Total posts: 4,363
Posted in:
-->
@Kbub530
That there are some people who are unable to reproduce, for biological, or behavioral considerations [yes, some people only think they have limitations where the physical characteristics show no limitation of procreation], has no tie to which sex they physically demonstrate by exterior observation, by sexual identity via DNA, and by internal sexual structure and hormonal distribution. Note I've said nothing regarding behavioral influence. In that regard the issue of identity has little science, but lots of theory. Until the body of knowledge increases, frankly, we are guessing.
Created:
Posted in:
What you constitute as sex, is actually known as gender
Then it is you who does not understand me, because I claim that sex is determined by the result of the union of a makle and female gametes, and that gametes have only those designations but by mutation. That is not a function of society, or behavior choice, both of which you define as gender. I understand your distinction, but then you confuse societal choice with what is sex.
If you simply don't understand how someone could feel this way, not saying you are, that is an appeal to ignorance.
That claim, my friend, is self-serving gratuitous nonsense. Did I not say I am seeking to understand? Yes, I did. You do not turn that into "appeal for ignorance." The ignorance is facing your mirror, not mine, my friend. Get that straight.
different from sex, which is debatable as arbitrary
.Wrong, again. Sex is not a mater of arbitrary choice. It is two gametes, male and female, or one or both as mutations. Either way, it is pure, genetic combination, not arbitrary choice. It does not help that you confuse sex and gender.
they do not conform to the arbitrary sex that was assigned based on assumed genitalia at birth.
Still wrong, again, for the same reason as immediately above. Nothing is assumed by sex, but it is of gender. Your own source, [1] in your post #40 says as much: "...many who identify as transgender do not feel they are exclusively masculine or feminine. [An emotional choice, not bases on sex [cis], but on behavioral preferernce].
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
We are talking about gender here, and not about changing that gender, but changing your body to match that predisposed gender.
I fully understand your differentiation of sex and gender. Thank God we're not also facing cross-species claims of gender, let alone sex. Maybe that exists out there, but it is not prevalent. My argument is only that trying to define by gender what a person is, and that the claim is based on behavioral, social conditions rather than genetic science, albeit considering the potential for mutation [which ties to the argument of gametes not presenting as the several gender choices. The further problem is that some trans who go to the extreme of sex change [altering the birth-cis] does not alter, no matter how hard it is tried, the birth-cis, when I think they think it does. So, in the end, I do not understand the rationale of a socially, behavioral claim that constitutes gender, and I would like to understand the rationale.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Associate Justice Barrett. yeah!
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Some good questions. I'll try to reply.
I argue that fetal independence as a person [granted, "personhood" is a confusing legal matter at present] does not mean that it is independent of need of the mother for gestational survival. That would be an absurd argument. And, that is why "fetal vitality" is such a difficult legal condition. Vitality meaning that eventual birth of the fetus depends on its ability [again and still not independent of need] to survive beyond birth, "regardless of stage of development." The latter quoted phrase is direct from Title 1, USC 8, the U.S. federal statute defining the legal definition of a "person." The problem that is present to pro-choice proponents is that the "stage of development," with vitality is occurring in lesser and lesser time in gestation. The record is currently 16 weeks from conception, [1] but is continually reducing with increasing technology of premature birth. It is a dilemma that flies in the face of late-term abortion proponents, even those who subscribe to the definition of personhood in 1 USC 8.
How can a fetus be described as part of a woman when, clearly, by recognized genetics, her tongue, for example shares her identical DNA, but the fetus and associated tissues do not. It is literally like a ping pong ball held in a fist. The ball is clearly not part of the person holding it, demonstrated by opening the fist. If the palm is down, the ball will not remain in-hand, will it? It is not part of the hand, and by extension, not part of the rest of the body. Just so, at term, the fetus is, in effect, dropped from the body.
Your barrier of "six months" equates to 24 weeks, which is already well beyond the 19-week gestation of successful vitality post birth. At 24 weeks, it is also beyond the time when the fetus is shown to react to stimulus of touch, [2] and has the same physical reaction to pain as do post-natal children. This and the last paragraph erefute your claim of "just a clump of cells."
