Total posts: 4,363
There are an alarming number of you who depend on wikipedia, alone, for argument citations in debate and forum. Do me a favor: Google "wikipedia reliability" and load the first hit. Tell me that you do not encounter the following: "Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong." [bolding by wiki, not me]
Not a reliable source. Does that sound like a source you would want to have stand in your argument, whatever it is?
By all means, use wiki, but as a first and last stand, well, you're very easily cutoff at the knees because there are a plethora of more reliable sources. Take the extra time to dig deeper that wiki, and discover what a wondrous world you really live in. Depending on wiki is like accepting whatever you hear/read via social media: generally a load of crap.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Speaking only for the USA, but other nations may have similar attitudes, I suspect it is not wise, and God would not insist, that we use religion to dictate politics any more than politics should dictate religion. They are roads of differing origins and destinations, although they do, at times, share intersections where those intersections exist for the public good.
I take as my reference the Tower of Babel. Long troubled by this story, I think I've finally figured it out. What troubled me was that the people who built the tower were dedicated to a singular goal: to build a tower that would reach heaven. I wondered why God was so vexed with that goal. Then I realized, by more careful reading, that the intent was to not only reach heaven, but to replace it. Unity is a fine thing, except when it is achieved to achieve evil intent. So, the people were confounded in their languages such that not one person understood another. Zap, no more unity, and no more tower. Abandoned, incomplete, the people left the tower to find their own way. The upside of the story [because with God, there must be]: look at the rich cultures and languages that have resulted! True diversity. Then, I wondered why God would have wanted that, and the answer came in a blinding flash: to challenge us to get along in spite of our differences. So far, we're not doing such a hot job of it, but there's hope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Perfection is not arbitrary. It is simply an ability to perform all thoughts, speech and action which are perfectly employed to achieve perfection in all respects of human thought and action without error anytime, anywhere, and under all circumstances.
Anyone who distracts you from a worthy objective is a nemesis. A hippie was your suggestion.
Therefore, you and the nemesis, whoever it is. The hippie, perhaps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A perfect, holy man could be in any number of "images." By that, I presume you mean physical characteristics. Okay, try this: most images we see of Adam and Eve are that they were fair-skinned, blond, redhead, sometimes brunette; basically your white European stock. However, as Adam referred to his bride as "the mother of all living," [Genesis 3: 20], and given the broad spectrum we perceive in modern man via skin, hair, and eye color and physical features, all separate genotypes, able to be expressed in wonderful variety [except for the tendency of selective grouping which tends to reduce the overall variety], while yet carrying that variety as recessives, One mating pair could easily produce children, grandchildren, etc, who express, ultimately, the entire set of characteristics we witness today. God is one of those varieties, Himself. Which? I frankly do not care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
murder is a human thing that only bothers humans.
Murder is the shedding of innocent blood, not that the murder victim is sinless, but that the victim is inconsequential to the aims of the murderer, and is therefore dispatched as merely being in the way. It is that attitude that God deplores, and is the distinction between killing, as a soldier in war, or as, by the way, the dispatch by God at diverse times and places people who are continuously, and single-mindedly opposed to obedience to God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
for absolutely no reason
Sure, no reason is evident in just the verses you pick out. But selective argument is not valid. Read the context, my friend. Read that at this time, in the sixth century BCE. Israel is occupied by Babylon, and, rather than resist Babylonians, the Israelites pander to them, delight in their company, and are as wicked as the Babylonians, even Ezekiel's wife. No, there was reason, you just don't want to see it.
Same situation and timing in Kigs, the 6th century BCE, and the same Babylonian occupation, and the same Israelite wickedness. Also the same reason you do not want to acknowledge.
Same with Bathsheba's boy, 400 years earlier, same with Uzzah 400 years before that [ bydisobedience], and same with disobedient Israelites 400 years back again [at least try to make some chronological semblance to your arguments!] No, there is no innocence in your entire mantra.
You're like a schoolboy satisfied with your wiki search without searching deeper, and your Cliff Notes version of the Bible. How about just reading it, cover to cover. You seem amiable to accept your godless pundits without addressing any credibility, so, no wonder we have yet another skin-deep atheist. If that's your mantra, why not dig deeper into it. Skimming any surface gets you the same thing: skum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A casual glance at my sequential verb tenses through my entire sentence answers your question. The rest is as stereotypical from your hippie nemeses as they may stereotype you. You're both wrong.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Good one.
