fauxlaw

The building, unfortunately, does not exist. otherwise, as to the point? You missed it.

Some eat to live. Is that you? I live to eat for the sheer pleasure of its variety and taste, and the company that it virtually always brings. That I derive sustenance from it is not the primary focus of my life. Perhaps it is because I never need to worry from whence my next meal comes, and I contribute to it by the work of my own hands in the garden but, that consequence was by choice, as well. Your petty arguments that I do not choose are simply bothersome flies. I have a swatter. Better still, by my choice, dependably attractive bug zappers are in rooms with outdoor access. My homes are my castles, also by my choice.

So did the mirror at the sink in my kindergarten classroom

...did not prepare me to choose to begin eating sushi. Or to write my first novel.

One might hurl opposing statements coming from, oh, I don't know? Anybody? Donald Trump? Sure. Joe Biden? I'll let you answer that one.

We can only resolve that some do speak the truth sometimes. So, are we to be able to tell the difference? If we cannot, we should not throw stones.

Is extreme cause and effect supposed to be natural law? "Extreme" being the Three-Om argument?

It seems apparent that:

1. The direction of this string has taken a decided turn.

2. There are raw nerves in every direction of this string.

3. Those who use a racial argument are pointing toward their mirror.

Do you realize what a contradiction you've just offered as evidence? My preference is not my choice? Whose is it, then? I abandoned my mommy at 18. I still adore her for all she's done for me, but my choices are my choices, now.  You truly do believe you do not choose what to stuff in your pie hole, don't you? No wonder you probably support medicare for all, aka Oba'acare, aka the ACA. Since everyone else is responsible for YOUR healthcare, everyone should pay for it.

Really? 

Fascinating video. The guy is funny. But there's an interrupt he doesn't point out because it should be obvious before he has to say anything to his canned audience, which was, even so, entertaining.  Well, I did stop with about 5 min left to go; I lost interest in the humor, and maybe to conclude, he did point that out, but I doubt it. No need.

That distinction is that, though I've read a number of references in the Forum that pi is an irrational number [and, not being a mathematician, I though it was, too], our host points out that pi is not irrational, but transcendental, and that two transcendentals can be calculated [with one trans risen to the power of the other trans at four levels] and achieve an integer. But not one trans risen to its own power at several levels... it remains a trans, not an integer...

Unless: one approximates. But, as our host explained, approx isn't accurate enough, so, why bother? Well, the bother is entertaining, as said, but in the end, pi is not as magic as it appears, because math has naught to do with magic. With coincidence, yes, but not magic.

Is this a singular Earth/Moon phenomenon, or do other planets share this expansion/contraction with their moons. Or, the other planets with our Sun? If not, why not? What makes the third rock so special; simply because we have the largest moon in the solar system when compared with its planet's size?

Your problem is assuming that cause and effect means that God has predetermined everyone and everything's entire existence, and if you cannot accept that, then God is non-existent. So, what if God is not the total cause of anything rather than everything? TOTAL cause, mind you. There's such a thing as shared cause and effect, or do you accept that we are mindless bots? Nope, not me.

Why? Because a disjointed cause and effect says so? What makes that coherent? Syllogism? What made syllogism the holy grail? I think free will is a far more direct and logical construct than all that strung out. Or, does someone else decide what you put in your pie hole? Or that your socks match?

I will, some may conclude, throw a wrench in the works. EtrnlVw offered six principles [I purposely avoid “laws” as a description] as a baseline from which to build a SimUniverse of my personal ideal. However, my ‘wrench’ is this: since my conception of God is that the “heaven and earth” he created, although imperfect, was designed and constructed according to Plan, the plan includes growth to perfection. The Plan is that it all – all things he created – are on a course leading to perfection, as God is presently. Therefore, it is the course that is the construct of EtrnlVw’s “principles,” take, and not whatever I might create were I in God’s place as creator.
 