[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7646891/Mothers-waters-broke-16-weeks-daughter-survived.html[1] https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-touch/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You may begin a thread on a specific subject, but you cannot impose your will on posting variable information on your thread separate from your original post. So, if you wish, report away. You have the right to be offended. You do not have the right to censure based on your offense. Get it? That's the unwritten consequence of the 1A. Sorry to burst you bubble. Argue for your limitation; they're yours. And there are three kinds of people: make things happen, watch what happens, wonder what happened. The third group is... never mind. I hope I'm preaching to the choir.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Why do you want to overturn roe vs wade?
Basing Roe on interpreting the 4A and 14A, which both stipulate our right "...to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," is NOT a matter of privacy, as claimed by the majority opinion of Roe. Note that the word does not exist in either amendment, lety alone the rest of constitutional text. Privacy is not the equivalent of "secure in [our] persons." One can be secure in a crowd, while insecure in their own home, thus "perivacy" is not equivalent to "secure." Roe needed bettewr grounding than that. Further, I'll remind you that of the 7 majority of that decision included 4 Justices appointed by Repub presidents, thus upsetting the notion that the Court is an ideological morass, as claimed by Sen. Blumenthal, who was an idiot for making the claim. He ignores that of all SCOTUS decisions made over the last 150 years, since establishing the Court at 9 Justices, 459.7% of all decisions were unanimous. That looks like an ideological neutral Court to me, concerned more with the Law, as is, rather than ideology. That stat is according to Cornell Law, www.law.cornell.com
Why does a woman want to be stripped of such rights
Because a fetus is not, never was, and never will be part of her body. Not a shred of the placenta, amniotic sac & its fluid, umbilical, nor the fetus itself share identical DNA with any part of her body. There is a blood barrier between woman and fetus across which nothing passes but nutrients. I use this analogy: if a fetus was part of a woman's body, her tongue would fall out if she opened her mouth. Given that separation of entities, woman and fetus, although her body complete surrounds the fetus during gestation, that fetus, and all other tissue with which it does share DNA, will evacuate at term. Therefore, she does not have that assumed right of her body, because her body ends where the fetus begins. And, this is why when a pregnant woman is murdered, it is a dual murder charge if a perp is indicted [Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004] . The fetus is, was, and always will be a separate individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
I agree with your argument. As it is said, if wishes were fishes... I find there is a grand barrier between what is belief, and claimed, and what is truth, and claimed. I fear there are too many who, like Hidin' Biden, think facts and truth are different concepts, just because they say they are. For example, Biden may claim until cows come home that he has never favored the elimination of fracking, but I've seen and heard at least 3 different videos of him saying exactly that. The media claims he once said he was not Joe Biden, in an apology for his allegegly saying Joe would "beat" Joe Biden. His not being Joe Biden is a worse condition than him beating Joe Biden because one must wonder, then, if he is not Joe Biden now, who will be the President if he is elected? Kammie Harris? Actually, I believe that is exactly the case, within two months.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Is there a BoP in the Forum? I see no verbiage in the Forum Help Center stipulating the necessity of BoP. This is an opinion discussion. You want to debate, go to Debate. Don't get me wrong, I support sourcing claims. I told you I didn't cite sources just to push your buttons. Evidently, they were pushed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Fine, replace all my references [after reference to your definitions] of "gender" with "sex." Does not change my argument. By the way, according to Mods, sourcing is not an absolute necessity, even in debate, and certainly not in forum, being merely a discussion of ideas, and not debate. You may wish to debate that, but I already have, and lost, claiming the necessity of sourcing. I didn't bother =just to see if you would object. Noted, but, you may show me a non-mutated, other-than-male-or-female gamete
Created:
-->
@Username
China may call itself communist, but in reality it's a mixed market economy.
Politically, China is a communist-led country. It's economy is quite another thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Regardless how you may define transgender, gender, or sex, isolate the two gametes produced by the human species, are male and female. How you then arrive at more numerous genders is not genetic science, short of mutation, which is still an evolutionary anomaly, or that of behavior, or we would see gametes of multiple genders. But, we don't. Ergo, mutation, or behavior are your causes, but it is not the intention of genetic science.