Created:
Update on my personal shopping: I no longer leave my home for any purpose, let alone shopping for groceries. This is due to my at-risk condition by age, although I have no pre-existing conditions of concern. I have just logged my 10th day in stay-home practice, and, fortunately, have no urgent need to change that decision because I have 3 years of food, 1 year of water, and about the same on all urgent non-food supply needs except for medicine. I am now negotiating with my doctor to allow an increased allowance for amount of medicine on hand since prescriptions are limited in scope.
Created:
-->
@User_2006
Yes, good topic. The only suggestion I have is to repeat the topic title in your initial post, and make additional commentary of why you support your belief, and you can and should use sourcing [just copy and paste into your text lie so: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4027/it-is-normal-to-have-disobedience-if-the-rule-conveyer-forces-without-reasoning].
Then, other posters, such as me, can see your reasoning and comment either in support of, or against your proposal. I guarantee others will take the discussion off-topic by gradual drift, such as by arguing: "some rulers do not force, or coerce their subjects, therefore, there is no valid reason for the subjects to be disobedient," or, "people are disobedient regardless of a ruler's disposition." When this happens, try to keep the discussion on point.
So, my commentary on the subject:
Any coercion on the part of a 'ruler' [I presume you chose that word as being all-inclusive; divinity to the most base of mortal rulers], will at least accept that disobedience will occur, not that they accept its validity, but that they accept human nature will rebel against it. What is interesting to me is that despotic rulers will always argue that they have the agency to impose rules that will foster disobedience, but deny the agency of their captive subjects to be disobedient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
No, that was not "obvious." As you mean all English-speaking people, say what you mean. "Everyone" is obviously not a reference to English-speaking people only. As I have been around the world to in excess of 30 countries, I do not think of the globe in terms of the limiting factor of the former British Empire, on which "the sun never set," thank you. Try to keep up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Envisage
Did you know that pretty much all the coal that exists now was all made about the same time,
Read the following article, and then tell me which isotope of carbon atoms were used in the dating to which you refer of either coal or oil.
Not to mention that 300M years is a minor fraction of time that organic materials have died and decomposed since the earth was formed and endowed with living creatures, plant and animal - what, some 4B years? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/carbon-dating-crucial-scientific-technique-jeopardy-thanks-our-pollution-heres-easy-way-fix-it-180961345/
the basic fact here is that we consume oil and gas several orders of magnitude faster than it forms.
Nice claim. Cite your source. And that source better link to hard numbers of the length of time it takes to convert organic materials to available fossil fuel against the global demand for them on an annual basis, because, just by your comment, it sounds an awful lot like a climate-change alarmist's raison d'dêtre.
Meanwhile, this might be of interest:https://www.livescience.com/9404-mysterious-origin-supply-oil.html
several orders of magnitude
Your "orders of magnitude" figure this way: the earth is estimated to be 4.5B years old. Life on earth is estimated to have begun 4B years ago. https://www.livescience.com/57942-what-was-first-life-on-earth.html Life on earth is estimated to have begun about 4B years ago [same source] Hint: "woody structures] are not required to begin decomposition of organic material. https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~pisupati/ACSOutreach/Petroleum_1.html. For example, your "orders of magnitude" in the renewable decomposition of organic material to fossil fuel of 300M years is, by "OOM" 13.3 times less than the length of time life has been on earth [4B years - see citation above]]
So we group these, along with Uranium into the non-renewables,
"we" who? What are "we's" credentials? Your argument is a circular reference, and such are not credible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DrSpy
I apologize for the sock puppet. You must understand, I am livid about the lack of sourcing ain any conversation, debater or forum. We spend too much time talking out of our hats instead of out of our brain. And if our brain cannot argue a point with credibility, sourcing is our saving grace, but it had better be deeper than Wiki, which is nothing but a clearing house, and not the manufacturer of knowledge. The hat is a sock puppet; that's about all it's worth. Sorry to offend, but I believe taking offense is the unwritten right of the 1A; we can be offended, but censure is not the answer to resolve it. I'm not saying you are the sock puppet; just that a sock puppet is an unqualified source.
As for the debate, I'm all for it. However, since an arranged debate has not access to commentary to work out definitions, for example, it disadvantages the non-instigator. I suggest we use PM to work out details like definitiosn, then I'll launch a debate. Fair enough?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
It is the English translations that everyone reads.
