fauxlaw

thanks. Good question.

Never is for Satan, but not for us. We have eternal potential; the ultimate victor [no pun intended] over "never."

Yes, but I perceive that event to not being a surprise result. I think we enter that hall of justice already knowing the result, because it is a review of our life, and I suspect it is gong to be a moment of complete and immediate recall of every though and action to which we have been party, and, coincidentally, also know the law to which we are held. No, no surprises, just stark recognition of the result. After all, the Judge is omniscient, and, on that moment, so are we with regard to ourselves.

I don't think our ''MANGOD' of your vernacular would bother to create us in his image if he were disinterested in the result of his creation. On the contrary, he is profoundly interested in, and encouraging our eternal progression on the same road he is on, ahead of us, also progressing. He is not finished, himself, and never will be. That is, as well, our destiny. Curiosity does not end.

Yes, I do not disagree with your commentary overall. And, yes, we ultimately die. As Jim Morrison [the Doors] said, "No one here gets out alive." Except, he is speaking merely of mortality, anti have a sense that was his thinking, too, not just mine, and others. But the distinction that will be of everlasting importance is how we lived, and that death is not a barrier, or an ultimates extinction, but merely an open door. You have likely seen my suggested theory of doors; that, when closed, they are a wall, and when open, they are access to another space, whether that is a room, or from inside to outside, or from mortality to immortality. Death is not a wall, but an open access.

That is a brilliantly structured question with an equally brilliant opening argument. 

For the argument: I guess I would be called a polytheist, and I do think all gods are essentially humanoid, though there may be wide variation in the form, such as the distinction between species presented in James Cameron's "Avatatar" [2009] of human [H. sapiens] of Earth, and the human [Na'vi] indigenous to Pandora. Though very different in form, culture and language, we do share some details of existence, eking for the possibility and eventual realization of cooperation to learn from one another.

For the question: I disagree that debate is only adversarial, and, therefore, demonic. We have had a number of debates on DA that have had Resolutions of cooperative tone, both sides good ideas, but one may be superior in a given situation, but anothersuperior in consequence, but either were acceptable conditions, even on such simple concepts as which pizza toppings are better in some sense, or which book is a better story, or which schools, public or private, are better educators when either are performed with lofty objectives and accomplishments.

Sorry to disagree in favor of the minority who often know what they're doing and why, and think beyond merely the center of the world [you know what I mean]  to consider the entirety of the world and the potential longevity [forever] of the relationship.

I advise to realign your objectives, generally, because the wealth of $300M is squandered on a very temporary physical satisfaction, even it it can be repeated, but always at that price. An honest relationship with an honest partner to whom one another is devoted in honest love for one another will have the same experience, typically lasting longer than a brief, loveless encounter of such paultry worth for that purpose is had at no expense of a commodity any more expensive than that honest devotion to one another.

In other worse, keep your money, and your pants zipped, and seek to be acquainted with a partner of like mind and heart.

That is much more difficult, but ultimately more rewarding to both. My bride and I have been together for 53 years, and still as in love with one another as the first day.

Fortunate? No, a planned objective of like minds.

That is false for the simple reason that although the man in your scenario may try to be honest, the woman is not, and, should the man disagree, he walks away and maintains his honesty. Meanwhile, the woman, not being honest, but calculating, is not being honest, and that consequence is on her. Should the man decide he wants to engage the woman, anyway, he is no longer honest to his own integrity, and that consequence is on him. Either way, consequence is the result of denying honesty in favor of hedonism.

That position implies at least two concepts with which I thoroughly disagree:

1. That God is omnipotent and uses it fully in everything he does.

2. That God is the total cause [i.e., there is no other cause] of everything that happens, which is one result of #1.

Re: #1: I accept that God is omnipotent when he needs to be, which is related to the omnipotence paradox, aka the paradox of the stone, as proposed by Averroes and Thomas Aquinas with the question "can God create a stone he cannot lift. In the face of that paradox, I suggest the chapter 17 of Matthew, which discusses Christ's transfiguration before Peter, James and John on a high mountain, but the extension of the story is the discussion of the power of faith, that the quantity of faith of the size of a mustard seed [less than 2mm] is sufficient to "...say unto this mountain, REmove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove..." [see Matthew 17: 1 - 20] So, the answer to the paradox is that no such stone can be created. That is not a limitation on God, but merely a demonstration  of the response to concept #1. I just do not think it is necessary for God to use his womniotence all the time, and may heave never used it: all thing of necessity to be done are within his strength to do so, but that strength is not necessary to do all things.