For example, I would key on the 2ndprinciple, “You are an eternal agency,” based on the 1st, that the creation could be as it is, or changed by my agency. In my ideal universe, we would embrace that agency, rather than refute it, because in the “heaven and earth” that is, God advised Adam that “of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.” That was the gift of agency. “Every tree” meant just that; all of them. Adam was not forbidden to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, just that there would be dire circumstance for doing so. Adam was left with the choice. In my ideal “heaven and earth,” that choice is universal, i.e., partake of everything, or not, by personal choice, knowing that some choices are better than others, some should be avoided, and some embraced as best choices. For the cause of Adam’s choice, bringing about mortality and death, there must needs be a way of redemption from the hell of permanent death. A savior, a perfect and personal redeemer whose sacrifice would atone for Adam’s choice, so that none following would bear that personal burden, but only the burdens of their own missteps. And that redemption, that atonement, would answer for personal missteps, as well, conditional on their acceptance and gratitude for it. In no wise do the people of my ideal heaven and earth feel deprived of choice, ever. In other words, my heaven and earth are not realms of omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient predestination. 
 
My ideal h&e allows its inhabitants to go to the stars, accepting consequences with responsibility as with any choice. MY h&e is just one of many; other created by other beings of similar responsibility and power to be in any realm, plane, or time, which is, in fact, nonexistent. This is eternity. There is no ultimate cause and effect. Each person is responsible and enabled with personal choices of cause and effect, and all are in harmony so long as no one’s choice infringes upon another’s. In an eternity, there is room for all to have their cake and eat it, too, without causing hunger to anyone else. What I've described is exactly the condition of this h&e we experience now.

I see a number of references here to "The Law of Cause and Effect" in this string, as if this is some universal law, of which there are six, seven, twelve, and probably other numbers of "universal laws" according to [??]. Moreover, the originator of "The Law of Cause and Effect" is given as Aristotle, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Karma, among others [I don't think Karma is a person, although it happens to be my daughter's middle name], so its origin is, in effect, of questionable "cause and effect." Further, I find that, depending on the source [Google, for one, and not to forget Wiki] the "law" is stated in as many different words as there are sources. Most do manage to contain "cause" and "effect" in an otherwise babble of definitions. I'm expecting something distinct [as in a specific "cause" - i.e, we need to have one - having a specific "effect" - i.e., a consistently stated law in dependably consistent words. Well, not even the Bible will translate thus to us, so maybe I'm looking to deep in what is really just a puddle, and of about the same worth.

Further, most seem to think that, according to this indistinct "law," some factor is the total cause of everything, and, thus, the "effect" is that our lives are a total, pre-determined course from which we cannot divert, try as we might, and, by such logic, since our free will is not an available option, according to some who have already posted on this string, there is no God.

That is dizzying logic, but, we seem to be a breed saddled with syllogism. I personally disagree. Most syllogisms aren't. Logical, that is, but, since syllogism seems married to logic, perhaps celibacy is the preferred course. But, two heads are better than one [but, curiously, not three or four, or more], so, there's that.

Thus, EtrnlVw's challenge, which most have ignored in favor of mounting the very "baloney" advised to be risen above., such as all the above.

Of all posts, Edge has mounted the most honest effort, able to dismiss his own objection to deity, which he is welcome to embrace, and I won't discourage it though I happen to disagree,  and accept EtrnlVw's launchpad, to offer a real substantial series of suggestions, just as EtrnlVw asked. Bravo, Edge.

I'll post a response by and by. Just had to get this "cause and effect" baloney out of the way. I actually accept the notion, but I disagree with how most approach it, Aristotle, Emerson, and Karma notwithstanding. Some just cannot conceive that God might not always act omnipotently, omnipresently, or omnisciently as many suppose, such as by creating imperfection, including ourselves. Do you use all the power you possess, all the time? No. Neither does God.

I would discuss, dear Thomas, but you demonstrably do not want to discuss; you want to belittle; the only tactic you have in the face of any opposition whatsoever. The last, whimper of an argument before running out altogether of anything relevant to say. Climb off your high-horse, pal; it does not suit you. And try another avatar; pounding the Bible does not suit you, either.  Maybe, then, we'll talk. Until then, talk to yourself; your only truly listening sychophant. I'm at an end.

By the way, look up "channeling." Hint: it is not copying another, it is using another's medium. The words are original to fauxlaw.

Which Christians? Not this one. Which atheists, and why appeal to those who deny it all without the strength to inquire beyond their own noses? This is not a sniff-the-air proposition. It takes study and prayer. It takes stepping beyond what limitations people are wont to set before us, because they cannot and will not take the steps themselves. Take the step beyond that you've been told that perfection is not. WHO told you that, and why did you believe it?