Why do you insist that "everyone" reads English? It's those kinds of extremes that just do not exist that makes understanding one another so difficult. No, not "everyone" does read English. I've been in over 30 countries. I KNOW your claim is excessive. More to the point, English was not the root language in which the Bible, at least, was written. I've given you the example of seeking the freshest water from the source, not the gutter. This is exactly what I mean. English did not come along as a Biblical translation language until Tyndale in the 16th century; what, nearly 3,000 years following Moses, and 1,500 years following Christ? Why do you think I have tried to master multiple languages? Trying to get closer to that fresh water.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope. I see God literally as a human man, a holy, perfect, resurrected, physically embodied man who has experienced a mortal existence as we are, and is now exalted as a God, and that we, by our faith, obedience, and endurance by those principles can become like Him.
Created:
-->
@T_Rocks
Don't you think that rather than the Bible being horribly wrong, an easy assumption to make, that you are just ignoring that it may have been told from a different perspective than yours? Is the important point that creation occurred, or s it that it occurred over 6x24-hour periods? Take a choice; it's yours to take.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
1 day = 1 rotation of the earth = an increasing amount of time since the earth was formed. Isn't that what I said, quoting from Scientific American? Like I said, you're fixated on this 24-hour bit. 1 day = 1 rotation ≠ a constant duration of time throughout earth's history.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
It isn't a calendar, it's the passing of a single day on Earth, a morning and an evening. This should be clear as day to anyone reading it.
The passing of a single day, when? I joked that an evening and morning are but twelve hours, because you don't have either the afternoon or pre-dawn counted. Joking, because I forgot the following from Scientific American of June, 2010: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-rotation-summer-solstice/ which asks the question [in the title of the article] "The Days [and Nights] are Getting Longer." According to it, 620M years ago, the earth day was 21.9 hours, and the extension of the earth day is increasing, currently, by 0.0017 hours per century. That's 45,000 centuries, assuming the earth is 4.5B years old. However, there's a flaw in that calculation. The article also says "Earth's day–night cycle—one rotation on its axis—is growing longer year by year, and has been for most of the planet's history." If the earth has lost 2.1 hours in just 620M years, and the earth is 4.5B years of age, what's the total loss by an even linear regression? That's 15.2 hours, in the ballpark of my 123-hour joke. Well, you're saved because also according to the article, the earth day is not increasing at a constant rate, but the rate is increasing, even if the full day is just an evening and morning as biblically described. Bottom line, at it's creation, the earth day was not 24 hours. Again, I maintain that time is relative, even from an earth perspective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You misunderstand me completely. I'm not saying that trying to measure time by Biblical constructs proves anything. Some have this inescapable belief that the Bible is a clockwork that operates on a scale within human understanding, or they cannot be comfortable with it. I'm saying that while it is history, the clock they imagine is not a consistent clockwork at all, meaning that God does not wear a wrist watch; neither digital nor analog. He could not care less whether He created heaven and earth in six days or six billion years, and we shouldn't try to insist He did. That's what does not matter. No, it's not a ponzi scheme.Religions make a ponzi scheme look so childish hey?
Look, the same crowd who insist the First Amendment is freedom from religion is that crowd who hang Big Ben around God's neck, and then claim that's the Bible, and that proves their ponzi scheme. I think it will be hilarious when that crowd not only discovers that it never was about a separation of church and state, but that it is an intersection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hmmmm….Conveniently inconsequential.
No, just selective consequence. Every time one tries to prove the Bible by some collective, universal standard of science, they find they can neither prove their scientific standard by the Bible, either. There's a reason: The one is not attempting to be the other, nor the other trying to be the one. They are are two constructs of explanation and should not be used to combat one another at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
<br>I am therefore confident that the truism as presented is in fact correct
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Does it matter? Exodus makes the claim he climbed a mountain at God's request. However, which it was is as inconsequential as the location of Eden, or of Noah's ark, or what the duration of creation was, or how many generations between Adam and his latest posterity. It is all of inconsequence to the real value of the history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think you've proven a bloody thing, because both questions of the OP are negative claims, as in neither camp can prove their respective camp leaders. In fact, one camp[ #1] tells the other camp [#2] that they do not recognize there is a camp leader to deny, and the opposing camp tells the first camp that the first camp's alleged camp leader is a myth.
Out of that construct, adding that a logical argument cannot be made to prove a negative, what proof do you expect? It does not help to propose a logical cat's cradle.
Your argument has no sides on which to hold. As Theodore Roethke said of a woman, "She has more sides than a seal."
Created:
Posted in:
I've come in late on this one,. but...