Re #2: i accept that God caused some things; perhaps even most things, but not all things. our Consequences of our thoughts and actions are on us, individually, and collectively. The creation story tells us that God gave dominion of Earth to Adam & Eve and their descendants, and that, therefore, they were given free will to do as they would, whether their thoughts and actioned are and were obedient to God, or not. [See Genesis 1: 28-31, Genesis 2: 16-17]

Am I, therefore, limiting God, as is the typical accusation? No, I am accepting what God, himself, has told us. It is not limitation, but godly restraint, because I suppose a malevolent god [and I perceive that phrase to be oxymoronic, for I do not accept that Satan, or Lucifer, or by whatever name is applied to him, is a god, but merely a petulant child, like we can be if as obtuse as he is] would impose his omnipotence always. Therefore, if debating is to end, that consequence is on us, not God.

If God had wanted man to fly…
Those among you who know me well know that I think if/then logic is illogical, at best, because the logic structure is flawed. Generally, whatever follows if is currently not true, and, therefore, cannot justify then until if is modified to what is currently true, but then, why ask the question?

The then in this set-up “logic,” of course, is: [then] he [God] would have given him wings. The intended story is that God gave no man wings; we chose to make them ourselves, and also, therefore, chose the consequence. No wings have yet been genetically produced, it’s all the result of tool-making; an ability science once told us was unique to man. 

Well, we know, now, that is not true, either, so, so much for “science,” which also once told us the Earth centered the universe. Y’all also know my thinking on that little gem.

Here’s the point. It isn’t IF God wanted man to fly, because he gave Adam and Eve, and therefore us, dominion, and that means he wanted us to decide if we wanted to fly, and would allow that, because by dominion he gave us free will, so it is our decision to think of, and act on making our wings, even of a tool variety.

By the way, notice I completely avoided mention of discussion online. Take that zs you will.

This is absurd discussion which accomplishes only to advance an absurd purpose for the internet. If people cannot figure out how to talk to anyone, the internet is the last place to go for valid advice. The internet will tell you any shyte you want to hear, just like television does, so this has been going on far longer than AlGore's alleged invention. This assumes all women, and men, think and act in unison by similar thinking and acting. Are we really that stupid? If a woman interests a man, or vice versa in any combination, walk up and start talking, without any attempt at being clever, or coy, or any tactical attempt for advantage. Be yourself; everyone else is taken. Honesty is still best policy.

No, DoEd is not gone. There is much Trump is  doing to dismantle DoEd, but it cannot be completely eradicated without act of Congress, even through it is an Executive Dept. And FAFSA [Free Application for Fed Student Aid] is mandated by law to be administered by DoEd, so, again, Congress will have to figure out by legislation how that admin changes. This is not something the president can unilaterally accomplish alone.

Nope, that is incorrect. By that philosophy, faith and belief are synonymous, and they are not.  It is mystical because it describes the Godhead like 3-in -1 oil, when it is simply 3 separate personages with three separate specific tasks, but united in purpose, but only in purpose. What most of Christianity alleges from the deep history of Christianity confuses how Paul defined faith in Hebrew's:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." [Hebrew's [KJV] 11:1  In Greek, it is clearer: faith is πιστις [pistis], which synonyms are persuasion and credence, which is stronger than mere belief. Hope is ελπισω [elpiso] which synonyms are expect, trust. Evidence is απόδεξη [apodeixi] which synonyms are proof, conviction. Therefore, both hope  - ελπισω [elpiso]  and evidence - απόδεξη [apodeixi]  represent words which are greater than mere belief. Faith is its own category that depends on an inner, spiritual conviction that a concept is true with sure evidence. That is in no way "blind." Period. Yes, faith, itself, is revelation, not belief. That is why faith drives one to act on it, to gain greater confidence that the quest will yield positive and concrete results. Faith precedes perfect knowledge, not just theory. If people believe faith is the equivalent of theory, they are not yet on board.

Obviously the Jews used Elohim as descriptive of both many and as one. Much like they used "day" יוֹם [yom] as a single day of 24 hours, and as descriptive of a much longer period, depending on context. For example, the "yom" of creation used the same word in days 1, 2, & 3, yet the sun and moon are not created until day 4, 60% into the creation period, so the first 3 days cannot mean a day of  just 24 hours, yet. Our English translation is very undependable, which is why I say that prayer must be employed to obtain a better understanding of what is written.

No, you misunderstand. I never said "people are Gods." I said they can become as God in a distant future, didn't I? "Eternal"  is a long time. Perhaps that is a word, in English, that does not have the full context of the word in Greek [αιώνιος] which is understood as "everliving," and "without beginning, and without end." That understanding does not have  a "big bang" beginning. No balloon, and no needle. That is our finite mind talking, but we must get past that limitation. That is why Jesus taught that "...with God, all things are possible." THAT is an application of faith, not mere belief, that makes it possible for a mustard-seed sized amount of faith allowing us to remove a mountain to another place. Do you think he is kidding?? Look it up. He is serious. Matthew, but you find it. I've said enough.

Yes, I understand most Christians view the Trinity as three separate persons who are one God, but I am a Christian and do not agree with the mysticism. 
Nothing about God is mystical, which word, unfortunately, mostly bears unacceptable connotation. It makes much more sense to me that three holy persons can all be gods, and more yet. The sense of it is best explained in Psalms 82: 6 [The  singer and seer, Asaph, in David's court, who wrote Psalms 50 and 73-83] says, citing God, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” He is speaking to men who have become judges over Israel. In Exodus 22, it is explained that judges so called to that service in the days of Moses we’re called by God, “Elohim,” which is a name of God, but the term, in Hebrew, generally refers to multiple gods, thus, these judges are given great honor and responsibility to always judge as would God. Since God [and other gods],  hence the name, “Elohim,” can be conferred on men, why, then, is it forbidden men to ultimately become like God, since Jesus gave us the commandment [Matthew 5: 46] “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven us perfect.” That is my belief that such is ultimately possible, else why do we exist at all for eternity? It’s called “eternal progression” and what’s eternity for if not continuous improvement unto perfection, which is a never-ending process, not a destination.

I think one of the differences is that Christians are more about proselyting than other religions of the world, because I agree, just looking at the short list you offered of current books on the subject of NDEs

They provided aid, comfort, financing, and transport of at least 8 of the 9/11 terrorists in the US.

An homage to Democrat control of Education.

That was the girl talking. Context is king - or queen in this case.

I posted the following in another string, and then thought [a dangerous activity] that it belonged as its own topic:

A joke I once saw in Playboy in the mid-sixties: A young boy and a girl are facing each other, nude. The boy said, "With one of these, I can make that twitch snd moan." The girl said, "with one of these, I can get all of those I want."

Girl wins, because she knows she was the last and ultimate creation. Not to put to fine a point on it, her sensitivities, in multiple locations, no less, are miles above his, and last longer. Girls win.

Most women consider size irrelevant. They're more interested in how its used, because most sensories are up front, anyway, and that's relevant for whichever head, boyo.

Go to other primarily non-Christian countries, or at least minority Christian countries and spend a while there. It might give you a different perspective. Those people have NDEs as well, and typically reflect their religious attitudes and doctrine. Christians may have cornered the market on that subject, but there's more to it than marketing, and in my experience, having been to about 30 countries and spent some long weeks in most over 40 years, my take is we all do it, worldwide, and have varying perspectives. A couple of your citations expresses these cross-cultural phenomena. 