I have it on a trusted authority: my personal relationship with God. I have it on the word of the Holy Spirit, by whom the truth of of all things are revealed in their good time, but only when I "ask in faith, nothing wavering." [See James 1:, the entire chapter. In fact, the entire epistle is very revealing, and one need only go to God in faith after its reading and contemplating, and then seek the wisdom James advises is there for the asking, and stop appealing to others who know little about the flaws in most syllogisms. This isn't syllology and it isn't looking for absolutes by coercion. It's simple access to the source of all knowledge by humble seeking with intent to know.

Your axiom is just another failed syllogism. Stop arguing for your limitations.

Are you certain you understand what "perfect" is as referenced a number of times, mostly in Greek, in the Greek Septuagint and Greek versions of the New Testament using the word, teleios?  Or siddhi,  or, better yet, sampurnam in Hinduism, or itqan in Islam??  Not merely in their poorly translated English, a number of texts and languages removed, even from text that is not yet original, and which we do not have, in any event?  Be certain of your lexicographic context, yeah? Do not assume dictionary-to-dictionary translations, particularly those of the online variety, give you a legitimate understanding of meaning. Dictionaries do a very poor job of translating culture, and until one understands culture, one has but poor understanding of its language.

Perfection: completeness of purpose, achieving the full measure of creation, being in the full state of Self, or God. It is not merely expectation of doing without error.

Therefore, a saying like, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect," [Matt 5: 48] is not an impossibility, though not likely achievable unless one can truly achieve the state of "as a man thinketh, so is he." Since thought drives action, a rightness of thought is the first step toward perfection, as understood properly.

Just yesterday morning, I was volunteering at a local food bank. You? I contribute 20% of my annual increase. You? Let's be careful to whom we hurl accusations, huh?

Channeling oromagi:

I don't excuse

I don't accuse

I may recuse

But choose?

Free will I'll never lose:

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely..." use.

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Some at one year, and more, have managed to retain a single identity, regardless of rating...

The above from Thomas #54.  I remind the membership that post #52, attributed to me by him, is actually Tommy's post. Identity confusion? Wishful thinking? Whatever...

Sure. Have you considered the possibility of the fetus to develop a natural resistance to abortion? What? Who said the right to life does not extend that far, even overwhelming the erroneous idea of a woman's privacy violation by being pregnant?

From the 52nd post of this string, posted 11:17AM on Easter Morning:

Note that there is nothing below the 52nd post at the time of its posting, and there is only this post #53...

You have the free will to read, or ignore, and let no one tell you you do not.

Or... you can argue for your limitations. They are entirely of your imagining and construct; they're yours, and you have your agency to cave to them. Be my guest. I'll take another road, thanks.

Your mother typically has the capacity to think through all various thoughts and actions of which she is capable, as well as the consequences of them, because she is given the capacity of reasoning beyond that of the capability of your dog. Man is a unique creation among the the living things on Earth, being in the image of God; meaning more than physical imaging. Shakespeare had it right, through Hamlet: we are the paragon of animals. We are express and admirable. We are, of all animals, apprehensive. "Luminous creatures are we, not his crude matter." 

1. Total immersion

2. Listen to the children

Humans have the unique capacity of control of our behavior by a significant degree of conscious thought of actions and consequences, and our agency to use conscious thought and action than do other creatures driven more by instinct and lack of agency. That other animals may have a degree of agency [such as the fact that a lion that is fully sated is not compelled to kill a lamb], does not imply that their agency is at a level that is man's.

You ought to be using more accurately descriptive terms than chromosomes. Discuss germ line and somatic cells, and genotypes and phenotypes. These are your true distinctions. And then you ought to discuss what can randomly occur in cell mutations, and what mutations can be caused by introductions of substances to the system that can affect germ line and somatic cells that should not be introduced to the body either at all, or in excessive amounts. We have much more control over this stuff than merely random chance. If diet, alone, and prudent behavior, can have such effect on prevention of the most critical diseases [heart disease, cancer, diabetes, primarily], what else might be prevented [such as cellular mutation] by a prudent lifestyle? Some effects are not intergenerational, i.e., they are not genetically inherited, but some genetic effect can be had, or avoided.