Problem 1: Moral relativism suffers more than just one society's reformers, because there are more examples of a morality to be relativized than one ideal climate for climate change adherents. There are really many earth climates, on which none can agree is ideal. So goes climates, so goes relativism. One man's morals are another's relativism. Too many cooks in the kitchen.
Problem 2" I disagree that a society cannot improve its morals. I point to the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5 - 7, inclusive]. As a sermon, it's killer. As a political platform, it would solve, today, every single social ill we face today. Every single one of them. If only people would embrace it. As a core of what a proper society should be, there is no better platform. One does not even need to acknowledge God to make it work. As a morality, it's the best, universal "good" in existence. What can be better than loving our enemies. It's a good tactic to make friends of them. isn't that an improvement? Just because it's hard doesn't mean it cannot be done. It's just never been tried. Well, the prophet, Yoda, has a word abut that: "Do. Or Do not. There is no try." Good words. And it does not need reformation. Why mess with perfection?
Problem 3: I almost agree with Ethang on this one, and I'll agree that part of the big problems with the no-god-would-allow-suffering crowd as an excuse to declare God does not exist, and fails to recognize that just because God has omnipotent and omniscient powers does not mean He is compelled to use them. God advised Adam and Eve in Eden that there would be pain and suffering in the world, and it is not that He does not love us; He indeed loves each and every one of us. But stepping in to stop this and that reduces God to a traffic cop, and denies us our free agency, even to be stupid and cruel with one another. God told that to Adam & Eve, too. Free agency, my friends, is a valuable gift, and we have it from God even to abuse it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
So why do you continue to seek a source of fresh water so far down stream? Want a fresher glass of water, go higher on the mountain. Yo know, like Moses did. Sure, none of your English translations show you two separate sentences. The ancient Hebrew does. Fresher water; letter source.
So does my French LSG, 1910. So does my 1526 English Tyndale version. And my Greek Septuagint from approx 3rd century BCE.
works for me. copy and paste it rather than clicking on it.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
An evening and morning of a "day" of what perspective? Go 488M miles away from the sun, to Jupiter, a "day" is 9 hours. 100M toward the sun, to Mercury, there really is no evening and morning, at all. Same for our Moon, just 240K mies away. On earth, it's 12 hours, not even 24, isn't it? So, why are you so hung up on time, anyway? Time is relative according to Einstein's relativity, so... whose wrong? Jupiter, Mercury, the Moon, the Earth, or the Bible, or all or none of them? And who gives a flying qw5ejf9vne anyway? If you're going to let a calendar rule your creation argument, you have bigger problems than missing a few days, or ten billion of them.
Created:
-->
@Tyran_R
Vague? Did you read my post, allowing that creation itself, in the ancient Hebrew, does not equate "day" to a 24-hour period, but periods of undermined length? Potentially several billion earth years? Did I not say we don't know how long Adam spent in the garden before Eve's creation? The duration of Adam and Eve in Eden? The duration of that sojourn from her creation to eating of the tree of knowledge? Would you like another biliion years for those activities? Less? Take them. The Bible does not stipuate, and I see no reason to assume it was all done in 6,000 years. How vague is that?The Bible got it horribly wrong and making up weak excuses hardly mitigates the fact, does it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tyran_R
who thinks that every new member is one and the same person.
I'm a new member of 30 days. Ethang has always treated me with respect, and I try to do likewise. Anyone who uses excess to describe a group as all of the same stripe doesn't recognize the stripe. I always say of such people that they use a wide paintbrush as a toothbrush, and the results ought to be obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל׃ וַיְצַו יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים עַל־הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר מִכֹּל עֵץ־הַגָּן
אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מֹות תָּמוּת׃ וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טֹוב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי בְּיֹום
The ancient Hebrew of the text of what is Genesis 2: 16, 17, which translates as:
And YHWH Elohim directed the human saying, from all the trees of the garden you may certainly eat.
And from the tree of the knowledge of function and dysfunction you will not eat, because in the day you eat from him you will surely die.
