fauxlaw

So, instead of six hours of listening to teacher, they listen to six hours of audio books. Sounds like your idea of dumb school is still dumb. You realize, of course, that while kids have at hand the literal world, nay, the virtual universe at their  fingertips, yet we wonder why they are confused when entering the 19th century structure of the classroom. You've not changed that with audio books.

bleech yer drink

Don't have to imagine. It's happened, and nobody is laughing anymore, except Joe, the sorriest loser of a candidate ever to blow up a campaign balloon. It blew up in his face about 6 months ago, ad it's still ringing in his ears.

If Biden is elected, who of you know who will be President, because it won't be Joe. I thought he said he was going to announce his VP choice the end of March. Hint to Democrats: the calendar has moved on, and Joe hasn't. Has Joe really lost the confidence of his Party? Are they going to announce the VP. Whoever that is, they won't be the President, either. Joe and Mrs VP are just straw. 

of course not. Forbid the thought that you should have to leave mommie's basement to do a bloody thing, like vote. I'll bet you don't even expect you should pay for your education. Since all you profile elements indicate your unknown, don't expect me to pay for your education what's known. 

That was not the last command of Jesus. That was from the cross. How about after his resurrection: Matthew 28:  

16f The eleven* disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them.

17* When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.

18* g Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19h Go, therefore,* and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

20i teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.* And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e]loosed in heaven.”  

          Matthew 16: 13-19

Appears to me I have the right to receive personal revelation from my Father in Heaven through the Holy Spirit. That's truly someone, isn't it?

James 1: 2 - 6

2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

Appears to me if I lack wisdom, like of the scriptures, I have the right to ask God, and, by my faith and obedience, it will be given. Why do I need an intermediary other than the Holy Spirit, as if a mortal man had better wisdom. Pfffttt.

Mind you, I am not complaining about the modern Chruch. I am not a Catholic [I am LDS], but I recognize past foibles in my own religion, although the concept of modern revelation from God is solidly a precept of my faith. Who says God stopped speaking to man, directly, face to face, as to Moses? Absurd. Why would He deny us His presence?

In Europe, during the Roman and later Antiquity period, scholarship continued to follow the Platonic tradition established by the Greeks. However, these institutions were closed by the 6th century CE, due to their association with pagan practices and philosophies. With the fall of the Roman Empire, scholarship became confined to isolated monasteries. These monasteries trained individuals in learning, mostly those who became priests or monks, and began to document some of the Greek and other knowledge from the past.[7] https://dailyhistory.org/How_did_universities_develop%3F

There's your church-imposed denial of higher education from the 6th century, just 400 years following Damascus, because the knowledge was "pagan?" According to whom? And this is "degreed knowledge?" In 1,000 years, the Church knew no better, confining Galileo to house arrest for teaching that the hallowed Earth orbited the sun! Some degree program! Paganism was alive and well, in the Church!

Pfffftt

Do you know the distinction of translation and transliteration? The one attempts to convert from one language the words in a second language. But such is a flawed method because it is merely an attempt to compare dictionary to dictionary, in effect. However, we run into issues jst in translation from British English to American English, for example, which is why Winston Churchill once quipped, "Great Britain and America are two countries separated by one language." Example, the two British terms, "bonnet" and "boot" are  understandable words in America, but we are confused when told they refer to parts of an automobile. The problem with dictionary-to-dictionary translations is provoked by words more distal than those two in an ancient language to a modern one. What is lacking is an understanding of the ancient culture to the modern. In the case of Damasus and St. Jerome, it's comparing the 4th century culture with that nearly 400 years in the past, let alone 2,400 years distant. Cultures change rapidly, as do their resulting languages. Language exists by virtue of culture, and is rooted in it. Dictionaries do not teach culture; the flaw in translation attempts, even as I demonstrated, from two modern, but separate cultures of America and Great Britain. Damasus and St. Jerome were unaware of the distinction between translation and transliteration, which is merely making a best guess effort  when two dictionaries' words do not match up.  Thus, flaws are introduced. Thus Damasus, even if well meaning, corrupted the scriptures by request, and denied access to the masses but by reading to them by priests.

Do I really need a direct source from Catholic archives to understand this ubiquitous problem? Why not sponsor classes in Greek and Hebrew, and sponsor production of texts in those original languages, and conduct his university to allow people access to those transcribed texts, to be read directly. That's the purpose of a university, isn't it?

No, I am not. In fact, I will allege that, even printed today, the Bible is flawed. I once met a woman whose Bible, I observed, seemed thinner than most. Said she, a Catholic, "if I don't understand something, I rip out the page. That way, I can agree with all the Bible contains." Novel approach, but, not my approach. I accept the Bible as the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Beyond that, I depend on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to guide. Such as why I do not pray to Mary, or worship her, for that matter. I  pray to my Father in Heaven, to whom Christ, himself, prayed. You know, the One we are to follow and emulate. Much as I revere Mary, the mother of Jesus, as I do Eve, the mother of all living, I neither worship nor pray to them because neither can do for me what Jesus Christ has, does, and will do for me.

Nope. "The first institution that was more fully documented was the Platonic Academy (Figure 1), founded in 387 BCE, with Aristotle's Peripatetic school founded in 335 BCE having derived from Plato's Academy. These schools generally had a select few pupils and were not institutions for mass education.[2] Perhaps one of the first truly international institutions of higher education was the Musaeum, an institutions that brought knowledge to it from around the known world. The Library of Alexandria was part of this institution and it served as a repository for knowledge not just from the Hellenistic world but also accumulated knowledge from Babylonia and Persia that had preceded Greek scholarship. The Musaeum largely functioned like an international university, where students would come to be educated by the best teachers. The Ptolemaic state was tolerant to scholarship and allowed individuals from many regions to come to Alexandria to be involved in this institution.[3]".https://dailyhistory.org/How_did_universities_develop%3F

But not at your pace. Yours is truly a milestone to achieve.

Why would the Holy Church absorb a worldly custom of petition to the King's mother [a Queen] to intercede for us with the King, when the King, himself, [Christ] declared himself to be our Advocate with and to the Father? That would imply the Lord's Prayer to not be an effective mode of prayer, ["after this manner, pray ye"] by praying directly to the Father, in the name of Christ, for our gratitude and supplication?

Did I say that? The God I worship is mindful of the illiterate and will provide the means, ultimately, for them to become literate enough to accept the Gospel of Christ, or reject it with clarity either way. Meanwhile, He expects that we do not purposefully keep people ignorant, as your Damasus did, either out of spite, or because the flurry of biblical translation/transliteration going on in the first millennium through the sixteenth century, mainly, [begun by Damasus' request to St. Jerome [Eusebius Hieronymus] in the 380s. By the 16th century, "Due to such reasons as difficulties of international communication and a lack of a well-established book market, textual corruptions continued. Isolated attempts were made to correct these corruptions." https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470

what makes you think humans created mathematics?

If you mean homeostasis as a population factor, I'd say never. We don't have a world population excess problem, anyway. What we have is a distribution problem in population, in water and food. Consider that if the entire world population were collected on just cultivated and arable [able to be cultivated, but  not currently], leaving urban, forest, arctic, desert, and mountainous regions completely unpopulated by humans, there would be enough land for every man, woman and chid to have about 1.2 acres, each.

Does that mean you are the harbinger of the bon mot? Très bien fait

agree to disagree

you should talk! [he smiled broadly] 

appears I'm pushing 600, but I've only been here since March

That would argue that traits from my mother and father live in me, but I would be hard pressed to admit, and you would be hard pressed to acknowledge that I could be confused for either of them.

As a system of physics and mathematics, yes, the order of the universe is a created thing. As we continue to learn more of the universe's function, it is more ordered than chaotic, and such a progression toward order is not a random function of chaos, but it follows ordinal sequence. This was known to DaVinci's good friend, Fra Luca de Pacioli, who declared that the language of the universe; the language of God was mathematics.

Similar. Not identical. And since DDO is effectively dead [no longer supported], it is irrelevant.

Trust but verify. A little personal research and legwork is always a good idea

According to the epistle of James, faith without works is dead. Works like, having access to the scriptures to read them for one's self, not to be read to. You read to children. Adults should have the capacity to read for themselves, but did not for hundreds, indeed a thousand years. I've given you the reference to that fact. 

references to DDO policies in debates. Same difference: irrelevant to DART.

spot on!

And, always the wealth complaint. Only the wealthy can do it. So acquiring wealth was not I possible then and not impossible now. Just do it. I have. It has given many opportunities, and I cannot blame anyone but myself if I was not.

