fauxlaw

My take on this who matter is that:

The Earth, plus Adam & Eve, are much, much older than 6,000 years. Why that idea took hold is an apparent mystery, but it appears the facts are that it is really a very recent notion; even in just the 20th century, popularized [it has some roots to 19th century, but, still, rather recent] by an amateur geologist, George Price.  https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/11/article/i1052-5173-22-11-4.htm. The Creationist crowd started as a religious effort only after Darwin's Origin of the Species, which is curious because Darwin's first edition of that book acknowledged in it last chapter, last paragraph, indeed, last sentence that, 

That the second through six editions removed the italic bolded text is evidence of Darwin's gradual loss of faith, mostly due to the early loss of a daughter.

My personal belief is that while various species ["a few forms," and actually, quite a few] were created outright, evolution was an intentional consequence of life that continues today, but that the creation of man, was a distinctly different creation than the apes. I believe creation to have been a science, and evolution to be an extension of that science. Therefore, they are not only on the same coin, but not even just on one side or the other, but on both sides of one coin; coincident activities that have gone on for millions and billions of years.In other words, God did not retire after seven days, or even six, [and in any case, I do not perceive those periods as being merely 24 hours in length] but continues to be at work in his profession.

Absolutely. I recommend both, though I am obviously partial to Huxley. Another Huxley novel I think you'd like is Ape and Essence.

Of course he did. The fallacy of youth. Huxley was Orwell's French teacher at Eton. Huxley's dystopian future of 1931 [Brave New World] was much closer to the truth than Orwell's 1984 [1949]. Where Orwell's oppressive government waged war and fear, Huxley's was a soma-induced, sex-crazed revolution.  The soma is, of course, today's media - positively mind-numbing trivia [Joe has relevance???], and sex doesn't even know what it is, anymore, and cannot decide how to find out. Huxley wins in a landslide.

Congratulations! Now that you can... whatever, don't abuse it. There's plenty of time.

And you, Karl Marx?

Nope. That was correctly delivered to you, something new, which occurs all the time relative to threads. It's their nature to unravel and offer new perspectives. It's my thread, after all. Sorry your preference is the same old, same old, but I am hardly surprised

Which is why, after a years-long with hunt, the SDNY has decided not to prosecute Trump. That's the law, in action, my friend, but you have Trump embedded so deep into your head, rent-free, you can't see it.

No, you don't, even though I made it in my #12. Must I hit you overt the head with it? It's subtle, like key was.

@ Stephen

Words are the weakest of weapons for those who only use them as weapons because they generally backfire. Comes of spitting names. Keep it up. it's only premature efactulation.

Were you aware that, during the bombardment of Fort McHenry, Key was on a British troop ship trying to negotiate the release of an American prisoner. He was a lawyer, after all, and detained when bombardment began. I trust he was relatively vague about his writing under the circumstances, which began on board during the bombardment

Too bad you've entirely missed the point that the although the British, by Parliament, banned slavery in G.B. in about 1830, the British military in America had both slaves and indentured servants [people who work off their passage to America by work at no wages]. You will also note a shift in focus in both the second and third verses of the SSB from American patriots to the British; it is the British "hireling [indentured servant] and slave" referenced in verse 3, not American. I do not argue Key's potential for being a racist, given his own words otherwise, but let's understand his poem and its shifting subjects. Poetry is not as mystic as you may think. just read the words and know the history.  

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/dirty-little-secret-115579444/. for example

This is a justice issue, and not politics, as Dems claim the current make up of SCOTUS is. They've been making the claim for many years, but particularly since Trump took office in 2016, with the likelihood of having at least two SCOTUS picks. As it happened, he had three. "The Supreme Court is not well," said a group of Democrats in Congress in 2019, again charging Trump with biased picks. Curious, then, isn't it, that with two cases left before the Court to decide before their 2021 season ends, that the last 32 cases SCOTUS has decided have 12 unanimous cases decided, 37.5% of the 32 cases.  Only 3 of the 32 have been along the 6-3 alleged ideological divide. The history of the Court, since 1789 indicates that 59% of their cases are unanimous. Tell me what's sick about that? For all the claims of political bias by the Court, and both sides have claimed it, not just Dems, but it happens to be Dems now, they are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Court measuring stick happens to be something the Dems do not give much credence: the Constitution. Give it a read once in a while. A full, investigative read for fuller comprehension. I do once a month, and have for the past fifteen years. I started after thinking that Oba'a was going to be a presidential candidate, and his keynote speech in the 2004 DNC scared me to death. That's a Marxist, I said to myself, having never heard of the man before that speech. Of course, he was a Chicago Dem. Not a constitutional scholar, in spite of the claim. Nor am I, but my familiarity has never beensuccessfully assailed.

@ Stephen

Yassine is perfectly correct. Any written material, holy writ, or not, is best understood in its native tongue, because no language shares an exact lexicon with any other language, let alone syntax. Yet, as I have explained many times, translations are generally done by comparison, dictionary-to-dictionary. As I have also explained, language is a construct of culture, and not the other way around. Without understanding the culture, its language will not be understood by its full intent. Thus, unless dictionaries teach culture along with vocabulary, the translation lacks the heart of the language because dictionaries, to their infamy, are poor teachers of culture.

Therefore, the sense of my example given in another topic a while ago, my hypothetical British acquaintance, while I am visiting Great Britain, confuses me when, he, stopping to assist my change of a tire, and I mention the throaty rumble of his Jaguar's engine, he offers to let me take a look under the bonnet. I'm confused because it is obvious he wears no hat. Culture drives language. As Churchill once said, America and Great Britain are two countries separated by a language. Zed understands this very well, and is sympathetic to my imaginary dilemma. I imagine Yassine is just as sympathetic with Arabic and any other language.

I imagine, lacking understanding in Arabic, that Yassine's common greeting, rendered in English as "Peace be with you," is as personal a greeting as an American's tossed-out, "Hey," with a nod of the head, could not be more impersonal. For all Yassine may know, similar to my dilemma, he may think I'm referring to feeding a horse, and I've not even spelled it correctly.

To wit,  your pocket mouse is just as infamous as a dictionary translation.

I have not forgotten I need to get back to you with some responses to your post #34. I will do so, just a bit over-busy right now. Sorry.

@ Stephen

I'd say that's for Yassine to criticize whether reading the Quran in English is pointless, or not, if he's a mind to do so. I'm suspicious that he will not, being an apparently open-minded fellow, and, just now, a friend.

Being your hot button, I suggest you keep it between you and your mirror. Include you pocket mouse; always a good source of advice.

That I may disagree with you on every subject under the sun (I don’t) should have no quarter on my right to vote.

Welcome back. Don’t know you at all, I think I may have joined after you left. I like many of your topics. I have read English translations of the Quran twice, but not an expert by any means. I am LDS (Christian), and, although I’ve been in many countries in Europe and Asia, never in the Middle East. I have a History Doctorate, but an Engineer (retired) by profession. I am fascinated by Middle eastern culture and have deep knowledge of ancient Egypt. One of these days, I’d enjoy a debate. Might you be interested in a debate of preservation, or other subject, comparing the Quran to the Book of Mormon?

,

@ Stephen

You still misunderstand. God does not command people to murder. They do it by their own choice. You may be surprised to know I do not believe God is the total cause of anything. Even creation was performed by using raw, disorganized matter and energy already in existence, and commands nothing by way of thoughts and actions of man, leaving them entirely to their free agency up to the point of their (man’s) risk of utter destruction by evil doing. Hint: death is not that utter destruction. There are far worse consequences than death.

I have read the Q'ran several times. I find much truth in it, but I also disagree with some, but then, I disagree with some that I read in the Bible, as well.