All this from https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-verses/genesis-2-syntax-and-morphology.htm#Genesis%202:16
Note the significant difference in this translation from the ancient Hebrew in verse 17, “And from” as opposed to the typical translation in English, “But from.” Note, also, that in both cases, Verse 16 is not followed directly by 17 as a single sentence, but each verse is a stand-alone sentence, each complete without follow-on phrasing. You cannot, for example, assume from these two sentences, the following logic: Following X, therefore because of X. The whole of it is more properly understood as one sentence saying that “the human,” Adam, may freely eat of all the trees in the garden” [stop] and a second sentence saying, “And from the tree of knowledge…” with identification of a specific tree, that not eating of that tree is commanded, but not because it is a sin, but because it would have a consequence: death. Is eating, for example, rat poison a sin? No, it merely will cause death. Is death a sin? No, it’s merely a consequence of living. How about eating an excess of couscous and beer. Is that a sin? No, but, as the Nazis learned from the Southern French in WWII, it caused death by excessive bloating of the stomach. It’s a health code, just like the Jews avoiding pork, or me avoiding smoking and drinking and drugs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Oh, I misundersrtood. I thought you were asking abnout my dodge. Apologies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
That part there would be where God forbid Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of that tree.
And what of the previous advice of God's that they could eat of every tree. Do we just ignore that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
“9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
“16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
“17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
I see no forbid, forbidded, or any variation thereof; just that there was a consequence to eating of the tree of knowledge: death. But, what’s death? It’s a door, and, because of the redemption of Christ, it is not a locked door. Even Christ died, so how forbidden can it be?
“16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
“17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
I see no forbid, forbidded, or any variation thereof; just that there was a consequence to eating of the tree of knowledge: death. But, what’s death? It’s a door, and, because of the redemption of Christ, it is not a locked door. Even Christ died, so how forbidden can it be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
If God's "wrath" was because of Adam & Eve's lack of knowledge of good and evil, why was it not expressed when they actually did lack that knowledge? No, God's consequence [it was not wrath] was exacted after their discovery of that knowledge, but not because they had acquired it. Remember, God first told them that "of every tree thou mayest freely eat," and He meant every one of them. He did not require their suspension of their free agency ["thou mayest freely eat"], it was only that a condition was given to choosing to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and even that condition did not result in punishment any more than we are punished by God for falling off a ladder. We are punished by gravity for our violation of it, not by God. People have this impression that God is the total cause of everything when, in fact, He is not the total cause of anything. Yes, He has influence, but if He causes everything, what of our free agency?
People are also misguided by blaming Adam and Eve for "the Fall," and that we suffer for it, as if responsible for their choice. Aren't we each responsible for our own choices? Does someone else dictate what you put in your pie hole? Do you blame Adam and Eve for what you do in that, and any other regard? No. What if "the Fall" was really a rise, bringing us closer to heaven?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
innocence and the lack of knowledge of good and evil was a virtue in God's eyes. Now it seems to have changed to the other way round.
Innocence is a virtue, but one cannot extend that to lack of knowledge, which is not exclusively a characteristic of innocence, and is not a virtue, ever, so, no, it has not changed, and virtue never does. It is immutable as the ten digits by which all mathematics is applied.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
How is that an argument against innocence? It certainly is an argument against having the mentality to be innocent, but that is a decision entirely on the individual, not the value of innocence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
<br>if everyone has too many stocks then the structure will collapse
No, the structure [i.e., the company] does not collapse. If an employee has too much company stock; his own interest in it may fold if the company does, but that's not a fallacy of employee-owned companies; it's a fallacy of individual investment strategy because that person has the majority of his investments in one value. That is the failure of diversification, and that is the risk of the individual, not necessarily the company, unless the company, itself, is also too leveraged in one investment, particularly in itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Yes, but he was unique in that regard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
<br>So do I, but then again, I reject laying blame on an innocent person too.
I agree. More to the point, so does God. An innocent has no need of repentance. However, the only true innocents are children who do not understand, yet, the distinction of good and evil. once that knowledge is had, innocence may be claimed, but no one after that knowledge is had can legitimately claim it. They've done something wrong, and must be able to admit and correct.
Created:
-->
@Tyrano_R
For example, the age of the earth is calculated from the Bible to be about 6000 years.
For example, the Bible has obvious time gaps in its chronology. In Hebrew, the given word that is translated to "day" is יום [yom], which is better translated as a period of time of undefined length. https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/definition/day.htm So, the notion that creation occupied six 24-hour periods is not a proper understanding of the Torah.
We have, therefore, no idea how long a period was in between the "5th day" and the 6th. Nor have we any idea of the length of time occupied by Adam's creation, and Eve's. Nor do we know the length of time Adam and Eve spent in Eden before Eve partook of the tree of knowledge, nor how long it was between that event and their banishment from Eden.
How long, then, between their banishment and Cain's birth, and then Abel's?
In the exhaustive list of generations of begets, there are generational gaps; several of them. How many and for how long in time, we do not know.