When one paints with a singular brush with one dip in the paint, the results are as you suggest. There are both multiple brushes and colors, so, why take one single swipe with one brush? Because you can? And that is supposed to be art? Try harder.

Love is a distressingly bland word in English. It is very non-specific, generalized, and requires added adjectives to give full meaning to what is meant by how it is used. Does your dog express all seven separate lexographic meanings of that word as translated into Greek, for example? No, it does not not.

I will tell you why your assessment that no difference exists between men and all other animals, and therefore, that the distinction between us is the agency of man to act for himself is not shared by the other animals. To do so, I will tell you of a study of an experiment5 conducted with two groups of rabbits of identical breed; a study to determine the affect of an excessively rich diet on one group of rabbits against a control group fed the same mix of ingredients, but without the rich additives. The experiment was to gage the arterial plaque caused by the richness of the study group compared to its relative lack in the control group. Each group of rabbits were cared for by a team of researchers, one team member for each sub-group of rabbits. There were two or three research techs assigned to each sub-group of rich diet and control diet rabbits. As with any experiment, all contributing factors that might alter results were carefully managed, much like using exactly the same measurement technique and tool to measure features of size of a tested item.

So, the examination proceeded, and the results were not as expected. The test assumed that the rich-diet group would all display excessive observation of arterial plaque, and that the control group would have much less, if any. But that is not what occurred. They repeated the test with the same results: 0ne sub-group of the rich-diet specimens not only exhibited no arterial plaque, but were generally healthier than any other sub-group, rich diet, or control group. An exhaustive review revealed the difference: that one rich-diet sub-group was tended by a technician whose care of that group of rabbits was particularly careful and kind. The tech spent more time with the rabbits, held them tenderly, one by one, and, while feeding , and in fact, all the time, spoke softly to them and caressed them lovingly. That added tender care was the only variant; it overcame what should have been the results of all other rabbits in the test group of rich diet. The additional test confirmed this finding.

The difference: love. We all, plant life included, react to love with healthier lives.

What is the greatest commandment? Jesus said to love God with all out heart, mind and strength. The second is like unto it: love our neighbors as ourselves. That is the distinction of the agency of man: to choose to love.

Yes, that is correct, but you ignore the distinction made between man's ability to have agency, and any other creature: consequence. other creatures do make decisions about things, but their innocence does not allow full consideration of the consequences of their actions. We do. Other animals were not given the charge given to Adam with regard to "...every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat." [Gen. 2: 9]  The "freely eat" included the tree of knowledge, because even that tree was included in the list of trees, given as "good for food." [Gen 2: 9]. But, there was a consequence given to eating of the tree of knowledge that was unique, even though it was "good for food:"  death.

But is death a bad thing? And are other animals aware of its potential? No, but we are, because we can reason consequences, whereby such reason is used to determine consequences, thus allowing agency its full application. It was not that the tree of knowledge was an "evil" tree, and God did tell Adam that he could freely east of it, being one of the trees in the garden "good for food," but the tree of knowledge, unlike the tree of life, carried the consequence of death. I return to the question: is death a bad thing? No; it's merely a temporary end of life. A life that is guaranteed to be revived. 

Animals cannot think through all those consequences, and, therefore, do not have agency, even though they make choices. The ability to choose is not all there is to agency. It must include the ability to reason consequences of actions, including the consequences of their own deaths.

The blame God game? We're very good at that, mostly because we misunderstand agency, and will be until, one day, we realizes that God is not the total cause of anything. Thus, agency.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but shyte happens. The challenge is to determine what we will do about it, and thus learn for ourselves, without pontificating syllogisms, the nature of cause and effect. "What would Jesus do?" is the wrong question. We know what he would do. What we don't know is what we will do, facing the mirror and asking ourselves.

Cause is a flawed syllogism that sounds nice, but isn't. The biggest mistake we can make is to assume we have a full understanding of the logic of cause and effect. Not yet, we don't.

another flawed syllogistic conclusion?

You might as well also say we are worms. There's less than 3% difference between the two species. That we have a less than 3% difference between us and apes is merely a matter of degree, after all. Thus we see how a king goes a progress through a beggar?  Are you just quoting Shakespeare, too? I don't think DNA was Hamlet's point; just that Peloneus was at dinner, and he was the main course.

Based upon a flawed syllogism:

Birds fly

Camels walk

Therefore, butterflies swim.

The formula elements must actually add up. You cannot just make up numbers to fit a paradigm and expect they actually are sound logic.

There's no game. We must earn perfection. To have made us perfect in the first place would have made us without having the opportunity to be agents unto ourselves; our free agency would have been thwarted. There is no purpose, and no growth; no challenge in being forced to be perfect.

Let's put it this way: I'm content that I receive answers, but I'm careful to ask questions that are relevant to now, and I'm doubly cautious to express gratitude when answers come. I don't need to know about cheetahs just now. That's why it's on the shelf. I learned long ago to converse openly with my Father, and to maintain a running dialog. It's not easy to establish that kind of trust with him, and it's too easy to lose it by stupid questions like "do you exist?" That has already otherwise been answered, and a lot of time has passed in the water under the bridge since that knowledge was gained without having to ask that stupid question.

I also believe cancer can be caused by poor choices in what we consume, resulting in causing DNA telomeric failures, allowing intergenerational mutation and degradation. The CDC believes that 60% of cases of cancer could be entirely avoided just be making better consumption choices, such as eating fresh, rather than processed foods, let alone avoiding junk food, drugs, smoking, alcohol, etc. I produce about 1/3 of the food I consume from my vegetable and fruit garden, and by prudent food storage for later use such as by freeze drying.

Won't Charlie be surprised to find that God's DNA is also uniquely human, but that it, as ours will be, is not half junk DNA, but a perfect helix of perfect coding of a perfect human.

On this site, I may be unique in the belief that all animal life, except humans, and all plant life, are already living the full measure of their creation, and need not prove their worthiness to inherit heaven; that they will do so whether we join them there, or not. We are unique in being agents unto ourselves, able to choose to be obedient to God, or not, and therefore obligated to accept the consequences of our choices.

So, yes, apes, and worms, and trees and flowers will be luminous beings.

Yes, but I also believe that that person  was inspired by God. You see, I don't buy the idea that God stopped talking to man at any time. Revelation is continuous. He has maintained a running dialog that continues to this day, and the articulation given to Yoda is a universal and eternal truth.

Only in the sense that you seem to agree that religion should be banned along with man's sense of being more than man, let alone an ape. I much prefer the claim by the prophet, Yoda: "Luminous beings are we; not this crude matter." Said another way, but effectively the same thing, by Jesus of Nazareth: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect." He was not talking to apes. Let us recall the "Planet of the Apes" was a fiction. Yes, so was Yoda, but the thinking, though fiction, can sometimes offer suspension of disbelief. Some of us know the difference.

I invite you to read just the introductory paragraph of this paper: http://blogs.bu.edu/guidedhistory/moderneurope/evan-r/

It absolves Darwin of British imperialism [colonialism]. Seems his education, and mine, differed from yours. But, think what you like. It's your thinking.

Vaccine passports are an issue I presented last fall as a likely scenario to come out of a Biden administration as still another Marxist class distinction. Proletariat, Vaccinat, and Bourgeois. Same as it always was. Karl Marx never ran a lemonade stand, nor did he ever run a vaccine station. The guy just never understood industry, and Biden never understood squat.

No, the design is perfect, but we're merely in an imperfect state as a mortal condition, which is not continuous. Nothing was ever intended to be perfect, now. Otherwise, why be here in the first place? This is intended to be an experience to learn how to be perfect. Ultimately, we will figure it out.

Not a yes/no question, but I want to know if cheetahs trip at full speed? that is honestly my number one question on the shelf for the proper time.

I am aware of that. I do have a History PhD. But, Darwin, himself, was not a colonial. He traveled the world, but always return to Great Britain. He died at Down House, in Kent, his British home; not in some colony. Let's have some respect [academically] for what a colonist is. Fact check, anyone? Words mean things.

Discuss? You do not want to discuss; you want to dictate. 

No, thanks, but you pontificate to your heart's content. I'm sure there's some pounding therein, as well. Have at it. You're the only one counting pounds.