I already gave you the reference: Metzger, Bruce M,  The Early Versions of the New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977 [pg 348], Sorry if you don't have a hard copy. Books are still legit, you know

Why ask if you don't listen or read replies. You're like the Pharisees in that regard. I've told you  that picking out a verse and complaining about your lack of finding relevance is not how understanding comes. You must read the context of the single verse. You cannot depend on one verse taken out of its context. Context is added content, and content, in writing, is king. Wha I say I have read the Bible, I have read it cover t cover several times. In four languages. That means nothing to you because you read from the Bible. In singular verses.'

'

You answer happens to be in the very next verse 11: "Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus." In other words, the chief priests were angry that on account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, the priests were losing congregants to Jesus, along with their monetary contributions, of course. Therefore, the chief priests sought to take Lazarus' life; to put him back dead. Get t?

I didn't think so.

You miss my entire point. Read at mass? Sure, but by whom? By the officiating priest. How about reading by the people in their own homes, when they could read AND study AND pray about what they've read. Tell me when Damasus allowed that. Show me.

I value my personal scripture reading and studying. Kind of difficult to accomplish if I have to borrow the priest's copy, if he would even be willing to lend it. In Damasus' time; and for centuries later, not a chance. Or am I unworthy as a 12th century parishioner to read the word of God? Might even help my general literacy, huh? No, keep me stupid, says Damasus. Prove me wrong

That your argument goes to a failed site's policies is telling. Ever wonder why DDO failed? You want to duplicate that failure? You want to dumb-down the current default of voters having to do some serious thinking? Thanks, but no thanks.

1. Isn't DDO irrelevant to DART?

2. If the instigator is that unsure of his position, perhaps he/she is not equipped to debate at all, regardless of sequence. And why would the Contender not have the same concern in leading an argument due to a waived round? Perhaps they're not well-equipped, either. Debate is a risk. Let's call it that, and stop this nonsense.

Right, it is called a 4-round debate, but it really is still just a 3-round debate. So why the policy statement I quoted?

Sorry, don't know who Karen is. Why do I want to look her up?

There are some members who insst on conducting debates in which they impose that each participant in the debate waive a round of argument. I've asked, but no one has ever given me an adequate reason why such a format is desirable. All it it does is limit the actual number of rounds of argumet, and that makes no sense at all. Further, the policy of DART prohibits it. 

"The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate." [Information Center, "Debates"]

The bold italics are mine for emphasis. Anybody want to explain their waiving reasons now?

So, what good comes of defining the canon if no one is allowed to read it, even 100 years after Gutenberg? Like I said, the first order of businee in defining canonized scripture was keeping the people ignorant of it. That's good? Make some sense of that for me after I stop laughing.

Evidence of that, please. According to Metzger, Bruce M,  The Early Versions of the New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977 [pg 348], The Latin Vulgate, a translation from the earlier Vetus Latina was commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382. However, neither were in wide distribution, particularly not to the public at large. In other words, "the Word of God" was not available to those most in need of it. The Church did not officially recognize the Vulgate until the 16th century, at the Council of Trent [1545 - 1563], and, though both the Vulgate and the Vetus Latina were in wide use in the Church until the Council, even though the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg, and its first product, the Bible, by a reformationist, was available generally from a century earlier. Meanwhile, according to the same source, an authoritative edition was still not available to parishioners sponsored by the Church. Imagine, expecting your parishioners to be obedient to the word of God, but you do not allow its distribution to them! Yeah, that's how to control your subjects; keep them ignorant.

When Thomas Jefferson was first composing the Declaration of Independence, his first draft indicated the desire for life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. He was advised to change that to the pursuit of happiness because property is merely a choice among a number of potential possessions, whereas happiness transcends all possessions to attain a desirable attitude about life as a whole. No "thing" can derive the attitude attained by happiness, or, rather, in my book, pure joy, which is more than merely "feeling good." Joy is heaven reached. Sustaining it is the challenge of life and liberty, and all are inseparably connected.

If, by "fullness" is meant practice of all elements presented in the Gospels and the balance of epistles comprising the New Testament, there are several matters of doctrine contained therein not practiced by the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the discussion of baptism for the dead by Paul in I Corinthians 15. However, before discussing them, one must consider the variant versions of the Holy Bible in existence, and not just by language variants, but also by what is considered canonized by the various Christian factions. There is clearly not one canonical whole to which which all Christian factions adhere. Without that, your query cannot have a solid base argument.

The non-peer-reviewed study to which you keep referring says only that hydroxychloroquine was administered and thereere were people who died, along with people who were not administered the drug and they also died. That is not what is called a direct causal relationship. Further, there are drugs released by FDA in which trials indicated death as one possible result, yet they are deemed "safe." Easy to forget such circumstances, isn't it? https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242201661.html

with 70 yeas of use? Just because it has not previously been used on covid-19, it has been used in other applications. Tell me how a drug that has been used safely, and effectively in other applications is suddenly unsafe in this application? Does the drug know to what application it is being applied? Even if covid-19 has anomalies that prevent it's curative properties, what is the evidence that it is, therefore, unsafe? By an unsubstantiated study? My wearing a mask in public is doing me no harm. Should I, therefore, ignore its use?

Based on one study, alleged to be by the VA, but they deny it, and with no clinical data or conclusion that would pass muster. Effectively, about as accurate as most U.S. political polls which all use the wrong population sample: registered voters; not likely voters. A completely different mix, which just happens to have huge variation because only half of the registered voters in our 2016 presidential election actually voted.

Having also signed Right to Try. What do you think that means? Why do medical and legal practitioners call it practice? In my direct family there are three of them of five. They all say it is nothing but. Hmmm?

Only if the Pope is the vicar of himself. Last I checked... nope.

What? By first claiming the US military caused the virus on maneuvers in  the middle of a Chinese forest of East-Central China, where isolated Wuhan is located? That's not careful; that's absurd.

A good subject of current events would be: Business should open across the country open for business, using CDC.-recommended tactics [social distancing, face masks, etc]

Hint: was my #33 addressed to anybody "specifically?" No. There's your answer.

The conversation ought to end right there, because my commentary about which you have nothing to say is the WHOLE POINT of my chrematistics. 

Yes, you've just duplicated my attitude about Democrats, which is why I quoted Oba'a: "there comes a time when you have made enough money," and "you didn't build that." Those are Democrat limitation statements. Nope; not in my Republic. Sorry about yours.

Yes, I'm not surprised, because what Oba'a said, as I quoted him above, goes completely over your head. Is there anything about those quotes that gets through the fog? Oba'a is against entrepreneurship. Period. Why do you think he wanted to "fundamentally transform America? From what? Entrepreneurship to a Marxist Socialistic system that ignores everything but labor. Takes more than labor to bring a product to market, my friend. Much, much more, and it isn't the proletariat who pays for it, is it? Or, habver you not read the Communist Manifesto, or Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals?"

Be skeptical, but, the fact is, when talking about wages, that's all Democrats talk about: minimum wage. Have you been missing for the last 20 years?

No. I say a person is capable of arguing for his/hert own worth by calculating what their labor contributes to the bottom line. At that point, who needs a union. Unions determine a baseline of what people are worth and negotiates that, ignoring that individuals bring different ambition, ability to plan, and execute the plan. Unions know nothing of such initiative, and do not factor it into the calculations. Only the worker, himself, can do that, and demonstrate his knowledge by proving his worth and negotating directly for his earned wages, based entirely on his contribution to the bottom line by keeping accurate records of his personal production. I taught my employees how to do that. It made review time much easier for both of us because my employees knew I would fairly assess their calculations. They got raise based on their own figures, and when some calculated incorrectly, and shorted themselves, I always made the correction, as they were learning the ropes of justifying their wages. People must participate in the calculation of their wages rather than going into a review and treating it like a crapshoot. That's being an entrepreneur. The Democrats don't get t.

I admire Trump because his America is mine: Be productive. Be innovative. Be ambitious. Ambition, planning, execution. Those are my chrematistic policies, and Trump shares them. Politics? Bullshyte. That's the American Dream. Trump didn't invent it, and neither did I. 

I entirely agree. The working poor are mostly their own worst enemy. I would add that many also blow more on booze and cigs, neither of which have much health benefit.

You have the right to be offended. Milk it.

So, you want a justification for my vote for President Trump to re-elect him? How about this: re=read my post #33. That's it, pure and simple. Don't like it? Doesn'ty work for you? That's on you, entirely, as I've repeated ad nauseam.

That's called an ask, my friend, in this man's lexicon. Not in yours? Sorry about yours.

Now, you're getting it.