The claim of a 6,000 year-old earth ignores every one of these gaps. One cannot just ignore them and pretend they do not exist because a careful read will identify every one of them. Why didn't God just fill in these gaps? One, He did not write one jot or tittle of the text. Men did. Men of innumerable count, write, re-wrote, transliterated, and translated the texts we have today. How many mistakes establish a meaning timeline.? What the bloody hell does it matter, after all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DrSpy
No, quantum mechanics does not prove there is no sound because "sound" is not only the phenomenon of being heard, but also the phenomenon of air being disturbed by compaction and rarefaction, whether or not an ear is present to sense these phenomena. The effect would be felt by sensitive, non-hearing tissue of plants as readily as they would be affected by silent wind. The effect has measurable consequence, good and bad, depending on frequency and modulation, to tissue growth and development.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Per the Christian model, one can be as sinful as they like so long as they accept Jesus.
I reject that notion. In fact, I reject a relatively common model of some Christians using the confessional like a revolving door, so lax is their understanding of how repentance is supposed to work. It is not repentance to merely ask for forgiveness, and be absolved, only to repeat the sin committed in the first place, over and over again. Repentance is a change of heart, a commitment to reject the act of sin of which one is repenting, and repentance is not complete until the temptation to do the sinful act is entirely dismissed, defeated, and disposed. To fail to do so is to whip and crucify Jesus Christ all over again. He bears our stain, again and again. And to do so is not accepting Jesus Christ at all. Merely because one claims it does not make it so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Pure heaven. Cap d'Antibes is still my favorite place in all the world. Then, there was an entire small castle Picasso purchased to exhibit recent paintings and turned it into a personal museum. Great people, great food, great weather. I don't know why I'm not there now. Actually, I do: my wife's endearing attachment to our grandchildren. Not that I don't share it; it's just that it would be a pleasure to be 20 again. I met both Ringo Starr and Jacques Cousteau there - not together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheJackle
Getting some good premature efactulation with that fappin? Meanwhile, who needs porn? The tool is polished while tickling some fancy. And the dictionary is on the shelf, on the imac, on the macbook, on the ipad, on the iphone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Tell it to my beloved dog, now gone to the great beyond, who greeted me every evening at the door when I arrived home, eager for hug, even why I was gone for days and weeks at a time on business trips when, at times, my wife and children were not at the door.And as far as we are aware it is only humankind that finds a need to regard the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheJackle
Part of the problem of your complaint you've just demonstrated yourself, by making a blanket statement:
it is like everyone is trying to out word each other, and piss on each other with big words.
It's a commentary that is too broad for the reality, like using a 3" paint brush to brush your teeth. "Everyone" is overkill because not everyone engages in the activity you accuse everyone of doing. Pure and simple. You want to flag somebody, flag somebody; not everybody. Say what you mean. That's all.
What are "big words?" If you encounter a "big word," look it up. Educate yourself. We each have that responsibility. Unless we coin words, and I do that from time to time, because I am a wordsmith, writing daily by profession, we can educate ourselves by a little research. My granddaughter, at four, coined the word "cutteroffs;" cut flowers, as in, "Cutteroffs need rain to grow," a book she illustrated, and we published, at four years old, to go with a childrens' book I wrote in verse after she told me about her cutteroffs. Every word used, other than those coined, is found in at least one dictionary; the OED [Oxford English Dictionary, unabridged]. The OED is so extensive, it exists in fully 20 volumes; not your desktop single book.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You've got this all backwards. I don't need credible sources; you do. This is for your credibility, not mine. You make you credible; I make me credible, by the choices we each make of citation. I launched the issue over wiki because they were your source, right from the get-go of your #1 post. I'm saying that does not make your argument credible, because wiki admits they are not credible. If you want to claim that Mercury is tied to Mickey Mouse, you'd be more credible if that claim was not made based on wiki. That's all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It's the sources they list [some, not all] that are not always reliable, which is why I recommend qualifying them, just not accepting their credibility on face value. Yes, it takes time, but better to be correct than merely passing on what some schmoo thinks is true, but has no backing behind him; your source.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
According to it's own assessment, it's not. That's what I cited. And it gives the reason. Got to dig deeper than just wiki. It's a good beginning, but many references in includes is just some dumbarse flapping his lips, with no credible sourcing. Yes, they try to limit that, but they do not capture everybody. You will rarely see me citing wiki. I start there, but I dig, often two or three levels deeper.
Created: