole stretches the singularity into a ring. And according to the math of Einstein's theory of general relativity (which is the only math we've got), once you pass through the ring singularity, you enter a wormhole and pop out through a white hole (the polar opposite of a black hole, where nothing can enter and matter rushes out at the speed of light) into an entirely new and exciting patch of the universe.
One challenge: the interiors of rotating black holes are catastrophically unstable. And this is according to the very same math that leads to the prediction of the traveling-to-a-new-universe stuff.
The problem with rotating black holes is that, well, they rotate. The singularity, stretched into a ring, is rotating at such a fantastic pace that it has incredible centrifugal force. And in general relativity, strong enough centrifugal forces act like antigravity: they push, not pull.
This creates a boundary inside the black hole, called the inner horizon. Outside this region, radiation is falling inward toward the singularity, compelled by the extreme gravitational pull. But radiation is pushed by the antigravity near the ring singularity, and the turning point is the inner horizon. If you were to encounter the inner horizon, you would face a wall of infinitely energetic radiation — the entire past history of the universe, blasted into your face in less than a blink of an eye.
The formation of an inner horizon sows the seeds for the destruction of the black hole. But rotating black holes certainly exist in our universe, so that tells us that our math is wrong and something funky is going on.
What's really happening inside a black hole? We don't know — and the scary part is that we may never know."
The spin of a rotating black hole stretches the singularity into a ring. And according to the math of Einstein's theory of general relativity (which is the only math we've got), once you pass through the ring singularity, you enter a wormhole and pop out through a white hole (the polar opposite of a black hole, where nothing can enter and matter rushes out at the speed of light) into an entirely new and exciting patch of the universe.
One challenge: the interiors of rotating black holes are catastrophically unstable. And this is according to the very same math that leads to the prediction of the traveling-to-a-new-universe stuff.
The problem with rotating black holes is that, well, they rotate. The singularity, stretched into a ring, is rotating at such a fantastic pace that it has incredible centrifugal force. And in general relativity, strong enough centrifugal forces act like antigravity: they push, not pull.
This creates a boundary inside the black hole, called the inner horizon. Outside this region, radiation is falling inward toward the singularity, compelled by the extreme gravitational pull. But radiation is pushed by the antigravity near the ring singularity, and the turning point is the inner horizon. If you were to encounter the inner horizon, you would face a wall of infinitely energetic radiation — the entire past history of the universe, blasted into your face in less than a blink of an eye.
The formation of an inner horizon sows the seeds for the destruction of the black hole. But rotating black holes certainly exist in our universe, so that tells us that our math is wrong and something funky is going on.
What's really happening inside a black hole? We don't know — and the scary part is that we may never know."
So now we have proposed that time had to of had a beginning. And the idea of a singularity, is beyond what we know and can't be proven. The very idea of a singularity breaks the laws of physics.
So, if there was not a singularity, then when did time begin?
Well using scientific data, we can assume, that time started at the big bang.
There is a lot of proof that an event, like the big bang, caused all of what we know to exist.
So, we have concluded that time had to of had a beginning, a singularity did not happen, and that the Big Bang did indeed happen.
So, from what we know about the Big Bang:
"The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation for how the universe began. Simply put, it says the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot and dense single point that inflated and stretched — first at unimaginable speeds, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.7 billion years to the still-expanding cosmos that we know today."
We only have two questions left.
What caused that infinitely hot and dense single point to come into existence?
What caused time to start?
And if no one can answer that, then there is proof of "a" higher being of some sort.
There is no other way to explain it.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR BEFUDDLED QUOTE!: "Well, Genisis one was more or less a wrap up of the whole creation process,"HUH? How can the FIRST, I repeat, the FIRST Creation story be a wrap up, meaning finalized, when we have a Genesis 2 Creation Story that contradicts Genesis 1? Furthermore, how can you even propose that it is "more or less" or a "wrap up" to begin with?! Therefore, which process is "more," and which process is "less" in the Creation Story in Genesis 1?EXPLAIN:
Well, Genesis 1 explains the whole creation story. While Genesis 2 goes more into depth of the creation of man.
Genesis 1 does include the creation of man, but Genesis 2 goes back to that part of the creation more into depth.
YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE AGAIN: "Both Genisis one and Genisis two are the same story, just one is more detailed than the other."Heads up Bible fool, how can they be the same Creation story when they CONTRADICT each other? Huh?GENESIS 1: In chronological order Jesus as God created animals first (Genesis 1:25), then He created man and woman simultaneously (Genesis 1:27)GENESIS 2: Jesus created man first, then the animals, then Eve separately! (Genesis 2:18-22) which CONTRADICTS in chronological order in Genesis 1 above! Can your inept reading comprehension decipher this simple FACT?! Huh?EXPLAIN:
Actually, the Bible only explains which "day" the creations of animals and man took place, not the order in which they were created.
God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”27 So God created mankind in his own image,in the image of God he created them;male and female he created them.28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."
Did you see that quote from the Bible?