Anyone who suggests being honest every several sentences is obviously endeavoring to convince himself, and others,  that he is. Usually, when that insistent, it's the opposite. Words will ultimately play out on their own which attitude is truly personally embraced. Post after post, my friend. Give it a break.

It was not Trump who said, "We will fundamentally change America" in 2008. What is more fundamental to America than the Constitution?

It was not Trump who said, "Wait until after my re-election," in 2012 to Medvedev, then Russia's president, on nuclear arms reduction.

It was not Trump who said, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money" in 2010 to a foreclosure of bankers.

on the last, he should added "not" within the first three words, period.

China could take the entirety of U.S. know-how and till not be able to innovate bubble gum. Theft oof innovation, yes, but innovate themselves? I've spent time enough in China to recognize that joke.

Anyone who reads less is probably slow.

I told you my library surrounds me, and I halve read them all; some multiple times. And like I've said, some things people write is, indeed, what comes from back-end of a bull, but it is still. window into that person if only to reveal that they, too, re full of it. now you  enemy is not bad advice.

I probably drink 70-80 fl oz of water daily, and OJ, and grape juice. I am never without some liquid refreshment - never alcohol - at my desk. I cook with wine, and maintain a decent wine cabinet of reds and whites and rosés, but never drink direct from the bottle or into a glass.

Bullshit. Depends on the book, and my own strength of will to avoid some suggestions from some books. Once one gets the hang of that attitude, it's easy to interpret what should and should not be accepted. So, I keep my copies of Marx's Communist Manifesto, Chairman Mao's Little Red Book,  the Malleus Maleficarum, and others right next my volumes of various religious holy writ. I trust myself to not be influenced to action from books of unsavory report. Don't get me wrong, I read classic literature, too, along with my forays into ancient Egyptian lore. I am sitting here in my office/library, literally surrounded by books.

Did not ever and have not, so I have no reference point to draw conclusions now. Never the less, as I continue to learn new things, and as I continue to maintain a healthy diet, because we are what we consume, I do all I can to combat the general effects of aging. However, I once held in my hands the brain of a dead man of 72 when I was 19, assisting my older brother in med school doing autopsies in the med school hospital as a summer job. The man literally drank himself to death, and I easily noted the physical atrophy of this man's brain, literally eaten by excessive alcohol consumption. I weighed it. My brother advised it had lost 40 percent of its expected weight for his age. That taught me a valuable lesson that my decision made at a much younger age - I was still in grade school - that I would never drink alcohol was a valuable decision.

Being that my family has been directly involved in medicine for five generations, I am keenly aware, now, of the physical and mental unavoidable effect of brain atrophy, but, I also know that, like someone robbed of a particular sense, like sight or hearing, the other senses can be tight to compensate to address a desire to continue learning new things, effectively combatting the onset of brain atrophy. Case in personal point, my earning a linguistics B.A. last fall, early in my 75th year. 

I know sooner or later, this compensation will fail me, but, in the meantime, I strive to keep learning, reading books on as many subjects as interest me, So far, my ability to process new information remains keen.

Generalization, even if it happened to fit most people, in this case, again, my curiosity remains keen. I'm not sorry to disagree with you on this one, either

Not in my case. I've never had mores desire to learn new things than now. The urge is very strong, though I do admit, with regard to electronic gear, like my smartphone, I have little desire to use it to its full capacity. I much prefer addressing that need with my desktop simply because my smartphone is too small to use with any dexterity because of the size of my hands.

It is my belief that both good and evil are moral influences ion either direction, that these directions are polar opposites, than that they each generate the fruit of their respective influence. I also believe that, presented with these choices, each of us are given free will to choose to think and act with regard to whichever influence is more appealipng to us, individually, and that no power on Earth in heaven, or in hell can coerce our response one way or the other. To think otherwise, thy these powers do coerce our behavior, leaves no purpose to us individually to act one way or the other.

One of the problems we encounter is that the choices presented to us vary in terms of subject matter and frequency of their varied observed fruit production, so to speak. 

In one instance, its fruit grows in plentiful volume, but may actually be detrimental to our continued "goodness," while another fruit grows with difficulty and rarity, but  is conducive to our worst behavior of "evil." Both these conditions are the reverse of what we would normally expect as "good" and "evil" behavior, and, thus, are more difficult for us to distinguish because of it unfamiliar effect.

There is now: loss of Conduct point, but that is only void in Mulriple-Criteria debates. Winner selection is void of any consideration but win/lose. Some with make winner selection an automatic loss for even one round forfeited. I do not agree with that assessment unless forfeited round[s] amount to a greater percentage of all rounds.

Asa new name for the site, I've been thinking Renaissance, and suggest DebateGuild.

I disagree. For physical capacity, yes, age 30 is good; I'm more than twice that and half again, but for gain of experience, potentially, as it should be, but sometimes is not, the older, the greater experience, and, hopefully, wisdom to use it properly.

On the will of Gods, yes they do have a desire for our dedicated thoughts and actions, but my thoughts and actions are mine to choose by free will, only hoping that I am doing the will of Gods. if they are directing my every thought and action, why do I exist? I am, on that consitrioon, no better ooff than the Greeks and Roman's with their toying gods who use us for their pleasure, with little regard for ours.  I find the thought of not having my own agency a useless purpose. I see no coercion, even from Satan. 

While I recognize one God, the Father, to whom I owe all and complete allegiance, respect, and worship, I also acknowledge Jesus Christ, his Son, and the Holy Spirit thus a trinity of separate, distinct and individual gods. But I also believe there are infinite generations of gods whose existences are effective for other residents of other worlds in the universe, as these three are concerned with our world. Thus, I am really a polytheist, but only one of them do I know by name: Jesus Christ. That's okay; I have time to learn more, eventfully.

Well, yeah, that was da Vinci's view, anyway, but he allegedly swang [swung?] both ways, so to speak, because it was pretty obvious he was head over heels in love with Lisa del Giocondo [née Gherardini] as well as with some of his male students/aids in his studio. Lisa, of course, being the subject of "Mona Lisa," which was commissioned by her husband, but  Leo never did release possession of the portrait now hanging in the Louvre in Paris, and, as true of so many others of his paintings, likely unfinished.

Yeah, pretty much.

In view of the air strike against Iran, lets do some congressional math relative to a piece of legislation passed in 2001: the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force], giving the president even broader power in using military force against terrorist regimes, of which Iran is and has been a ready and willing partner. These powers are in addition to the War Powers Act of 1973.

Let’s do some math. The average age of members of Congress by chamber:
House: 59 Senate: 65 Avg: 62   https://info.legistorm.com/blog/members-of-congress-by-age
However, though not completely accurate, because 24 years have passed since 2001, when the AUMF was passed and enacted, so members of Congress have changed. By today’s numbers, members would be, on average in 2001:
House: 35. Senate: 41. Avg: 38. These are numbers that should suggest that members of Congress remember passing the AUMF, but it appears Democrats have selective memory, and re tossing accusations. Again.. In the case of AoC, excessively vocal in criticism of the president's action last Saturday in the air attack of Iranian nuke facilities, is, today, 35. In 2001; 11. She was not in the House to pass the AUMF, so her ignorance is noted, and potentially excused, except for the fact that we should expect her research into the matter rather than her vocal outrage in accusation of constitutional violation and deserving impeachment of President Trump. Ah, the folly of youth.

Now that was a brilliant analysis. Well done. I did mean by "treatment" your "remedial therapy." 

One of the difficulties of dealing with biblical scripture is that none of it was written originally in English, so we deal with the blur of meaning by translation, whether done correctly or incorrectly, and innocently, or by intent to deceive.

One of the best examples is John 4: 23, 24, both of which, in English [KJV] contain the English word “spirit,” but the two verses in Greek, allegedly the original language, but who can know for sure as no original text has yet been discovered.

In Greek, v23 says πνεύματι [pneumati] and the other, v24 says πνεύμα [pneuma]. Though the words are related, v24 is the root word from which the v23 is derived.

V23 interpretation is “in, or by the spirit” whereas the root in v24 interpretation is the “spirit being a physical breath, or wind, such as saying God is a physical breath or wind.