I am in virtual agreement with you. I divert on one point: that capitalism can be inherently harmful to some. I disagree. I think the harm is in some capitalists' view that they can take advantage of people less fortunate. They have no need to do so; it is a matter of greed. I don't believe greed is an inherent concept of capitalism. The proper comport of a capitalist ought to be a belief in sharing wealth, most beneficially by educating others in the process.  This should not be a greed factor because I believe the money supply, for which there is so much competition, is competed for because of the belief that the supply has a limit. I believe the money supply has no ceiling; that money can be had for all in whatever quantity they seek. I believe educating others in capitalism, to practice it for themselves, has the ability to increase the money supply accordingly. It even works for those handicapped to the degree that they cannot fend, cannot compete for themselves. I believe it is the burden of those who can to provide for our unfortunate handicapped. I do not believe laziness is a handicap; rather, it is a chosen way of life that does not deserve the help of others. These should work for their keep, or be derelict by choice.

I absolutely believe hell exists. It is out darkness, where no light shines at all. Not that of a single, distant star. Hell may be what science calls "black hole." I don't know, but I do know hell is the abode of Satan and his minions. It is a place of no doors, where, once placed, there is no escape. In a sense, those who abide by hell's precepts consistently are in hell, now, just as those who consistently abide by heaven's precepts live there, now. Ultimately, the final placements, by our eventual judgment from God will be permanent, and much more intense in both places.

However, where as hell is a singular kingdom, heaven is actually an abode of many separate kingdoms, not just one. This is roughly explained n Romans 1: 25.

Yes, this is a distinction of LDS theology, I believe, although it is my impression that, contrary to what is taught in "traditional "Christianity, many people find this concept agreeable. It just makes sense.

Frankly, I don't have sufficient knowledge of Catholicism to render an opinion. As I read the Catechism, they are different concepts. We consider the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit [we use both terms] as a personal being, an entity who is not some amorphous, formless shape, but a humanoid of spirit matter, as we all once were. We believe that, as. a person, he, too, will have the opportunity to come to Earth to obtain a physical body and live a mortal life. There will come a time, at the Savior's second coming, when Satan will be bound, and people will not suffer the temptations Satan works today. During this period, the mortal person who was  the Holy Ghost will live his mortal life, effectively a perfect life much as Jesus lived. However, at the end of Earth and its mortal state [yes, Earth will, itself, transform into a perfect sphere, and it will be the highest kingdom of heaven where the most righteous of us dwell] Satan will be released "for a season" - that could be for quite a while, to tempt those born during the age while Satan in bound, so that those people, too, can be tested by temptation. This is only fair; no one living on Earth can be deprived of temptation. Not even Jesus was so protected.

I don't like the term, but there is nothing particularly derogatory about it given its dictionary definition.as being a religious organization that does not teach "traditional" Christianity, whatever that is.

@ Stephen.

What a shame it is you do not understand the scriptures as given. Hint: Creation does not stop in Genesis 1. In fact, it's not fully completed in Genesis 2, even though it is reviewed. We must see the fruition of Creation with the teaching to Adam and Eve, and even Satan [who I suspect already knew what God would say]. The "doing this" as you accuse was already in the mind of God, and was given in Gen. 3: 15: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."  

Enmity, normally a thing, is, in this case, a name for a person, and we learn who that person is later in the verse. It is not so evident by the English translation [surprise!], but is sufficiently understood by the Hebrew [yes, you may now offer your typical disgust]. The operative word, in English, "it," as in "it shall bruise thy head..."  in Hebrew, is rendered as. ה֚וּא (hū), which is: He. He shall bruise thy head. Who "He?"  We are told by the remaining phrase, "...thou shalt bruise his heel."  Whose heel was bruised by Satan? Look to whose hands and feet bear the marks of sin's effort [Satan's effort] to thwart the Atonement of Jesus Christ. There's your "he." And the first bruising is the last. Ultimately, Christ bruises all Satan's effort, and Satan, and all his evil, will be defeated, was defeated, by the Atonement of Christ. We, including Adam and Eve, are redeemed from sin by that Atonement, and our acceptance of it.

What a shame you do not accept it. And, what a shame you ignorantly walk into it. One cannot read and comprehend with an attitude of division and ridicule. You have been told this repeatedly. Time to get it.

@RM

Yes, we regard Jesus as a God, and the Son of God in the flesh. We also acknowledge him as the Creator, under the direction of God the father. Think in terms of making a movie; God, the Father is the Producer, the pre-mortal Christ is the director, responsible for the entire production effort. In that role, Jesus Christ is also Jehovah, the God of the O.T. Finally, as Jesus is the Son of God in the flesh, we also consider him an elder brother of us all, since all, including Jesus Christ, are spiritual children of God, the Father.

Thanks. Yeah, I for one would certainly like to see more explored of Islam, let alone Asian religions. I know very little about the latter. 

"All-knowing," or omniscient, is. I think, an attempt to describe God as being so far ahead of us that we are compelled to say he knows all things. I'm not so sure, because I think there is an endless body of knowledge, and it is possible that God, himself, is still learning. Either that, or he does, indeed know all, but has yet to experience all. That is, application of all knowledge in practical use. If, indeed, God knows all, seems to me eternity would get boring. I'm hoping he is still finding new things to know, just to keep living an in interesting, challenging concept.

I am suspicious, and in fact believe there will come a time when we will converse with all other animals, and also have ability to communicate with plants, as well as with all of one another of our own species.

And thus, scapegoating wiki, there are much larger isogrammic Roman numerals in English than 5,000

Yes. Although man is his most advanced creation, he decided to grant other animals abilities beyond ours. Such as my spirit guide, the frog. It has, within that entire species, vocal expressions that far exceed the ability of man to produce. In fact, no other creature ha the vocal range as has the frog.

@RM

No. That practice was ended by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 1890s.

Not derogatory, just misdirected. Jesus Christ heads the church, not Mormon, a Book of mormon prophet, circa early 5th century CE, named for him as he was its editor from a much larger group of records.

Savior of man from perpetual death following mortality by resurrection to life everlasting in perfect bodies, and redeemed from the influence of evil forever more, conditional on keeping the commandments of God.

To beget is to be born in the flesh. We are born but once, and birth does not extend beyond that moment, so no one is beget eternally, not even Christ. Christ is no longer mortal, having died and resurrected, the first of all to do so, and the promise to all men, women, and children who die - all of us.

Yes, the same.

Yes, as long as it is understood by this that we mean three separate, distinct beings who comprise the Godhead, not one being with aliases, as some believe.

That Jesus is the Christ, the living Son of a living God, the Father.

However, there is much with which we disagree. For example, we do not believe we bare the stain of Adam and Eve for their transgressions, but only for our own. To believe that we bear Adam's stain is a denial of the Atonement, that Jesus overcame death, but also our pain and suffering, disappointments, mourning for losses, suffering by the actions of others who abuse us, our failures of mortality, virtually everything that happens in our mortal lives that deter us and delay our progression. We are spared the ongoing misery of death, itself, to rise in the resurrection as perfect beings, ready to move on in that progression. 

Not a similarity, in fact, it may be somewhat unique among Christians is that we believe the potential of our progression is eternal; thaat we, by our obedience in this life, can earn the right to become gods and goddesses ourselves, to be not only in the image of God, by to be like him.

We may also be somewhat unique in the firm belief that we have a Mother in Heaven, whom we should also revere.

Asked [your #125] and answered [my #131]

Trust wiki to be inaccurate

First, we prefer to not be referred to as "Mormons." That was tolerated for a long while, but it was recognized as one of the reasons why people not familiar with the church classify us as non-Christians. Officially, the Church is known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and members of the church are properly referred to as members of said church, by full name. We know Jesus Christ to be the Savior and Redeemer of the world, the only mortally begotten Son of the Father, who are, as well as the Holy Ghost, three distinct personages of perfect glory, who are one only in terms of their absolute unification of thought and action. Rather than repeat it all here, I will offer the following citation, called. The Articles of Faith:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/articles-of-faith?lang=eng. click on the link "Articles of Faith 1: 1 - 13"

These summarize our core beliefs.

Entirely depends on what you mean by "modern." Your "modern," and mine probably differ greatly because anyone serving as President before you were born is probably discounted. For me, that includes Harry Truman, whose lowest low was 22% in 1952, three years after I was born.  Next lowest is Richard Nixon at 24% in 1974 due to Watergate. Next is Bush #43, 25% in 2008. Next is Jimmy Carter, 28% in 1979. Finally, Bush #41, 29% in 1992. Then Trump.

Helps to research this stuff rather than believe everything the media tells you, somewhat similar to your sock puppet, and blindly repeat it.. 

Since we currently debate this issue, and, not wanting to influence potential voters, I'll thank you to cease and desist mentions like this.

Too bad the polling data, in this case from Gallup, disagrees with your opinion. particularly through 2020, Trumps popularity held at its consistent variation between mid-thirties to mid forties through the November election. There was no down-tick for Trump upto and during the election. So the alleged dislike of Trump you claim was not sufficient to move the polls decidedly in favor of Biden. So, the election  was not indicative of polling.

Nope. Not how you mean determinism. God's thoughts are his own; ours are ours, alone.

You replied to Kadin's topical post just yesterday in religion having naught to do with the existence of God, so this topic is already off on the wrong foot. Your premise is false; there is more to the Religion forum than existence of God. I have a posting on free agency, for example.

I'll just chime in here and say that my opinion of the credibility of Youtube is about the equivalent of wiki, because just about anyone can post just about anything and call it reliable info. The difference is, wiki acknowledges its shortcomings. Youtube offers nothing but censure. Neither is a credibility award.

Personally, I believe there was significant fraud in the 2020 election of stuffing the ballot box with illegitimate votes. No, I cannot prove, yet. But I look at the crowds[?] attending Joe Biden events, and those attending Trump's. Trump has tens of thousands; Biden had, to be kind, hundreds, and, in some instances, tens. And Biden did not campaign in the number of states Trump did - I used to now the numbers, but it doesn't matter. Biden was missing in action much of the time, so the numbers of votes certainly do not reflect Biden's campaigning activity. 

Self-caused

You do that. It's called patience. Age, some, you'll learn what that's all  about. Instant gratification. Premature efactulation is for adolencense.

I did say "most people," yeah?

I never said SCOTUS worked error-free. They have overruled themselves over 200 times in their history. But, when it comes to legality, SCOTUS, in the U.S., is the last word.

Most people who are repetitive are oblivious to repeating the same thing expecting different results as being insane.

No machine mfg'd to date is self-sustaining. Wipe out a population of humans, the machine ultimately fails, too.

By doing it. Repeat step one.

That has two answers. Physically, may parents. Spiritually, God, the Father.

Even a stroke does not cause complete cognitive shutdown, according to https://www.stroke.org.uk/effects-of-stroke/memory-and-thinking

No, I've never had a stroke

Then how do you explain the total SCOTUS screw-up in interpretation of the 14A citizenship clause when it makes no mention of birthright citizenship, yet the Court made it precedent in Wong v. U.S [1898], without that term have mention constitutionally? Further, how do you justify the Court's interpretation, with precedent, of "separation of church and state" when the words are nowhere found in constitutional language. Further, find "privacy" in constitutional language. Moreover, find "investigation" as an sanctioned congressional action. I've got several of these magical interpretations by SCOTUS that defy logic, yet they are precedent.

Helps to read the Constitution once in a while. I've read it every month for the past ten years, and I'm just scratching the surface. Some never have read it, yet know exactly what it says, so they say. Nope.

"we" who? you and your sock puppet?