1. YES, as shown, Jesus as God made a “suitable helper” for Adam of which in His mind, were the ANIMALS which had male and female anatomys just like Adam did! LOL! (Genesis 2:18) What the hell was Jesus thinking?!2. Why did Jesus as God “think” that creating animals would help Adam in the Garden, other than to EAT the garden’s spoils quickly? (Genesis 2:19)3. After Jesus made this BIG MISTAKE in creating animals to help Adam, FIRST, then, and only then, did Jesus come up with the idea of creating a woman named Eve to help Adam with helping him in the Garden of Eden, and with reproductive qualities that the animals had as well in Jesus first suitable helper!! WTF?4. Furthermore, why didn’t Jesus create a woman in the first place instead of the animals to help Adam because He knew beforehand that He wanted to populate the world with species just like Himself (Genesis 1:27) and since He was omniscient knowing this was the outcome that Jesus wanted! (1 John 3:20)5. We have to ask this logical question, therefore, was Jesus into “beastility” when creating animals FIRST to help Adam since they ALL had male and female anatomys? LOL!EXPLAIN THE TOP FIVE EMBARRASSING PROPOSITIONS THAT JESUS MADE AS GOD,YOU MAY BEGIN:
1.) Well, you obviously didn't see my other quote in that post, that you clearly didn't show, because it literally answers your question.
God was not trying to find a mate for Adam. He was trying to find a suitable helper to help maintain the Garden of Eden."The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."
2.) How should I know what God is thinking? He is omnipotent.
4.) Maybe because he didn't intend to make animals for that purpose.......hmmmmmmmmm.
5.) Yea.... no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If something cannot come from nothing, and there exists a something, then the only way forward is to presume something always existed. In other words, existence itself is a necessary state.If existence is a necessary state, you no longer need a God to explain it. In fact invoking God as an explanation for it is self defeating because God cannot be the cause of existice without first existing.
But how did an existing state come into existence?
I have already proved that Time had to of had a beginning.
You cannot have something (even an existing state) from nothing. Something can't just exist just based off of the laws of physics and biology that we know today.
No, they don't. Their responsibility is to explain their findings. Anyone not satisfied with what questions they were able to answer is free to set up their own experiments and set out to explain whatever they wish. But not having an explanation for something is not an explanation for something else.
Well, if they really truly believe in all of this, then they have to explain how it came to be. If they can't do that, then they have failed at that task.
Nothing in here says anything about the singularity.
Faith is not proof.
Then atheists are basing their beliefs off of no proof. You have to have a lot of faith to even believe that the big bang came from nothing.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
told Twitter to be vigilant for misinformation generated by foreign governments.And somehow you think this means they violated free speech?
No, the government, has been telling Twitter to silence certain posts on twitter, which has happened to only be conservatives who were the ones getting silenced, and most of those posts were actual information proven to be true, they just didn't make the Democrats look good.
The government didn't just ask Twitter to do this, they literally had a government worker, the same lawyer who convicted Trump of being a Russian spy, and used him to silence certain info the GOVERNEMT, not Twitter, the GOVERNMENT wanted silenced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If we haven't proven that there is an outside of what we know to be true then the thing alleged to exist there could not possibly have been proven either.
Yes, but we haven't proved that there isn't either. And how would we?
This is the part where you put faith in God.
Now let me say this:
There will never be definitive, concrete, real actual in your face evidence for the existence of God, besides the universe itself, but that helps my case even more.
If there was evidence of Gods existence that was in your face, telling you it was true, then everyone would just become Christian just for the purpose of there own safety. They wouldn't actually love God in the way he want's us too. They would only become Christian for the purpose of saving there souls from hell, and they wouldn't give two S**** about God.
You are wrong. The evidence for the big bang includes red shift, which allows us to track the distance, direction of movement, and speed of movement of light. By using red shift to track the movement of galaxies we learned that if we were to reverse it's movement and rewind the clock, every Galaxy observable would converge at a single point in space at the same time - 13.8 billion years ago to be exact.
Yes, this is just explaining evidence for the Big Bang, which I agree happened.
When scientists studied what could have caused the clusters which are now galaxies to be catapulted in such a way, they concluded that there must have been an explosion and deduced the singularity which preceded it.And then they experimented to find out if this was accurate.
First of all, which scientists, and could you provide evidence for this experimentation?
The model which they came up with showed that if this did happen there would have been cosmic background radiation leftover from the intense heat that could still be observed, so they mapped out what it would have looked like and set up an experiment at the poles to see if they could measure it. And what do you know... The map they found matched precisely to what the model predicted.None of this has anything to do with faith.
Well yes, this part has nothing to do with faith. But then they need to explain how the Big bang...…well banged.
Creation requires a creator by definition, so when you call something a creation you are just presuming at the outset that something created it which is the very thing you are supposed to be proving.
How else would creation come about?
I am asking how did everything come to be.
Something, cannot come from nothing.
So even if the universe has been infinite and forever, that doesn't cover the fact that SOMETHING had to cause it to be there. And that's the question Atheist's can't answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Well, what makes the womb such a definitive thing. Its just the same as being hooked to a machine, to help you survive. That's what I was comparing, the womb to a machine.
Personhood is something that makes us humans, different from other creatures. But what exactly defines that?
We first must answer what makes us different from animals.
So what does make us humans so much more advanced and different from animals?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There are those with fatal character flaws where one cannot think for himself unless he has authority figures to form opinions for him. So if Tucker Carlson says it's not a violation of free speech to have the government pressure private businesses to censor speech against the government, then it does not violate the constitution.Because Tucker said so.
I actually try to stay away from FOX news, because of the right wing bias it holds.
I go by the constitutional values of this country.
The fact that such a biased side of the media is laying out factual evidence for this Hunter Biden Laptop case, really shows how much the left has really failed in trying to cover up there own mistakes.
Created:
Posted in:
With the passage shown above in where Jesus ALWAYS forgives us of our sins, then there is NO INCENTIVE not to sin in the first place! WTF!
I've actually asked myself this question a lot.
Why would God want us to live without sin, if at the end we can just ask him for forgiveness and become remade?
Well the answer is the position your "heart" is in when you do this.
If you're plan is to live a sinful life, then at the end ask Jesus into your heart, and be able to enter heaven, that's not going to work.
God looks at what you actually mean when you ask him to forgive you. If you really mean it, its real love and forgiveness.
If you are only doing it for your own good to escape hell, then it won't work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
A humans biological viability outside the womb.
Well I'm not so sure about that one.
Let me ask you this. A man gets into a car crash, and he goes to the hospital, and he has to stay on a machine to help him survive. He will only be on that machine for about let's say, 9 months. This man in not viable by himself, because if he were taken off the machines, then he would die. Same concept.
Created:
I can show you evidence of this happening, yet you only deny that it is happening.
Show me some evidence of this occurrence not being real.
Created:
Posted in:
I thought this forum was to talk about how people are trying to make Jesus trans. Not to condemn people.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
You keep making these claims that it never happened, yet you have yet to show me a shred of evidence that it hasn't happened.
Try to find evidence about this topic, and you will see that you will find loads of information, on what I just told you.
Created:
Step 1: Invent a non existent problemStep 2: Take action to solve this nonexistent problem (that just so happens to come at the expense of the rights of others)Step 3: When the rights of others is defended, pretend that the defenders are actually fighting for the nonexistent problem to persistStep 4: Once told you are not allowed to violate the rights of others to solve your nonexistent problem, play the victim by claiming your rights are the ones that were actually violated.......this is literally democrats.Examples:Global WarmingLGBTQ+ AgendaWomans RightsBLMetc.
Covid
Media censorship
Just to name a couple more.
Created:
Posted in:
I am going to assume you meant singularity as the theory of one single point where some property is infinite.
Well let's take that into consideration then.
You brought up Occam's razor which actually helps my argument even more.
It takes more faith to believe that there was a singularity, than there is to believe in God.
Think about it.
Science explains the Big Bang as a single point in space, that just suddenly exploded, due to the amount of energy it held. Now some scientists will theorize the singularity as the cause of this single point in space time. But the only evidence of the singularity that we have as of right now, is the density of black holes.
I bring this back to:
When there is a creation,
There has to be a creator.
We can even prove God using the singularity. If the definition of singularity is: "a breakdown in spacetime, either in its geometry or in some other basic physical structure." then we have to ask ourselves the same question again. Where did it all start?
See time is measurable. That is what spacetime is. You could go back as far as you want in a singularity, for an infinity, but you still won't find a beginning.
Here's something to think about. We know from the bible that the reason God created us was because he wanted true love. Not forced love, but true love. What if God, created this whole universe existence, and got lonely. So, the bible starts with the big bang, which was God starting back up the universe from a Singularity.
Just something to think about.
Created:
Posted in:
I would say that to define personhood, birth isn't really a definite line we can base that assumption on, given that the vigina of a woman does not designate what personhood is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Or is birth just a vague term for you.
Created:
Posted in:
Well birth is just a baby leaving a womb. Does the passing through a vagina define personhood?
Created:
Posted in:
This push for Jesus being trans is just plain idiocy.
Instead of arguing against something that opposes their ideas and beliefs, they chose to change it merely for their own convenience.
It's just a bunch of uninformed people who are looking up random scripture, and misinterpreting it, or changing it for their own convenience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
What is your definition of born exactly.
I mean if we are trying to figure out what defines personhood, then we should go from where it starts, then when it ends.
Then from there we find a definition.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
And you are right. Twitter is a private company, and it has the right to do what it wants to.
But it becomes a violation, when the government steps in, and tells twitter what to sensor and what to keep. That is the government, censoring free speech, which is a DIRECT violation, of our first amendment rights.
Created:
There is no new information regarding the laptop story. No information has been leaked by anybody that wasn't 100% in the open two years ago.
Elon Musk literally just found out that the same Lawer that tried to get trump impeached, has been working as a filter system in twitter for all the things that the biased government didn't want out in the media.
Just happened a couple of days ago.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Step 1: Invent a non existent problemStep 2: Take action to solve this nonexistent problem (that just so happens to come at the expense of the rights of others)Step 3: When the rights of others is defended, pretend that the defenders are actually fighting for the nonexistent problem to persistStep 4: Once told you are not allowed to violate the rights of others to solve your nonexistent problem, play the victim by claiming your rights are the ones that were actually violated
.......this is literally democrats.
Examples:
Global Warming
LGBTQ+ Agenda
Womans Rights
BLM
etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You ask how the singularity came into existence presuming that something must have created it, but you don't apply that same rule to the thing you credit for creating it.
But everything coming from something is also a logical contradiction; it means the answer to why is there a something is... Something. But something cannot cause itself to exist. Another logical contraction.
There is no reason at this point to rule out the singularity as having always existed. In fact Occam's razor dictates this as our answer. We have powerful evidence there was a singularity, so there are no unnecessary assumptions there. Invoking a God comes with a plethora of assumptions, so the singularity is easily the less complex answer and therefore the most reasonable conclusion by comparison.
Very strong argument.
Thank you very much for bringing this up.
As I have stated before to Brother D., God exists outside of Time and Space.
He is omniscient. He exists at eternity.
So, if we are to talk about the start of the universe you are right. There can't be something from nothing.
Therefore, there has to be something that created that thing.
But then you say, well what created God. If God wasn't created, then it's a contradiction you would say.
But God exists outside of all we know to be physically proven true.
There is no need to be created, when you exist at eternity, a place where we don't fully comprehend.
Now to get to the rest of your argument, could you please elaborate on what you mean by singularity.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Twitter CEO Elon Musk promoted a series of tweets on Friday revealing internal documents about how the company handled a news article about Hunter Biden in 2020, controversially blocking people from tweeting and direct-messaging about it.In a lengthy tweet thread, writer Matt Taibbi said he received “thousands of internal documents” from sources at Twitter — and Musk himself tweeted “Here we go!! 🍿🍿” when the thread began. NBC News has not seen or verified those files.The thread came after Musk teased that past inner workings of Twitter would be exposed. On Monday, he said the “Twitter Files on free speech suppression” would soon be published, adding that the public has a right to know about past discussions there.Early into the evening on Friday, the thread mostly revealed deliberations both internally and externally — including with Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif. — about Twitter’s move to restrict access to the article. Khanna appeared to question Twitter’s reasoning for blocking the story.Musk tweeted in response to one of Taibbi’s tweets: “Ro Khanna is great”In response to a request for comment, Khanna said he believes the Constitution and First Amendment are “sacred.”“As the congressman who represents Silicon Valley, I felt Twitter’s actions were a violation of First Amendment principles so I raised those concerns,” Khanna said in a statement. “Our democracy can only thrive if we are open to a marketplace of ideas and engaging with people with whom we disagree.”Taibbi’s characterization of the documents amounted to a sharp criticism of how Twitter’s previous management — before Musk bought it in October for $44 billion — handled the situation and ran the company, alleging without clear evidence that it was biased toward Democrats.Many of the details released on Friday night had already been public, including the steps the company took around the New York Post article from October 2020 that alleged it had a “smoking-gun email” between Hunter Biden and a Ukrainian businessman. Still, the disclosures are all but guaranteed to roil debate about social media censorship and free speech online.Shortly after Taibbi’s last post in Friday night’s thread, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy of California tweeted, “In 32 days, the new House Republican majority will get answers for the American people and the accountability they deserve.”The emails shared by Taibbi show a lengthy internal debate among Twitter employees — including at least two former staffers to Republican senators — about how best to handle the New York Post story and how to talk about that handling to the public and to lawmakers.Taibbi also included screenshots of emails of requests from unidentified people in the Biden administration, asking contacts at Twitter to take action against certain tweets. Versions of those tweets seen by NBC News on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, which archives web pages, show that many if not all of the tweets in question violated Twitter rules. At least three of those tweets involved photographs of Hunter Biden.Taibbi, a longtime magazine journalist who now writes a newsletter, is known for his provocative style and colorful turns of phrase. In 2009, he coined the term “giant vampire squid” to describe investment bank Goldman Sachs. Musk and Taibbi have had a friendly relationship on Twitter. In May, Musk shared an edition of Taibbi’s newsletter that criticized California regulators.The controversy involving Twitter and Hunter Biden dates to October 2020, weeks before the presidential election between Joe Biden and then-President Donald Trump. The New York Post article on Oct. 14, 2020, quoted from what it said was an email to the younger Biden, thanking him for introducing the businessman to his father, who was vice president at the time.The email was part of a cache of documents provided to the New York Post by Trump’s then-personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who said he obtained the files from a laptop dropped off at a Delaware computer store. At that time, Giuliani declined to share a copy of the hard drive with NBC News.Twitter and Facebook both moved to limit the spread of the article. Twitter blocked people from tweeting out the link to the New York Post story or sending it in private messages — a highly unusual step by the social media app. Facebook said it was “reducing” distribution of the article while third-party fact-checkers reviewed it.Twitter has a policy against the distribution of “hacked materials,” a product of how political operatives stole and then leaked Democrats’ emails during the 2016 election. And it cited that policy as one of the reasons it had throttled the article.Musk has previously been critical of Twitter’s actions during the 2020 election. In April this year, he said it had been “obviously incredibly inappropriate” for Twitter to freeze the account of the New York Post.Taibbi wrote that he has seen no evidence that there was government involvement in Twitter’s move to block the New York Post story.The FBI’s possible role in tech companies’ decisions to limit the reach of the New York Post article came to light in August, when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan that the FBI did not specifically warn about the laptop but that it “fit the pattern” of what the bureau had warned about. The FBI said in response that it provides companies with “foreign threat indicators” but can’t ask companies to take action.Shortly after the New York Post published the article, Twitter pointed to concerns about hacked materials as the reason for blocking the story.“We don’t want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials,” Twitter said Oct. 14, 2020, in an explanation of its moves.But by the end of the day on Oct. 14, the day the New York Post article was published, Twitter was already expressing some concern with how the company handled the situation. Jack Dorsey, then the Twitter CEO, said it was “unacceptable” to have blocked links to the article without context as to why.Zuckerberg separately defended his company’s actions, saying they were on heightened alert for election interference after Russian operatives used Facebook in 2016 to attempt to swing the presidential election that year. Zuckerberg cited warnings from the FBI about election-related threats, though none about Hunter Biden in particular.Republican lawmakers have since cited tech companies’ handling of the story as evidence of alleged bias against their party — though the opposite has often been true.Earlier this year, a Giuliani representative gave NBC News a copy of the laptop’s hard drive, and an NBC News analysis of the drive, an iCloud account and documents from two Senate committees showed Hunter Biden and his company had received about $11 million through his work as an attorney and board member with a Ukrainian company accused of bribery and his work with a Chinese businessman who has also been accused of fraud.Hunter Biden has said that federal prosecutors in Delaware are investigating his taxes. He has not been charged. He has denied any wrongdoing.
Created:
It was last week that Elon Musk dangled the arrival of a promised multiday blitz of internal company documents, a stunt he pumped up to his 120 million followers — starting with the backstory on the company’s late-2020 decision to block users from sharing coverage of Hunter Biden’s leaked laptop files.The first episode came on Friday night, in a 40-tweet thread from journalist Matt Taibbi, who had been provided some of the company’s internal files and emails.Five days later, for all Musk’s promotion and drum-rolling, there have been no further releases — just a freewheeling online chat Saturday night that featured a cast of colorful personalities talking about free speech.The delay offers a window into some of the challenges Musk is facing as he attempts a radical overhaul of the platform he just bought — changing not just the company’s staffing and strategy, but its politics, shifting a largely progressive-leaning platform to one committed to a more libertarian vision of free speech.Taibbi said Tuesday that complications involving a Twitter lawyer had been holding up the rest of the documents, suggesting the lawyer was working at odds with Musk’s executives. Musk had tweeted 20 minutes earlier that the lawyer had been “exited” from the company.In an earlier text exchange with POLITICO, Taibbi had pointed to internal conflict — and Twitter’s own corporate culture — as the source of the delay. “The company is used to operating in open defiance of its CEO,” Taibbi said. “Now, most of those higher-ranking people are gone, but this is still a logistical battle more than anything. So if you see delays and other head-scratching things, please keep that in mind.”Twitter didn’t respond to a request for comment.According to Musk, the company’s internal files have been opened to both Taibbi and to Bari Weiss, a former New York Times and Wall Street Journal opinion writer. Both writers are outspoken critics of perceived liberal groupthink in mainstream media — a cause to which Musk is increasingly devoting his new platform.Taibbi, whose tweet thread Friday night is the only release of internal documents so far, said that Weiss would be posting the next installment. Weiss did not respond to emails requesting comment.In offering fresh details on the Hunter Biden laptop story, Musk is reviving a favorite hobbyhorse of conservative media critics. In the runup to the 2020 election, Twitter decided to block any links to the New York Post’s coverage of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop. Users couldn’t post the story or even link to it in private messages, and the Post itself got its account suspended for more than two weeks for refusing to delete a tweet about the story.Twitter reversed the suspension and the restrictions, but the episode was widely seen by conservative and libertarian critics as a Biden-friendly move by a social media platform whose leaders increasingly leaned progressive. Twitter’s CEO at the time, Jack Dorsey, later said he regretted the decision.The release is the latest political frenzy Musk has waded into since he bought Twitter for $44 billion in late October. After laying off much of its staff and attempting to reassure advertisers that Twitter would take a cautious approach to restoring banned accounts, Musk then reinstated former President Donald Trump’s account based on the outcome of an informal online poll, engaged in a brief spat with Apple over rumors it might remove Twitter from its app store, and banned rapper Ye, better known as Kanye West — whom Musk had seemed to embrace just a few weeks earlier — after he tweeted an image of a swastika.BY REBECCA KERNOn Tuesday night, Taibbi tweeted that he and Weiss had received the company’s internal files from a lawyer close to Musk’s team.The correspondence he reviewed ahead of the Friday release, Taibbi said, was a subset of internal Twitter records that had been preserved for litigation. At least some of those records were set aside as part of Twitter’s response to a Federal Election Commission complaint filed against Twitter by the Tea Party Patriots Foundation, he said.In the 2020 complaint, which has since been dismissed, the Tea Party Patriots Foundation alleged that Twitter’s suppression of the New York Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s computer files amounted to an in-kind contribution to Joe Biden’s campaign.President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden leave church in Johns Island, S.C. | Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP PhotoIn addition to the internal correspondence released by Taibbi, Twitter had given one earlier window into how it handled the laptop story: In December 2020, it filed a public response to the FEC complaint.In a sworn declaration filed with the response, former Twitter executive Yoel Roth said he had participated in regular meetings with representatives of the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security and “industry peers,” to discuss disinformation and hacking threats in the runup to the presidential vote. At those meetings, Roth said in the declaration, he was told to expect a hack-and-leak operation in October and picked up rumors that Hunter Biden would be a target of such an operation.MOST READ
Roth, who left Twitter following Musk’s takeover, has said it was a “mistake” to censor the New York Post’s story. He did not respond to a request for comment.
Brandon Borrman, Twitter’s former communications chief, who was named alongside Dorsey as a defendant in the FEC complaint, and whose communications were part of Friday’s disclosures, condemned the release of internal Twitter communications.
“It’s quite disappointing how little concern there is for the harm this can do to the people who weren’t involved,” he told POLITICO.
Jenny Beth Martin, president of the Tea Party Patriots Foundation, said in an interview that she had instructed her lawyer to review the released files to determine if they provided an avenue for appealing the dismissal of her FEC complaint.
Friday’s release showed Twitter executives grappling with how to handle the New York Post’s story. It included no evidence that government officials asked the platform to censor it.
Trump reacted to the release by suggesting it provided a basis for overturning the results of the 2020 election, drawing rebukes from both Musk and the Biden White House.
Taibbi said he is continuing to review the internal files and has only seen a portion of them thus far. He said the documents he had reviewed as of Sunday night provided more fodder for his longstanding critiques of online censorship, but have yet to yield major bombshells. “So far what I’ve seen mostly just confirms what we know, though it’s embarrassing to read,” he said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
JESUS H. CHRIST, here you go again with your myriad of your subjective ungodly “OPINIONS” where you flail around like a-fish-out-of-water where you are embarrassingly quoted in saying:“IF” God exists outside of time,Creation could have been 7 daysCreation could have been 7000 yearsIt may as well of been millions of years.
Well, you took that out of context. Let's just use another word that will help you to understand better. Let's say "Given god exists outside of time,"
1. The Hebrew word "yom" is used to refer to a 24-hour period: ”In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.” Genesis 7:11 GET IT? HUH?2. The word "yom" is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk: ”And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.” Genesis 1:16)3. Furthermore, "yom" it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Genesis 2:4.In any of the examples given above, the day is NOT a thousand, or millions of years long like your dumbfounded Bible ignorance stated in your initial quote shown above! ROFLOL!EXPLAIN YOUR OUTRIGHT BIBLE STUPIDITY RELATIVE TO THE BIBLICAL AXIOMS ABOVE, BEGIN:
Ok well first of all let me ask you this. Does God speak Hebrew. Well, if he's God then yes. But he also speaks other languages. This argument has no value whatsoever, and you are just playing with definitions.
To further prove this here is a link to the original Hebrew Translation, to show you what the bible actually translates to:
And yes, the technical definition of Yom is a 24-hour period.
But I could literally say the same thing for the word day.
So, it's not the definition, it's how you define it using Gods word.
Number one, cite your scientific evidence for the proof of your statements #1 and #2 above, WAITING! BEGIN:
"Researchers say lack of oxygen, not a massive asteroid, may have killed off the dinosaurs 65-million years ago.
A team of scientists presented new evidence Wednesday supporting the theory that dinosaurs suffocated when the oxygen level in the atmosphere dropped suddenly after a period of unusual volcanic activity."
A team of scientists presented new evidence Wednesday supporting the theory that dinosaurs suffocated when the oxygen level in the atmosphere dropped suddenly after a period of unusual volcanic activity."
"Instead of an asteroid impact rapidly killing the dinosaurs, they gradually died out over a 10-million year interval," Landis said.
Apart from making the dinosaurs extinct, the scientists said, the high level of volcanic activity _ which continued for millions of years _ also affected evolution, sea level and global climate.
Landis said the plummeting oxygen level, from a high of 35 percent to a low of 28 percent, "was 10 to 20 times faster than previously thought and put an enormous strain on all plants and animals."
Oxygen now makes up about 21 percent of air."
Apart from making the dinosaurs extinct, the scientists said, the high level of volcanic activity _ which continued for millions of years _ also affected evolution, sea level and global climate.
Landis said the plummeting oxygen level, from a high of 35 percent to a low of 28 percent, "was 10 to 20 times faster than previously thought and put an enormous strain on all plants and animals."
Oxygen now makes up about 21 percent of air."
2.
"Geneticist Dr. John Sanford of Cornell University—who was part of a team that invented the “gene gun”—noted that these lifespans fit so tightly along this power curve that 95% of the lifespan variance is explained by the number of generations from Noah.[2] This statistical model matches the biblical data so closely that its likelihood of occurring by chance lies below one in a thousand. Now that’s uncanny.
This exceptionally strong correlation allows us to predict how long people would live based on how many generations they are from Noah. For example, the curve predicts that someone living 10 generations after Noah would have a 90% likelihood of living between 137 and 234 years. Similarly, it predicts with 90% certainty that a descendant alive 15 generations after Noah would live between 100 and 172 years. This model is so powerful that the average lifespans predicted by the model are within 10% of the actual lifespans recorded in the Bible! This close match reaches well beyond coincidence.
This leads to an even more stunning realization: The lifespans in the biblical text span over 2,500 years of recorded history. And the original portions of Scripture that include these lifespans—Genesis 5 and 11—were produced by eyewitnesses whose lives overlapped one another for centuries and decades. So how in the world could they be faked? All of the original authors over numerous generations would have to be in on the scam, conspiring together to record lifespans that perfectly declined along an exponential power curve. Like that’s going to happen!
Thinking about that for a minute… why would they even want to do that? If you were going to make up some story about people in the past that you wanted your future readers to believe, why would you include such unbelievable lifespans? Making this “myth” explanation even less likely, whoever would fabricate this story must have understood advanced statistics. In addition, look at how the lifespans before the Flood are stable. They don’t follow ANY sloping trendline. The systematic decline only starts AFTER the Flood, suggesting that some aspect of the Flood event initiated the down-sloping power curve in lifespans. What was it?"
This exceptionally strong correlation allows us to predict how long people would live based on how many generations they are from Noah. For example, the curve predicts that someone living 10 generations after Noah would have a 90% likelihood of living between 137 and 234 years. Similarly, it predicts with 90% certainty that a descendant alive 15 generations after Noah would live between 100 and 172 years. This model is so powerful that the average lifespans predicted by the model are within 10% of the actual lifespans recorded in the Bible! This close match reaches well beyond coincidence.
This leads to an even more stunning realization: The lifespans in the biblical text span over 2,500 years of recorded history. And the original portions of Scripture that include these lifespans—Genesis 5 and 11—were produced by eyewitnesses whose lives overlapped one another for centuries and decades. So how in the world could they be faked? All of the original authors over numerous generations would have to be in on the scam, conspiring together to record lifespans that perfectly declined along an exponential power curve. Like that’s going to happen!