But the more valid interpretation, since the NT has numerous references to a Trinity, where, again, in Greek, these are understood to be three gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, unified in purpose, but three distinct beings, the third being a spirit, πνεύμα [pneuma], .which is still physical matter, but refined, as implied by the distinction of John 4: 23, 24.

Once again, context is king since no language has the exact lexicon [library of words]  as another language. Therefore, correct interpretation from one language to another is critical for correct understanding.

Yeah, but, hopefully you and I, and others here endeavor to combat propaganda, and that's helpful to everybody, whether it's appreciated or not.

Sooner or later, in most of such arguments, someone will cite a biblical verse to either oppose, or agree with a topic, but rarely is the Quran, or the Veda, Tai-Chi,  or even the Book of Shadows, and never the Spells of Coming Forth by Day, or the Book or Mormon. These last two, other than me, as I've observed on this site, are unmentionable without severe criticism.. No, habitually, it's Christians or Jews who take the heat. Also, because the Bible is now clearly structured that way, it's convenient to keep it short; a single verse, often taken out of context, including this citation. Of course, context, to me, is generally the cover-to-cover approach, but I also know, with this crowd, that's unthinkable, too. Who reads the entire Bible? Who reads the entire Quran? Who reads any of these texts, cover to cover? Well, because I can, I do, thank you very much.

But even the perusal of just a couple chapters, because that's all there is before this 3rd, it should be well understood what, exactly, is going on here. Yes, Eve points out all the good stuff: food, appetizing, and a source of wisdom. And does not God earlier tell both Adam and Eve that  all that he created was good, and that "...of every tree of the garden thou mayst freely eat..." [Gen 2:16], however, there were consequences to eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Nevertheless, they are allowed to "freely choose." They have agency [free will], and all choices have consequences. Is that a bad thing? God said it all was good, so, no, these consequences are not bad. There are bad choices to be made, but this one is not one of them. Death? So what? Death is not a final consequence, is it? Well, some believe it is, but that's their choice. Their will. So, at least in the consequences of biblical belief, death is not an unavoidable consequence. Better than. that, we re redeemed from death by Jesus Christ. "So what," I say to Eve's choice. Without her choice, I'm not here, nor are any of you. I revered Eve as a courageous woman deserving of the praise. So, God gave them alternative choices? Sure, why not? We all have them, yeah? Why are they maligned for making a choice that resulted in us? Y'all deny yup own existence by denying them oof their choice. Besides, Christ bore their burden of sin, so why in the world do we think we bear it? That's just more context taken out.

I just posted a new Forum topic on this very complaint.

 Why complain to God when, otherwise, you don't bother to believe in him? Why don't you blame Meow?

Of course he did. But was Medvedev on site to determine that for himself? No, he has been, and is still in Russia, flapping his lips with no first-hand knowledge that Tinkerbell was abused by Peter Pan, nor any other rumor-mill product such as his conmentary on the US strike, such as [said by Medvedev, "Iran's political regime has survived—and in all likelihood, has come out even stronger." https://www.newsweek.com/russia-says-countries-now-ready-supply-iran-nuclear-weapons-2088979 Yeah, and Medvedev is trying on his new Peter Pan costume.

Democrats are falling over themselves to impeach Trump. Again. This time, for acting within the law [specifically, the War powers Act of 1973]. Dems will raise the sword anyway, but will fail this time even to approve even one article of impeachment in the House for the unconstitutionl declaration of war against Iran. But Trump did not declare war. He declared to Iran over 60 says ago to negotiate a peace deal with Israel. They chose to ignore the opportunity for peaceful reflations with Israel, let alone with us. Iran has stated multiple  times they desire to wipe the U.S. and Israel off the map, chanting "death to..." both of us.  The War Powers Act, contrary to Democrat chanting, allows the president to activate the armed forces to strike another country on a limited scale, with the only proviso being that Congress must be notified within 48 hours of the strike and its objective. Trump abided by that law. =Congressional leaders were notified within the hour of the attack last Saturday. Obligation met.