Created:
Posted in:
The nature of celestial bodies the size of Mercury, or Pluto, both smaller than Earth, let alone Earth, and, in fact, even the smallest moon in our Solar System, Deimos, of Mars, is that they are spherical bodies, not disks; round in three dimensions, not a flat two. The physics of that nature were adequately proven by Newton, and ratified by every physicist since, grounded in Newtons three laws of motion, specifically, law #2: Force equals mass times acceleration [f = ma], also considered the force of gravity. I don't care what some idiot says on a video. I can make videos, too, one that would say Earth is a cube, or even a tesseract, but it would not have the imprimatur of truth.
Created:
Amy Coney Barrett is a celebrated professor of the law, and judge, a woman with children in school, and a stellar woman in the workforce. So why do Democrats hate her? Because it was Donald Trump, an alleged illegitimate President, and, therefore, not empowered with the constitutional endowment to nominate a Supreme Court Justice candidate within the full four years of his duly elected term. Somehow, suddenly proximity to a presidential election is a qualifier for this nomination power. That qualifier is not constitutional.
She is going to overturn, apparently all on her own, the ACA. That expectation is a faithless suspicion about the integrity of our Legislature. If the ACA is that well constructed as law, how does a single case accomplish that? Do the Democrats have that little faith in the law they, alone, passed? If aso, maybe it deserves replacement, but more Justices than one will do it.
She is going to overturn, apparently all on her own, Roe v. Wade. That expectation is a faithless suspicion about the integrity of our Judicial. If Roe v. Wade was that poorly decided, but has withstood the test of time for 47 years, that a single case would unilaterally dissolve it by a single Justice's decision, then perhaps that 1973 decision was not as sound as we believe. If so, maybe it should be overturned, but more Justices than one will do it.
Are Democrats really that weak, naive, and faithless? Maybe they do not deserve the White House, yet.
Created:
Posted in:
Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D-CT] has declared there will be consequences if the Court is not cured of its ideological balance. Before making a fool of himself, he ought to do some research; my favorite activity. As in, first asking if there is an ideological imbalance on the Supreme Court. Is there? According to the Cornell University Legal Information Institute 2015 study of the historical results of Supreme Court findings from its inception, 59.2% of all cases have been decided by unanimous decision [since 1869, that’s 9-0].
Tell me how an ideologically imbalanced Court arrives at a unanimous decision a clear majority of times it renders decisions? I’ll educate Blummie, who generally appears clueless: The Court is successful, much more so than Congress, to render decisions based on the Law, not by ideology. It is also clear that this is not descriptive of Congress, nor should it be. Blummie ought to understand why there is a separation of powers in a government that uses differing measuring sticks to do each branch’s job. Blummie has not yet learned this, and probably never will. How’s that for consequence?
Tell me how an ideologically imbalanced Court arrives at a unanimous decision a clear majority of times it renders decisions? I’ll educate Blummie, who generally appears clueless: The Court is successful, much more so than Congress, to render decisions based on the Law, not by ideology. It is also clear that this is not descriptive of Congress, nor should it be. Blummie ought to understand why there is a separation of powers in a government that uses differing measuring sticks to do each branch’s job. Blummie has not yet learned this, and probably never will. How’s that for consequence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Cock-a-doodle-new
A cock o'clock did crew
The Rock denied anew
And o'er the nest he flew
Created:
Posted in:
A Democrat Rally Lament & Soft Shoe
Me, not my folding chair
Sitting on the avenue.
Me, not my folding chair
Not a dance to sell my troubles to.
And when it’s twelve o’clock, and a rally’s there
I never knock; a circle’s all that’s there.
Just me, not my folding chair
All alone and feeling blue.
Me, not my folding chair
Sitting on the avenue.
Me, not my folding chair
Not a dance to sell my troubles to.
And when it’s twelve o’clock, and a rally’s there
I never knock; a circle’s all that’s there.