Thinking about that for a minute… why would they even want to do that? If you were going to make up some story about people in the past that you wanted your future readers to believe, why would you include such unbelievable lifespans? Making this “myth” explanation even less likely, whoever would fabricate this story must have understood advanced statistics. In addition, look at how the lifespans before the Flood are stable. They don’t follow ANY sloping trendline. The systematic decline only starts AFTER the Flood, suggesting that some aspect of the Flood event initiated the down-sloping power curve in lifespans. What was it?"
"Dr. John Sanford explains[3]: “The mathematical nature of the declining lifespans arose because the Biblical accounts are true, and are actually faithfully recording the historical unfolding of some fundamental natural degenerative process… The shape of the downward slope should be immediately recognized by any biologist. It is a biological decay curve. Noah’s descendants were undergoing some type of rapid degenerative process… there is now very strong evidence that humans are degenerating genetically, and have been for thousands of years, due to continuously accumulating mutations. This makes it very reasonable to conclude that the systematic degeneration of man that is documented in the Bible was due to mutation accumulation and resultant ‘genetic entropy.’”"
Firstly, I was NOT asking you how the dinosaurs died, but that they lived 66 MILLION YEARS AGO as science has inferred, GET IT? Therefore, how can this be when the Creation of the universe and the man Adam, and then forwarding to Jesus, and the time of Jesus to the present day, is approximately 6000 years, where said dinosaurs were existing before Jesus as God created the man Adam, and the animals in the first place! HUH? GET IT BIBLE FOOL, or do you need another simple explanation to this FACT?Explain this Biblical anomaly shown above and by NOT using your Satanic and ungodly "opinions" that go directly against Jesus' inspired words, BEGIN:
First of all, why do you keep assuming that I believe the creation of the universe took 6000 years.
I have already told you that I take the metaphorical scripture," A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." Psalm 90:4, As proof that Jesus lives outside of time, therefore the scientific timing of the universe aligns with the Bible.
So, what you are saying relative to the Trinity Doctrine is simply: there are three divine persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet these three divine persons are distinct from one another: the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. However, there is exactly one God (1 Timothy 2:5), therefore Christ is His own Father and His own Son. The Holy Ghost is neither Father nor Son, but both in spirit. The Son was begotten by the Father, but existed before He was begotten. Christ is just as old as his Father, and the Father is just as young as his Son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but He is of the same age as the other two!YouFound_Lxam, are the above FACTS true to this point? Yes or no?To further the Godly Triune premise in your way of thinking: Then the Father is Almighty, the Son is Almighty, and the Holy Ghost is Almighty, but yet there are not three Almighty's but one Almighty. It is plainly seen that we have three Almighty's, and at the same time, one Almighty. You inform us that obviously the three persons in the Trinity are co-eternal together and coequal. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Ghost is eternal, and yet there are not three eternally, but one eternal. The plain English is, that the three entities in the Trinity are three eternally, and individually considered, and yet they are not three eternally, but one eternal!YouFound_Lxam, are the above FACTS in the name of Jesus true to this point? Yes or no?
You are still not listening to what I am saying.
1. God exists outside of time. Therefore, he isn't limited to age. He has been, is, and always will be eternal.
2. God exists outside of our plain of existence. It is hard to fathom, but everything as we know it here, is not how it is where God exists. Therefore, you can't prove God did something, that only exceeds our reality. God exists outside of everything we know.
3. God is not bound to our Laws of Physics, Biology, and Science, because he created those things. Therefore, God can be the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Relating to the Trinity Doctrine, yes, as I have shown many times that Jesus as God, and where He impregnated His own mother: "Jesus spiritually impregnated His own mother through "celestial impregnation and incest." When Jesus did this act, He not only became Mary’s son, but his own Father as being Yahweh/God incarnate AND a bastard child through true Hebrew tradition because Joseph was not the paternal father."Furthermore, since Jesus was a bastard child through Hebrew tradition, then poor Jesus could NOT enter into one of His Temples: “No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2)BUT, guess what? Jesus forgot this doctrine shown above that was inspired by Him in the first place (1 Thessalonians 2:13), and entered one of His own temples: "And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons." (Matthew 21:12)YOUFOUND_LXAM, how do you deal with these problems relating to Jesus shown above? BEGIN:
Same goes for this question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
1. In the first creation story, the first man and woman were created simultaneously. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:25-27)2. In the second Creation story, the man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib! “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Genesis 2:18-22)
Well, Genisis one was more or less a wrap up of the whole creation process, in which it summarizes what God did through the six "days".
Genisis two goes more into depth of detail about the creation of man.
Both Genisis one and Genisis two are the same story, just one is more detailed than the other.
God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."
If you look closely at these passages of scripture, you will see, that it does not exactly state in which day each thing was created.
The majority of this whole chapter takes place in "one day."
So, Adam and Eve were both created on the same "day" as the animals.
It's not a different story, it's the same story.
in Genesis 1:25-27 has Adam created AFTER the animals, and in Genesis 2:18-19, Adam was created BEFORE the animals!
See this is why you need to read the scripture more thoroughly, because little details like that can mess you up. In Genisis 1, it doesn't say that Adam was created before the animals, and In Genisis 2 it doesn't say the opposite either. They were created on the same "day".
THINK, why did Jesus create the animals for Adam as a helpmate FIRST that was obviously acceptable to Him, because Adam had a male anatomy for procreation, and so did the animals, male and female! Then, did Jesus as God expect ADAM TO HAVE SEX WITH THE ANIMALS IN THE BEGINNING FOR PROCREATION PURPOSES?!EXPLAIN, WITHOUT YOUR SATANIC AND LAUGHABLE "OPINIONS," IN WHY JESUS WANTED ADAM TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS FOR PROCREATION AT THAT TIME:
Well, I can see where you think this is the case in the scripture, but I am sorry to say that you are once again mistaken.
"The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”"
Then later in the chapter, the scripture reads:
"But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found."
God was not trying to find a mate for Adam. He was trying to find a suitable helper to help maintain the Garden of Eden.
"The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."
So, I can see where you made that mistake, but this is another example why it is very important to read the bible very closely.
Created:
Posted in:
Do ya reckon god knows more about Period pain then ya average woman.
Probably
Created:
The FBI warned Twitter during weekly meetings prior to the 2020 election that the social media giant could expect "hack-and-leak operations" by "state actors" involving Hunter Biden, according to a declaration by Twitter’s former head of site integrity.
These warnings came ahead of Twitter censoring the New York Post's bombshell October 2020 report on Hunter Biden's business dealings found on his laptop, citing its "hacked materials" policy. At the time, the FBI had been in possession of his laptop for nearly a year.
"I was told in these meetings that the intelligence community expected that individuals associated with political campaigns would be subject to hacking attacks and that material obtained through those hacking attacks would likely be disseminated over social media platforms, including Twitter," Twitter’s former head of site integrity Yoel Roth said in a Dec. 21, 2020, declaration to the Federal Election Commission, the New York Post reported.
These warnings came ahead of Twitter censoring the New York Post's bombshell October 2020 report on Hunter Biden's business dealings found on his laptop, citing its "hacked materials" policy. At the time, the FBI had been in possession of his laptop for nearly a year.
"I was told in these meetings that the intelligence community expected that individuals associated with political campaigns would be subject to hacking attacks and that material obtained through those hacking attacks would likely be disseminated over social media platforms, including Twitter," Twitter’s former head of site integrity Yoel Roth said in a Dec. 21, 2020, declaration to the Federal Election Commission, the New York Post reported.
On Friday, Musk dropped the first installment of “The Twitter Files,” a collection of internal documents revealing the scope of the company’s censorship of the groundbreaking report. Email correspondence analyzed by journalist Matt Taibbi confirmed that the company’s first justification for the blackout was that the story violated its “hacked materials policy.” Some senior leadership expressed skepticism over the validity of that excuse, leading to internal confusion, according to emails.
The government be controlling everything. And they broke the first amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
If your objection to abortion is that a human being ceases to be because if it, then that is true no matter how the pregnancy occurred. Is the unconscious person in the analogy not a human being? Is the unborn not a human being because it was conceived from rape? There is inconsistency in your position here.
I am not arguing on rape cases, as of right now.
I am only arguing against consensual sex abortions.
Created:
Posted in:
Listen, chain up, because I haven't even started upon your Bible ignorance yet, understood? Jesus' words and I have great plans for embarrassing you even further into oblivion, just like we did with the now defunct Shila, and with the current equally Bible fool, Miss Tradesecret, that doesn't address my posts just like you, praise!
I would love to see you try.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Well Brother D. If you have any other concerns about this topic, I will gladly accept a debate from you.
Created:
Posted in:
This is based off a famous thought experiment which came long before the gruesome Saw movies. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it before:
This thought experiment actually helps my case a lot.
"In this case, of course, you were kidnapped, you didn't volunteer for the operation that plugged the violinist into your kidneys. Can those who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape?"
As of right now, I am not arguing against rape cases, I am only arguing against consensual sex cases as of right now.
Just to be clear, taking rightful control of your body is 'murder' in one case and not the other? Ok
Please elaborate.
Created:
Posted in:
We're not talking about the start of life, though that's another issue that we could discuss. Life came before (the sperm and ovum are alive), and the zygote is simply a fusion of those two, so I'd hesitate to say that a life begins at conception. I'd even hesitate to say it's independent because it most definitely is not. It's distinct from what came before in a myriad of ways, but so are subsequent stages of development. Why are those distinctions sufficient to assume that life starts at conception, whereas other distinctions have no bearing on whether this is or is not a new life?
Yes I know it is a different subject. I was just pointing it out for context. And if your talking about specific life, then it does actually start at conception.
"When a sperm successfully fertilizes an oocyte (egg), a new cell, called a zygote, is generated by their union. The zygote represents the first stage in the life of a human being."
Created:
Posted in:
You're comparing sex to a gang robbing a bank? Eek. Nothing in this analogy resonates with me. Sex is, more often than not, about pleasure and intimacy, and not family building. You have overemphasized one aspect of sex while overlooking the vast majority of sexual experiences.
Well let me ask you this. What made sex so desirable in the first place. It releases chemicals, and dopamine for a reason. Nothing in Nature is just made purely for pleasure. There is always a reason for that pleasurable experience.
Either you maintain control of your arm (and someone dies), or someone else effectively owns your arm. The kidnapping does not mitigate your decision.
Yes it does. That is my whole argument. Whether someone forced you to be in that situation or not.
You also made an analogy with pregnancy being like a saw game....little concerning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Well we already know the scientific start of life is at conception. So we can assume that the start of person hood can very from conception, up till when the baby is born.
Created: