fauxlaw

The only true value you have you take with you through death's open portal. Do you have any idea of the corruption that follows yhour burial even if embalmed. Believe me, that is a temporary condition you would not want to open the casket again to see.  If you're cremated, your body is ash and a few stubs of bone. It is dust, literally. Your body will be restored to a better condition than it ever was in life [you have flaws in it, now, that will be corrected] All else, your spirit, your mind, what you have learned and the knowledge of how you have lived is all taken with you, so what if you lose a temporary, mortal body? It is not the body that you will resurrect with, in any event. That one is perfect.

You should, because willful killing by malice is a grievous sin for which you must repent, or your reward of an immortal body is about all you'll have to werite home about, but none of the glory that is your for being obedient, even by repentance.

Did I say Hitler was right? Don't put words in my mouth. you know very well I did not say that; so don't ignore what I said. Come on, at least read with an open mind.

My wife is of Swedish ancestry. Ashamed to admit, I don't know much about either country. Do they have similar industries [I imagine fishing is shared], but what else? Given the long shared border, are you mostly cooperative? I assume so; don't here of much controversy.

OTH sends a low-frequency signal into the ionosphere on a angular trajectory. It bounces off the ionosphere back to Earth, extending the range of the radar over a physical horizon, thus demonstrating [by a coincidental phenomenon not directly related to the need of the radar system], by calculation of the return signal by the same path, the curvature of Earth's shape.

Speaking of Irish and American, it was a band of virtually first-Irish immigrants to America in the 1630s, I believe, who called themselves "Native American" to distinguish themselves from later Irish arrivals -  long, long before American indigenes thought to call themselves by that moniker.

As for tolerance, Doc, W.B. Yeats, a poet and playwright, was once asked how he chose Irish stage actors for his plays [Irish theater was effectively snubbed by Brits as being strictly low theater]. He replied [paraphrased]: "I go to a pub, put names of attendees in a hat and draw out the number of actors I need at random. All have sufficient pathos to be great actors."

George's character/history may be irrelevant to the incident resulting in his death, but I wonder if he acted as he did because he thought it was expected of him, or whether he chose to follow character and history, which effectively was the same thing.

Is it coincidence both are in FL? They can't be a P/VP ticket.

You mean by liberous ignorance of personal responsibilities? I suppose that is a distraction, and can even attest to its temporary satisfaction. Perhaps by watching Big Bang Theory episodes.

I'd rather not go to the trouble of defeating my adblocker.

Good point, but the point is defeated by OTH [Over The Horizon] radar systems, which would not be necessary with a flat-earth. common horizon across the entire plane scenario [except as obstructed by mountain ranges, but also overcome by OTH.

So it was, yesterday. Wonder if he can blow out 132 candles? Enough of a blowhard, I suppose so. 

I'd sooner say the greatest Jew in history was Christ. Einstein, by comparison, was that child.

In my experience, I have been high enough [well above commercial aircraft typical altitude, which is actually moderately sufficient] to see the spherical nature of earth, and not an illusion through the DV window [optically flat] because, on the ground, through said DV, a flat plane is flat, and a ball is spherical.

Because that all-loving being does not consider death to be an ultimate, unredeemable condition. Why do you?

Not a thing. Refer to the condition of death noted above. It is not a punishment. We all will die. How we die is of little consequence as long as we do so with a repentant, obedient heart. Better for us hereafter if we are. our innocent suffering has not to do with that kind of living.

The part that says the atonement is infinite, both in its scope, and in its application to all who accept it and Christ as the Redeemer, but it is not applicable to those who do not. Not to me to judge whether or Hitler is redeemable. That's far from my paygrade.

As said above, the consequences to us of the atonement are, 1] not ours to decide, and 2] there are qualifications necessary to meet to have redemption by the atonement. As also said above, not my place to judge. Nor yours. Don't, not even in Hitler's case, who is likely not the worst in history, anyway.

The person who was his God, and so on. I have said elsewhere that this process is eternal, both forward and backward, and that there are generations of gods and man, that man can become  a god and beget new generations of man, infinitely into the past, and infinitely into the future, all of us, in all generations, learning line upon line, precept on precept, with the sure knowledge that there is no end to what can be learned, and acted upon by that learning. Is there a progression above God? Why not? All else is infinite; why not progress?

re: the materials you provided in your #12 appear to draw a significant distinction between astronomy [the study of all that is encompassed by the universe and its systemic behavior] and cosmology [study of the physical universe as perceived]. Not so much by the brief singular mention of astronomy, and the many, many mentions of cosmology, but more by the utter lack of suggestion that, as I have earlier suggested in another related thread, that at least the biblical, if not by Talmud and Qu'ran, the Genesis description of creation was not meant to be an astronomy lesson [or cosmology] of the factual structure of "heaven and earth" for Moses, but a description of sequence and purpose of creation. Therefore, to make it easier for Moses to understand the astronomy/cosmology [the not-intent of the Genesis lesson], God's description is the cosmological geocentric [and flat-earth] perspective, since that was the perspective Moses physically saw. Since the science wasn't the point, God made it easy for Moses to capture what he could actually see: an apparent flat Earth and vault [dome] of sky [heaven]. In other words, God was being poetic by metaphor, for convenience, not scientific, for accuracy, by empiric evidence.

After all, the N.T. is replete with the same kind of description: by then, called "parable," for the same reason: easy understanding in order to capture, not the science, but the lesson itself, whatever it was: that we should be merciful, meek, pure in heart, peacemakers, etc. Everyone on Earth, wherever on Earth, mainly perceives it to be flat, to be surrounded by horizon, whether with mountains or seas, in desert or forest... The point for Moses was not that Earth was the third rock from the sun, but rather, wherever we happen to be under the sun, we have needs and wants and joy and misery, purpose and redemption. The whole matter of the "vault" means nothing to the discussion of flat-earth because even on a sphere, there appears to be a vault of heaven overhead that is centered on Earth. just as that vault appears to the men who have been on the Moon to be centered on the Moon, whether it is a flat plane or a sphere. So, what?

Admittedly, I have never delved deeply into flat-earth theory, and RM has graciously given me some information to digest, particularly in linkage to holy writ, but in the brief exposure I've had, I've not run across idea that a flat earth is also an immovable earth. My first thought is that by "immovable," at least in a biblical perspective, may be saying that it cannot be moved out of its place, i.e., its position in the solar system, and not that it does not, itself, move, as in orbit about the sun, or by any other means, such as revolution on its axis [which even a flat earth would have, imo].

Also, the "never be shaken" routine also seems to me to be reference to it's not being shaken by an external force, but can and does shake itself, as in by earthquake, which once being a long-term resident in both northern and southern CA, I have experienced many, up to a 7.1 on one occasion.

I sympathize, both that we have infected Brit TV with American Hollowood blather, and that there were better personal days. I don't watch much, myself, but... sometimes the mind just wants to be left alone and allowed to wander...

Absolutely. Thanks

PS. that's a lot of info. Give me time to absorb, but it looks at first glance to be very interesting material.

I believe the statement to which you refer is

To which I add "He created us..."

As to the cause and effect theory, please refer to the qualifier in the quote above "totally responsible..."  To negate the one claim, "God created us" by meaning of "cause and effect" would, by your definition of c&e, mean God is the sole Cause-making entity, and, therefore, is the "total responsibility" forever thereafter, is, to me, an interruption of logic. Example: My daughter, referenced in my #12, above, was thought by me to become a photographer given her extreme interest in the subject, and, in fact, did function in that professional role for a while. However, she is an EMT, as noted, and excels in that profession, given her personality. That was entirely by her choice, with no suggestion on my part. It was her free choice. Just so, once "created," [born, I suppose would be the current equivalent], God's plan is imposed upon by our freedom of agency. His force on the matter is virtually non-existent. That does not negate his plan for our existence, but our existence is primarily led by our own choices. If we happen to align with his plan, so be it. If not, so be it. That he may influence, cajole, work through others, etc, notwithstanding, and I accept that influence is there, he does not suggest by coercion. Therefore, he is no longer the total cause of anything following our birth, but merely a part.

Are you familiar with our Yank tv series, "The Big Bang Theory," which is, even by title, very subjectively suggestive [though I am not as familiar with it as many are]? The series is long gone from seasonal production, but is syndicated widely. There is advertising for it on a local tv station that syndicates episodes, and that ad features one character [a young male] saying to another [a young female, who, like the man, is quite nerdy] "Sex, sex, sex. That's all there is to you, isn't it?"

>>> RM

As you state the flat earth theory to derive from the holy writ of the Abrahamic religions, I'd be curious to know of your sourcing from each that such is suggested. It is a sufficiently definitive claim, with definitive sourcing; enlighten, please.

Just another point on which we disagree. It's allowed. However, since I am convinced the spirit is the part of us that continues beyond death and ultimately is resurrected into a new, perfect, and eternal physical body to which the spirit [whereas, for now, death is just the last enemy] is permanently fused, never to separate again, I prefer my version of the hereafter.

Master Championship of Amateur Brewing? One of us has torn out a page.

What God plans will be accomplished, but only for those who also agree with his plan and abide by it. Our agreement is entirely on us to choose, however. That is where you continuation of the example of my daughter fails, because her choice to have pancakes ends when it is God's plan that pancakes ought to be 86'ed in favor of a green salad. otherwise, God says, pancake away to your heart's content.

Let's go back to the exercise described in Genesis 2: God's command to Adam that of every tree in the garden, Adam was allowed to partake, but that the specific tree of knowledge should not be eaten of because that had dire consequence: death. However, did God ever say that death was a permanent condition? No, he did not. What kind of condition is it? Temporary, because God's plan included a Savior, whose atonement would ultimately pay for Adam's transgression of choosing to eat of the forbidden tree. Thus, by an innocent sacrifice by Christ, Adam's sin is absolved and he is redeemed by virtue of the atonement. The same is true for Adam and Eve's posterity, by virtue of the same plan. This is why it is silly to consider that we suffer the need to bear Adam's sin; Christ paid that price for us. To think otherwise denies Christ's atonement, and worse, if Adam, and all of us, do not repent of our sins [Adam did], and accept Christ as the Redeemer, we will suffer ourselves for them. That's all God's plan, and we can choose to acknowledge and accept it, or not. Free agency. 

From whence the quote? The Republic?

I disagree, for I see no excess of liberty with the following exception:

I do see the prudence of limitation, such as the interrupt to the freedom of speech that we should not express or act by whatever has the potential to harm another, therefore, the oft-cited idea that any individual's liberty ends at a neighbor's nose [but not necessarily the ear], and vice versa. That said, by explanation, I disagree that words, alone, should have the real potential to harm only because the recipient of words, alone, should have a better backbone to both resist being offended, or worse, act on another's words that would cause physical harm to the first party or a third party. Taking offense by another's words is not expressed, but is part and parcel of the 1A. We have the right to be offended. We do not have the right, by virtue of taking offense, to censure, or to retaliate physically.

With this exception to the excess of liberty, I say excessively liberate away to one's pleasure, particularly if it also pleases another.

I disagree. The mind, which I equate to the spirit, is an eternal form that preceded neurology, or, in fact, any physical and mortal property whatsoever.

I repeat, for the hard of reading:

In addition, to your trailing point, acknowledging that God knows and sees all, no, he is not surprised by our own plans whether they differ from his or not. What is so difficult to understand about all God's omni-powers, but not always acting with the total expression of those powers? Why would God exercise excessive power when not necessary? Isn't that a waste? Does God do that? No, he acts by whatever level of power is necessary to do the job. Do you use all your power all the time? No, you, or somebody, has admitted that you do not. Why, then, limit God from limiting himself if he so desires and needs? Who are you to impose limits on God that he cannot limit himself?

I had a "plan" that my daughter would be a photographer, as she expressed an early interest in that field, earning her own SLR camera in early adolescence. Yes, she is passionate about photography, but as a profession, she's an EMT, for which I had no plan at all, although I noticed that from childhood, her caring and compassion for others was boundless, even calming me down when she injured herself at seven in a bike accident, and I was treating her wounds, while she was saying everything would be okay, so I am not at all surprised that she chose that path. God does, I believe, have plans for us, but does not interfere with our own plans by our agency.  If the two coincide, as I believe is the case both with me, and my daughter, so much the better, but if not, we make our choices and consequences.

Or, is it as simple as the fact that the police, doing their proper job, don't make headlines?

Given: There are approx. 700,000 law enforcement officers in the U.S.https://www.statista.com/statistics/191694/number-of-law-enforcement-officers-in-the-us/

Given: there are approx. 700,000 people in each voting district in the U.S.https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/GARM/Ch14GARM.pdf

Given: there are 435 voting districts in the U.S.https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/GARM/Ch14GARM.pdf

Therefore, the ratio of police officers to the public is approx 1:435, or 0.2% of us are police officers.

Given: There are approx 2.1M people in prison/jail today, or approx 0.6% of us.https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/people-in-jail-and-prison-in-2020.pdf 

That's about 3 per each officer on an annual basis. looks like, to me, by the numbers, most of us are not harassed by the police at all. Care to revise your opinion?

Ay, there's the rub.

From whose perspective comes this opinionated result? Yours? Your sock puppet? Show me some valid stats, not your personal opinion. Should you bother to look, [I did] I think you'll find there's divergent opinion [not even legit stats] on the subject. That you have one, too, congratulations, but its worth is about as valid as the result of picking one's arse, thinking it is one's nose.

That result is not pleasant, but is limited to personal history.

I agree with all of your first paragraph.

It seems, to date, after one year, but with a less-than-significant response [the flaw with many polls], that the answers to #3 are decidedly "no" with very few exceptions.

Well said. It is a fact that even if all the 1%ers [in the U.S.] were taxed 100%, they could fund the US Government annually for less than 6 months, which is why when Biden promises that only the rich will have their taxes increased, all of us will end up being taxed simply because the "rich" cannot afford to fund the government by themselves, whether or not they are taxed at a 100% rate.

In my personal experience, I have, only once, had an encounter with the police for actions I know I bore responsibility; at 12, I and a few other boys took some concrete-splattered wood, 2x4s, from a home construction site in Brentwood [L.A.], my home. I thought they were discards, not knowing at the time they were to be re-used by the contractor as concrete forms. We were building a clubhouse in my friend's backyard. We got a lecture from a police officer in school, in the Principal's office, and, the assurance that we would return the wood with an apology to the contractor, we were let go with a warning. I learned, then, proper comportment with the police, which, ever after, have only been traffic incidents. Having once a red Porsche [I now drive a 20-year-old pick-up because it refuses to die] and, surprise, I am no longer a target. Even so, my respect for police when I was stopped repeatedly for speeding [red moves faster than other colors, you know - and I know the game] was boundless. That was a consequence George Floyd could not overcome - simple compliance with police. I know, some you will complain that I don't understand because I'm not Black. But I do understand that with my compliance with whatever police ask, I do not run the risk of their becoming irate with me. Sugar is more useful in such situations than salt. Regardless of race.

Knowing you pretty well, I think what UnderDog perceives as anger, I would consider as determined, maybe even relentless in the sense that you hold to your established position, such as our frequent discussion on disagreement over the OED, which I do not at all see as anger on your part, nor mine. I certainly do not feel diminished by your position and criticism; we just simply disagree, which as you know, is a perfectly acceptable position to me. On the many points on which we agree, we can maintain a good friendship.

Agreed, but, even though the entire text does have some issued with which we contend, we should understand why those conditions exist, study all the. harder to see if we can extrude the truth from these verses, and, if still confounded after all that we can do by study and prayer for inspiration, go back to our knees and implore God for understanding. Such as Stephen are often too proud and impatient to be that humble. Humility begets patience, its lack begets pride.

No all "syllogisms" are valid. This one is not. Here's why: P1 is flawed, therefore, even though P2 is true, C1 cannot be concluded in that fashion because P1 id wrong. You only can assume your p1 as is because you assume that if God is omnipotent, he must always act with omnipotence. He does not. Otherwise, we would have no free agency, and it is clear that we do because God allows us to sin. He expects that we repent of all sins, even minor ones like stealing candy from a store [because that harms the store owner by loss of a commodity which he'/she bought],  and so also major sins, such as causing serious harm to others; the root of the Holocaust. We have a concept called "tough-love," wherein although we love our children who are not law-abiding, we can love the sinning child while deploring the sin itself. Cannot God do the same? If not, why not, if we consider that just because God is all-powerful, he is not going to use his maximum power to destroy us should we sin, even as seriously as the Holocaust. we are not absolved of such sins unless we act with contrition and repent. That is Godly love; allowing us the opportunity to repent, and he does so because he also allowed the atonement of Christ in Gethsemane and on the cross, paying for the sins of all the world, and not just sins, but all our suffering, disappointment, grief and pain, including the pain of death at the hands of others, such as occurred with the Holocaust. Therefore, all who suffered by that horror are compensated by the atonement, eventually. In the meantime, all they's lost is the rest of their mortal lives that would have been lived had not the Holocauset occurree. But we all die eventually; everyone one of us. Death is not an end, but merely a portal through which we pass to enter life everlasting. So, what, exaclt, in the end, is lost that is not restored to us, conditional upon our individual repentance. The innocent have nothing of which to repent with sins of others who caused their suffering. Those offenses must be paid by those who caused them, and that was not God, even though he allowed it to happen.

I agree with much of what you say, even though I am a theist. I agree that we have personal responsibility, therefore, I see us being the cause of the misery in the world, and not God. I think the cause God initiated ends at creation and,  from that point on, we have the responsibility of cause by our free will to do good or evil, and that, whether or not there is a God-figure. Moral action need not be tied to a God-centered morality, but just our own sense of morality or amorality as a proper,  or utter lack of need of social foundation, depending on individual belief on the morality point.

Example: I'm sure you're somewhat familiar with the biblical Sermon on the Mount, which happens to be the best political platform ever achieved, in my opinion, if studied in that context rather than a religious platform, simply because it describes a proper comportment of individuals whether or not they are theists or non-theists. Take God completely out of that picture, and you still have a set of "rules" that would personally solve every social ill we face, ever have faced and ever will face simply because they form, by compliance, a peaceful society if everyone abides by the principles taught therein. What better politics than which achieves a peaceful, cooperative society?

The misgivings of poundmethomas notwithstanding, being supposedly slapped is of entirely no consequence. All it takes is a backbone, but it should not be used as a fist. It kind of rips the head from the rest, doesn't it? Is there any true life left to the remains?

Was/is God omni-b to Satan, who was cast out of heaven, never to return? Not just Satan, but the minions who agreed with him?

Hmm, so you bounce completely to the other end since you, once again, play the omni card. You, therefore, deny free agency.

By your numbers:

1. Have you children? Having a completely barren profile, that says something. Having had the experience of childhood myself, I could foresee the thoughts and actions of my children. All of them? No, but enough to help guide them. I begin with the premise that we are all born with an innate ability, which must be developed in each of us in childhood to recognize the distinction of good and evil.

2. We come to know what is right and wrong while still in childhood, certainly long before Hitler embarked on his adcult life of insanity toward others, but he knew it. While still young children, I taught the principles of good and evil, and why each was each. Still on some occasions, they would come to me with questions, because I had already taught them they could trust to receive goos advice. No, not all parents do gthat, but that is on them; not society, and not on me. It is not that Hitler may have never had any advice from God. The question is, did Hitler ever take the personal reesponsibility to seek him earnestly, wanting to know. Personal responsibility is one of the great lessons God expects us to learn.

3. Answered by 2. Call it omniagency on our part, and part of that omniagency is knowing the consequences of our thoughts and actions, and agreeing to accept them should we choose to disobey God.

I will tell you since they already know it, now, and you have yet failed to grasp that death in any consequence is just a portal to what's beyond. Those killed in their innocence bear no responsibility for their deaths, and there is no clock on any of our mortal lives, and the atonement of Christ has already redeemed then from permanent death; they will rise again whether or not they believed that condition was and will be a reality. In that regard, that is the universal gift of God. Death is the last enemy to be defeated through no action of our own. How and by what means we earn the right to continue to advance in our subsequent eternal lives is on us, individually, just as was our personal responsibility in mortality. Hitler was, and is merely a bump in the road. Once passed that bump, by resurrection, all pass by it, redeemed of all scars, physical, mental, spiritual. The rest, as it was in mortality, is on us.

I find, as in most religions, including my own, "Calvinism" to have such a wide variety of claims by its adherents who call themselves such, to draw a single conclusion that agree with your question. There are those who believe predestination os absolute, with which I disagree, and I find that a cop-out because it completely absolves people of their actions, such as admitting them to heaven, regardless of thought and action.

You have become overbearingly boring and obtuse. You are blocked.

There is a common refrain that man is not given free agency, that we are predestined to act as we do. I think that argument is a cop-out so we can blame God for all our troubles. I don't believe God is even totally responsible for anything, let alone most things. He created us, but neither does force our actions, nor has he totally abandoned us to our own devices. But to expect he will always act to prevent our miseries is that very cop-out that he is responsible to fix our problems when we should be trying to fix them ourselves. Blaming God for our troubles is trying to absolve us for everything we do without our going through the responsible sequence of events that allow us to take responsibility and repent for our doing things that do not being us joy. It doesn't work that way.

Since you already seem to know the answer [you don't] why ask?

One might ask if God is the author of the Bible, by his own hand. No, he is not. Men wrote the sundry books of the Bible. Men then transliterated and translated, sometimes accurately, sometimes not, men being fallible as they are. Should you expect a perfect book out of that kind of treatment? No, you should not. Can you yet determine the will of God? Yes. Ask him.

Why assume omnipotence is the only choice of mode for God to act? Do you use all the power you possess all the time? No, you do not. Why, then, expect it of God? Was God responsible for the events of the Holocaust, or were men? Must God always meddle in the affairs of men, or does he expect us to work out our issues ourselves, using the gift of free agency God gave us? Does a child grow and learn lessons for him or herself if a parent always steps in and acts for the child rather than letting the child make mistakes and make their own corrections, with his help if needed and asked for? Should we expect that God will act for us on all occasions? No, he expects our own actions; the best way to learn for ourselves. Does he always step in to correct issues that get out of our control? No, that would deny our free agency. What purpose have we in life if every situation we get into beyond our control is corrected for us rather than our struggle, if we even apply ourselves? Mostly, we expect God to fix our troubles. M0ostly, he expects us to fix them ourselves because, mostly, virtually always, our troubles are caused by us, not him.

Not for a second do I believe every detail of every O.T. event is annotated, such as Moses knowing, hundreds of years after Noah, what God and Noah discussed, what was taught to Noah, what skills Noah brought to the table, etc. So, no, there is no verse specifying that Noah collected DNA samples, or even what to call them in the first place. God, himself, may have some other reference name for it in any event. After all, the Genesis creation story, also written by Moses, is a Geocentric view, and it is well known, now, that Earth is not the center of the universe, nor even of our galaxy, let alone the solar system. So, do we question why God would have referenced such a centrism, or do we expect that God had more in mind than giving Moses an astronomy lesson as the major construct of the creation story? Come on, do you really expect that God only leads us by the nose, or do you think he is more interested that we do some thinking and resolving on our own, with his  help when needed?

Actually, I have a pretty good idea. I met and spoke with Dr. James Watson when he lectured at UCLA in 1966, which was a mile from home. Telomeres do not, by themselves, establish age. Who told you that? Tell that numbskull they have no idea. Telomeres protect the DNA strand from rampant degradation, but they start to breakdown by repetitive generations. That's their purpose, to take the hits that would, otherwise, hit the functional genetic molecule's information. They are, therefore, affected by age, but in no way establish age limit. They ultimately succumb to aging at different times for different people, depending on their prudence of lifestyle and contraction of disease, the greater majority of which is also dictated, according to the CDC, more by imprudent lifestyle than by any clock or circumstance of infection.

Yes, I wold agree with excepting the mind, But, as I said, biologically and chemically, all that we are is from the gametes. RThe mind is something else entirely, because the mind is not merely connections by synapses. Those are the bio-chemical pathways, but not the mind, itself.

Telomeric mutation, and all other mutation, as well, such as cancer, is the result of environment, either by our choice, or outside of our control. Regardless, we have a longer expected lifespan since our understanding of what we can, and cannot control.

All that we are, biologically, even chemically, is in our paired gametes. The only other contributor after conception is in our environment. 
QED