Just me, not my folding chair
All alone and feeling blue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
As living entities, all gods, and all people, are eternal, but all gods have not always been gods. It's a progreessive [not political] track. All people have the potential to, but not all will achieve the status of godhood. AS with any other title, godhood has a set of parameters that must be achieved to attain the title.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Hence deranged
Your powdered vs glazed donuts, notwithstanding, you will note that my last two posts offered a list of what Trump has done with Covid 19 [not just said what he would do, which is all Hidin' Biden can do, since he hasn't shown a propensity to do much over his 47-year career [look at his Senate experience in proposing bills, let alone his voting record. I have. Have you?]. The last post listed what Biden has said he will eliminate. A rather negative guy, in my view. So, lets not bitch about my taking the recent conversation on a one-way track. yeah?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
surely there must be an "oldest" god($), right?
I'm not going to answer that, directly. I already have. Stop trying to cut down the tree that is eternal. Stop thinking of time as a finite structure. There is no time. In the movie series, "The Matrix," you encounter a child who tells Neo that he can bend a spoon with his mind, and proceeds to demonstrate it. Then he baffles Neo with the comment [not a direct quote, I don't recall it exactly], "It will enlighten you to realize there is no spoon." An interesting way to describe infinity, but that is what the child does. In infinity, or eternity, there is no time. Period. Start thinking that way, and this world I'm describing will open vistas to you you cannot imagine now. But, why wait? Start now. Just open up, and be amazed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(C1) there was a first god at some point
From whence comes that conclusion? None of the single postulates will derive that conclusion. "At some point" does not imply a beginning. "At some point" can be described on a line, which is, mathematically, an infinity in both directions, when I have defined eternity as not even just a line, but a mathematic form that has no description due to its infinite nature, as I've previously said in #63. That kind of logic says that birds fly, camels walk, therefore, butterflies swim. Nope. You have animals exhibiting all those activities, but one of them actually does not exhibit the activity attributed to it. Oh, it can try, and I can well imagine butterflies have been in the water, but what they do is not swimming, therefore, that logic fails..
The last postulate, that
the god that mad you was made by another god at some point
is wrong because we make of ourselves gods by making consistent correct choices, and repenting of wrong choices when necessary, using the gift granted by God of free agency.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
Are you talking about
I am talking about facing more than one opponent in a single debate. I know there are debates set up with teams opposing other teams, but, when the set-up [my set-up, as it happens] was for a single opponent taking the opposing view of my resolution, and a moderator [actually, the site owner] is consulted by my opponent, during the debate, and is asked to render an opinion on a statement made by that moderator, and that moderator reverses the content of his statement in order to rebut my argument [only, the moderator did not know he was being used for that purpose], I call that an imposed 2-on-1 condition, and a misuse of a stated policy that was in force as of the start of the debate. There has been no consequence to my opponent's action. In a word, I'm pissed. The action by my opponent has been sanctioned by the moderators. If you want to see the debate, it's https://www.debateart.com/debates/2221-resolved-referenced-sources-are-necessary-in-a-debate
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Isn't "satan" created by god($)?Isn't "satan" an agent of god($)?We humans can't instill ourselves with noble desires, we're born with our desires pre-loaded by god($).Didn't god($) know exactly what all this "nature" was going to interact with before the dawn of time?
1. No. God created all of us with the gift of free agency. Satan, once known as "The Son of the Morning" chose to defy God and His free agency, and to convince others of his philosophy of forced determination. His is the invention of predestination, not God.
2. No. He is an agent unto himself. So are you and I.
3. No. Free will, free agency [note that means we are agents unto ourselves - funny how consistent this all is, huh?] means that we determine our desires, noble and otherwise. They are not pre-loaded - that's a determined desitiny and a lack of free agency.
4. Asked and answered. Yes, He did, but that does not mean He established that destiny for us. What is it about free agency that escapes you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, so each god($) is only "omnipotent" and "omniscient" within their designated domain?Or are you saying that the "first" god($) has "optional" "power" and "optional" "knowledge" over the "younger" god($) in a sort of branching hierarchy?
1. Frankly, I don't know.
2. There is no "first" God. See my description of eternity in my #63. There is no beginning, so, no "first."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
If the conversation is about whether or not Trump was callous towards Covid-19
If? Sorry, that "if" is not the thrust of this thread. Read my post #1. Yes, there are a couple of mentions of Covid, but neither from a Trump perspective. This thread is Biden, Biden, Biden [as initiator of the thread, that's my call]. If you want to make it about Trump, that's your choice, but do not impose your choices on me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What is the "other" cause?
Other causes. Plural. Satan is a cause. We, ourselves, are each a cause. The nature of all creation and our interaction with it, and its interaction with its various elements, are all causes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, it isn't that simple. First, even God is increasing in ability, or at least in the execution of His abilities. I believe there is no end to knowledge, that there is not a finite body of knowledge. Then in that respect, even God may still be advancing, otherwise, I think eternity would become boring. Or, if God truly knows everything, He has yet to experience everything using that knowledge. Regardless, His advance is ahead of ours, and always will be. When I say we become like God, that does not mean He reaches a finite end to His godhood whereas, we may be just beginning, if we even reach that threshold. As one star is of a certain brightness, from our perceptive, there are myriad stars brighter and more faint. That is descriptive of our existence relative to God. There are many Gods; one to Whom even God has deference. He, too, is on this path of eternal progression, and there are Gods ahead of, and behind Him. We are also on that path, behind them, and our God, at variable degrees of "brightness." We should want to continually advance, as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
IFFs
Haven't we already been over the illogic of these IFFs? No, I will not visit it again, except to review your mention of lacking power. God is not the only one given power. If God decides He will not act, does that prevent my acting, or you? Imagine someone we know is born with a serious defect, like lacking arms or legs, or both. We tend to blame God for this happenstance, but He was not its cause, and should not be blamed. Can't blame the parents, either; they did not choose this for their child. In effect, shyte happens. It's how we react that is important. Blaming God is the wrong step. But, perhaps I can, or you can step in. Perhaps we have the wherewithal to help this unfortunate lead as normal a life as possible. We can also choose not to help. "It's not my responsibility," we may say, and many do, and are mostly correct. On the other hand, Jesus said, "If ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me." The selflessness of one acting on behalf of someone else will always have that sacrifice restored. May not be now, but forever is a long time, and restoration is in the clock God follows. I'm willing to bow to His clock.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Doesn't the omnipotent god($) control mutation?
Control, as in manipulate, and not allow it its agency? Nope. Hear what I said. Control would imply being the only cause. But God is not the ONLY cause of anything. I mean that exactly as said. He is contributor to cause, having initiated the whole ball of wax, and He occasionally steps in to manipulate, but the 'wax' either hands over control to something else, or acts on its own volition, accepting God's suggestions. Since God desires that we eventually become like Him, He is not going to lead us astray. We just need to know it is God doing the suggesting, and not anybody else. He's been through this. He knows the successful steps and the pitfalls. Trust in Him must be our guide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
demiurge, sandbox god($).
Nope. God is fully involved in our affairs, if we let Him in.. I talk to him all the time. In fact, I've become so familiar with such conversation, I frequently call him, "Dad." Respectfully, but familiar, because He is, to me. No, I don't hear his words; but we have so many means of communication; so does He. The ears are not the only recipients of inbound communication, just as the mouth is not the only outbound communicator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Don't blame me, blame the definition of "OMNIPOTENT".
It's not the definition that is the problem. The problem is, once again, believing that just because He can, He will. He can always decide to not use that power in a given situation. You are, once again, denying free agency, even from God.
You have the power to rob your bank. Why don't you use it? Because you decide that's not a good idea to maintain your freedom. There are consequences to the robbery decision, and you, in spite of your power, decide to avoid using it. Why would you deny God that agency?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
This sounds like a design flaw. A baby
no, the design is fine. It's the execution of the design that is flawed. Mutation happens. Sometimes, it's beneficial. Sometimes, not. Regardless, that baby, while flawed now, will ultimately be made perfect when all things in their proper order are restored in perfection at the resurrection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
design flaw.
Nope. We're just not finished yet, while still mortal beings, with all the permutations of human potential. Think of it like this: God created the universe and its living things, and created within those beings the ability to adapt by natural selection to positively, and negatively evolve. Evolution, therefore, is the ongoing work of creation. I contend that at the seventh day, God did not retire. He is overseeing the evolution of beings through those permutations of their existence, until we reach the permutation we arbitrarily call God. Who knows, his name may be Marvin. He has a name; of that I am certain. And as were are, now, He once was. As He is, we can become. Darwin was right; he just never realized by what expanse he was right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"machine" achieved self-awareness,
Indeed. I've seen this before. But, the end of the video reveals the limitation: the robot was "self-aware" only within the context of the question whether or not it could speak. The final revelation was that the robot would not recognize its own hand. Nor its feet, IO'd wager. Further, I suspect if presented with a mirror, it would not recognize itself. I'm not saying it would not be capable of learning, but would it ever do so on its own, even given the entire human body of knowledge. Could it extrapolate its own existence from that bok?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You did not choose your genetics. GOD($) chose your genetics.You did not choose your primary experiences. GOD($) chose your primary experiences.You do not choose your desires and emotions. GOD($) chose your desires and emotions.
God did not introduce my parents; they chose themselves. From that perspective, they chose my genetics; not God.
As for the rest, they deny free agency and are, therefore, not true. You must be an intern in training for Ancient Aliens on History Channel, who believe everything we have and are are the result of ancient aliens. Bull. I* give credit to the ancient ingenuity of man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(could never) grant full autonomy to anyone who is currently alive.
You're limiting God again. And it has happened in the past. Enoch, who, with his entire city, were taken up from Earth for their righteousness, but they achieved perfection before their being taken to God, while still on earth, and, therefoere, had His full autonomy. Jesus had God's full autonomy.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
I will disagree that sports figures earn more than actors or actresses
The research isn't my thing right now, but, just by general observation [ I grew up in Brentwood [an affluent LA suburb where both pro sports and actors reside] I'd say pro athletes have a higher average income than the average actor. And you can probably count on two hands the actors who earn the income that many more pro athletes pull down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You know what I'm going to say: Begin with, just to see further sourcing, but avoid using Wiki as a direct source, regardless of debate subject, unless your subject is: Resolved: Wiki is unreliable sourcing by its own admission.
Created:
Posted in:
I've discovered a flaw in Forum. I don't pay much attention to Likes, but just now, I was, and wondered if I might see who was liking a post, as I've seen in other sites. I clicked on the Like icon, but instead of revealing who the like was on a post chosen at random [my post], it increased the likes by one point. Since likes is a rating factor in Forum, I don't think we should be able to like our own posts. That's self-serving, and I will not experiment again, but that facility ought to be removed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The Washington Post has tracked 22,247 lies told in his official capacity as President (that is, lies told while representing us Americans) by Aug 27th. (At more than 50 lies per day, the fact checkers are weeks behind on verification).
Trump has been in office 1,373 days. You cite WaPo as Trump telling 22,247 lies, but that their tracking is delayed back to 8/27. We are now 10/24, or 58 days in arrears on the alleged number of Trump lies, so, 1,373 - 58 is 1,315 days. 22,247 / 1315 = 17 days [ok, 16.9], not 50. Psychology Today says that the average person tells 10 - 20 lies per day. That says Trump is within the average population, not even close to "the greatest liar of all time." The numbers say you're exaggerating. What a surprise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What would you say "fills in the gap" between what god($) causes and what god($) does not cause?
By the fact that God created does not imply that He continues to manipulate every aspect of that creation. Why are you so unwilling to understand what free agency is and implies? We are given the right to choose what we do and do not do, what we think and do not think [since thoughts precede actions]. God is not the generator of those thoughts and actions. I am. You are. That's why I emphasize "TOTAL." Consider our efforts with AI. Sure, we have the tech to create rudimentary A.I. We're getting better at it. But, even now, we give a task to a machine, and it operates according to our instruction. But it eventually wears out. Materials begin to fail. It begins to operate less and less according to our design. It is in lapses in our choices that we, likewise, wear down and become more prone to accept temptation, and defy the laws of God. But we are acting by our agency, nevertheless. As a machine acts by its "agency" [though, to date, our machines are not self-conscious, and are only on a limited basis self-directed].
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It sounds like you agree with me that an omnipotent god($) would never (could never) grant full autonomy to anyone.
You did not read the entirety of my post #72, point #2. Here it is again [for the third time from my #63]: Again, why would God find the opportunity, or potential, to limit His autonomy until the Earth is rolled up like a scroll when this Earth has served its purpose in our education? What education? Why, to become like God, like any child desires to become his/her parents. [Yes, I have a Mother in Heaven, too]. Once that point is achieved, God will freely offer His autonomy to us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If god($) does "nothing" then I don't exist and hell doesn't exist, right?If god($) makes me, with the full 100% confidence that I'm "going to hell", then how can that possibly be "my fault"?
1. Don't be sucked in to the mantra that God either acts, or doesn't, and remains in either stasis. He, too, has free agency. The difference is, when He either acts, or does not, it is the perfect choice of options, and none of Hs choices will retard our ability to choose freely. Free agency may be the first and guiding principle of the universe.
2. Because going to hell will be your choice. There's a difference between knowing what is going on, and participation in making it so. You would want to believe, if you did, that Gods is the TOTAL cause of everything. I'm saying God is not the TOTAL case of anything. That's the beauty of free agency, and even He abides by it. And, that is the basis of understanding that free agency is God's mantra.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
You will notice that this thread is mine, and the subject is Biden. Rather deranged? Only to people who don't pay attention. Simple matter of knowing where you are.
Created:
Posted in:
Let's look at Biden's stated goals for his presidency:
eliminate business activity to stop Covid
eliminate oil & nat gas in favor of wind/solar
eliminate the border wall to allow free flow of immigrants
eliminate Trump tax breaks, plus raise taxes to pay for the above resolutions
eliminate the Court that has been consistently 9 justices for 152 years
eliminate the sunshine to have a dark winter
Sounds like Hidin' Biden is getting a lot of practice eliminating by staying in the basement. Hope the toilet doesn't back-up.
To bad his candidate predecessor didn't just eliminate Trump, and his cohorts have failed to do so, since.
Maybe Biden should start giving a positive message, for a change. We haven't heard of a positive message since "Hope and change," which certainly changed a lot, but didn't do much for hope. Democrats just don't know how to deal with good news.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I repeat:
Trump shutdown travel from China and Europe within 10 days of the first US virus case.
Trump encouraged response from private industry to manufacture ventilators, masks, and protection for front-line health workers.
Trump initiated daily update news conferences to keep us informed.
Trump distributed a four-phase attack and recovery stategy
Trump accelerated the effort to achieve a vaccine in record time.
Trump provided emergency tents for Covid treatment.
Trump dispatched two retrofitted hospital ships to NYC and LA.
Callous? I think the callouses cover your eyes and ears. Wake up.
These accomplishments may be the crux of Biden's plan, but Trump has already done them. Biden repeats them as if they have not yet been done. Can't he think of something original?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
"Just live with it"
So it is no longer "People are learning to live with it," but is a more subjective "Just live with it?" You cannot correct me, then make a similar misquote. But, if you're happier with "People are learning to die with it," and accept Biden's "Dark winter," be my guest. I'm certainly not stopping you. Pessimism is an approach, but it is not mine, andf appears Grayparrot agrees with my more positive position. Wring your hands, or put them to work to help.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) an omniscient being willfully inserts a blind spot into its body of knowledge (THEN) it no longer qualifies as omniscient(IFF) an omnipotent being willfully grants full autonomy to some other agent (THEN) it no longer qualifies as omnipotent
That you can argue Augustinian arguments does not mean they should bear logical results, In the case of IFFs, that is typically the case. I reply:
1. Why would God find the opportunity, or potential, to limit His access to His body of knowledge.
2. Why would God willfully grant full autonomy to another agent? Satan, perhaps, just to throw a wrench in my corner? Satan has and will attempt usurpation on his own without any grant from God. Again, why would God find the opportunity, or potential, to limit His autonomy until the Earth is rolled up like a scroll when this Earth has served its purpose in our education? What education? Why, to become like God, like any child desires to become his/her parents. [Yes, I have a Mother in Heaven, too]. Once that point is achieved, God will freely offer His autonomy to us.
Created: